Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fighting Words: On The Autocratic Capture of Education

Opinion

censorship

One of autocracy's most powerful weapons is the strategic manipulation of language to make the dismantling of democratic institutions sound like liberation.

Baac3nes/Getty Images

I have a BS in English Education, an MS in Curriculum & Instruction, and a PhD in Language and Literacy Education—degrees that taught me to decode complex texts, meet students where they are, and train future teachers to think critically. Apparently, those skills make me both useless and dangerous.

At least, that's what I'm hearing from politicians like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who recently announced a new accreditation system to break what he called the "activist-controlled accreditation monopoly." As someone who spent years studying how language shapes learning, I recognize his tactic. It's one of autocracy's most powerful weapons: the strategic manipulation of language to make the dismantling of democratic institutions sound like liberation.


While concerns about practical education and parental involvement in schools are legitimate, something more insidious is happening. Autocratic regimes don't just change policies—they manipulate the very words we use to discuss those policies, making radical changes seem reasonable and necessary.

Here's what's happening: every term we use to describe good education is being flipped on its head. Academic freedom? That's now ideological capture. A well-rounded, evidence-based curriculum? Indoctrination. Professional standards developed by experts over decades? Activist monopolies. The expertise I spent years developing? Elitist bias. It's a strategic marketing scheme that rebrands critical thought and analysis as detrimental to the nation.

When Indiana eliminates over 100 university programs, including art history, religious studies, and classical civilization, state leaders don't say they're gutting the liberal arts. The systematic dismantling of liberal arts education, which traditionally fosters critical thinking and cultural literacy, is repackaged as economic pragmatism that promotes "practical degrees that lead students into jobs." The genius lies in the apparent reasonableness. Of course, we want students to find jobs. But what we're actually losing are the very disciplines that teach students to analyze power, question authority, and think independently across cultures and time periods. We're eliminating the subjects that create informed citizens capable of recognizing when they're being manipulated.

When the Supreme Court mandates opt-out provisions for LGBTQ+ content or when state legislatures prompt schools to remove books featuring racially diverse characters, it's framed as protecting religious freedom and parental rights. In a nation supposedly built on the freedoms of life and liberty and the upholding of familial beliefs, opposition seems irrational. But what we're actually dismantling are the shared educational experiences that help young people see themselves and others. What we're saying is that some people don't deserve to be seen, to be valued, to experience the same freedoms.

As a literacy educator, I’ve witnessed how linguistic manipulation follows a predictable pattern that operates in three devastating ways.

First, it inverts meaning. Democratic institutions become threats to democracy. Academic freedom becomes censorship of conservative voices. Evidence-supported teaching becomes ideological bias. This makes resistance look absurd. After all, who wants to defend "indoctrination"?

Second, it creates false choices. You either support "practical" education or "useless" liberal arts. You either respect parental rights or impose educational overreach. Complex educational concepts get reduced to simple either/or propositions, eliminating any nuanced discussion about education's multiple purposes.

Third, it justifies intervention. Once democratic institutions are linguistically transformed into threats, their reform becomes not just justified but necessary. Breaking up monopolies, stopping indoctrination, protecting rights—these concepts sound like democratic actions, even when they systematically undermine democratic education.

While we're constantly debating reading levels and test scores, we're missing a more fundamental literacy crisis: our collective inability to recognize when language is being used to destroy the institutions that sustain a democratic society.

We are upholding—and, perhaps, enforcing—a sophisticated form of illiteracy, where people can read words but they are ill-equipped to read power structures and critique the capture of democratic institutions.

My students learning thoughtful literacy practices would immediately recognize this pattern. They would see that when leaders consistently describe expertise as bias, evidence as ideology, and professional standards as activism, something bigger than educational reform is happening.

When politicians promise to "restore" academic freedom by restricting what can be taught, we should ask: restored from what, and to whose benefit? When they claim to protect students by eliminating programs that encourage critical thinking, we should examine what and who they're actually protecting—and what and who they're destroying. When they argue that people can opt out of certain books, we should consider whose existences are eligible for erasure.

More importantly, we must fight for precise language about what's happening to education. The autocratic capture of education succeeds partly because it's conducted in the language of democratic values. Freedom, rights, choice—these words get weaponized against the very institutions they once protected. When we use language with precision, we can see how governmental leaders are capturing curriculum and destroying independent professional standards that ensure quality education.

When we let autocrats control the vocabulary of education, we've already lost half the battle. It's time to fight for our words, and through them, our democratic future. Because here's what I learned from all those "useless" degrees: the ability to read between the lines, to question authority, and to think critically across disciplines is essential to democracy. And maybe that's exactly why they want to eliminate it.

Stephanie R. Toliver is an assistant professor of curriculum and instruction at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project.
SUGGESTION

- YouTube youtu.be


Read More

Person holding a sign in front of the U.S. capitol that reads, "We The People."

The nation has reached a divide in the road—a moment when Americans must decide whether to accept a slow weakening of the Republic or insist on the principles that have held it together for more than two centuries

Getty Images

A Republic Under Strain—And a Choice Ahead

Americans feel something shifting beneath their feet — quieter than crisis but unmistakably a strain. Many live with a steady sense of uncertainty, conflict, and the emotional weight of issues that seem impossible to escape. They feel unheard, unsafe, or unsure whether the Republic they trust is fading. Friends, relatives, and former colleagues say they’ve tried to look away just to cope, hoping the turmoil will pass. And they ask the same thing: if the framers made the people the primary control on government, how will they help set the Republic back on a steadier path?

Understanding the strain Americans are experiencing is essential, but so is recognizing the choice we still have. Madison’s warning offers the answer the framers left us: when trust erodes and power concentrates, the Constitution turns back to the people—not as a slogan, but as a structural reality.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democracy Requires Losing. Americans Are Forgetting That.
an american flag hanging from a pole in front of a building
Photo by Calysia Ramos on Unsplash

Democracy Requires Losing. Americans Are Forgetting That.

Americans believe in democracy. What they don’t believe in is losing.

That distinction matters. Democracy depends on its participants’ willingness to accept loss. Without that, elections stop resolving conflict and start producing it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Capitol Building.

An in-depth examination of the erosion of checks and balances in the United States, exploring Project 2025, executive overreach, and the growing strain on constitutional democracy—and the critical role of citizens in preserving it.

Getty Images, Rudy Sulgan

The Mirror Has Cracked: How the Three Branches Failed America

James Madison warned that the government would always mirror human nature — its virtues and its flaws. “What is government itself,” he asked, “but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” The United States was built on a radical promise: a participatory government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Today, that mirror is cracking in real time. What once reflected a nation striving toward freedom and equality now reflects something far more chaotic — a government drifting from its constitutional purpose and reshaped by loyalty tests, political revenge, and a blueprint designed to consolidate power.

In 2026, that reflection is unmistakable: a government shaped not by three independent branches, but by a president’s loyalists and a coordinated plan to remake American democracy from the inside out. The framers built guardrails — separation of powers, checks and balances, and independent institutions — to prevent the rise of authoritarian rule. Yet the country now faces a blueprint, Project 2025, that overrides those protections by placing independent agencies under presidential control, replacing civil servants with loyalists, and weaponizing the Department of Justice. This is not drift. It is design. And it has left the nation with a government that no longer reflects the people but instead reflects the ambitions of those who seek power without accountability.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Trump and U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth standing next to each other at a news conference.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference as U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (R) looks on in James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House on April 06, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Alex Wong

Hegseth, Trump, and the Desecration of the American Military

Trump and Hegseth are unconstitutionally foregoing military doctrine as they transform the world’s most powerful secular force into a white Christian nationalist militia. In doing so, they are destroying our military’s legitimacy both domestically and abroad. As a matter of national security, they must be stopped.

Their attempt to radicalize the military is hardly theoretical; Hegseth has left more than enough clues that what he wants is a Crusade. After all, he titled his own book American Crusade. In the book, Hegseth explicitly rejects the separation of church and state as “leftist folklore.” His own tattoos—the Jerusalem Cross and the phrase “Deus Vult” (God Wills It)—are historic rallying cries for the Crusades.

Keep ReadingShow less