Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: A threat to equitable education

Happy elementary students raising their hands on a class at school
skynesher/Getty Images

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Michelle Obama resonated deeply at the Democratic National Convention.

"Shutting down the Department of Education, banning our books — none of that will prepare our kids for the future," she said.


Her warning comes as Project 2025’s proposed overhaul of the Department of Education gains traction. This radical plan, part of the Heritage Foundation’s design for the early days of a second Trump administration, promises efficiency and reform but delivers a blueprint for discrimination, cultural insensitivity and the erosion of democratic principles. In analyzing the historical, socioeconomic and democratic implications of the document's proposed policies, one truth becomes clear: This is a battle for the soul of the American education system.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

But Project 2025 is not just a threat to our educational system; it's a threat to our cultural diversity. Consolidating power in the hands of a select few unelected officials risks stripping away the local control that has long defined America's educational landscape. This is a direct assault on the democratic ideals our schools should embody, and it jeopardizes the very principles of representation and community involvement that are the bedrock of our nation.

Parents and communities, particularly those of multiracial and ethnic descent, could see their stories and cultures erased from classrooms. These are the very spaces where children should feel seen, heard and valued, and their potential loss is a devastating blow to the sense of worth and belonging that is so crucial for healthy development and academic engagement. Research confirms that seeing oneself reflected in the curriculum is not just beneficial. It's critical to academic success and a positive school experience.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund warns that this lack of accountability invites policies that benefit a privileged few at the expense of the marginalized communities. The proposed curriculum reforms more than border on discriminatory. They place an undue emphasis on standardized testing and rote memorization, practices that betray the principles of a comprehensive education. Instead of nurturing critical thinking and creativity, schools are at risk of becoming factories, resulting in mere compliance and unquestioned obedience.

Moreover, such proposals are fundamentally at odds with the democratic purpose of education: to empower students to engage actively with our diverse society. The National Education Association, too, warns that such an approach “would lead to a narrowing of the curriculum and a lack of access to educational opportunities for already underserved students.” It's these students, already struggling against the odds, who stand to lose the most from Project 2025.

Perhaps most corrosively, Project 2025 threatens to segregate our schools through provisions for increased school choice and funding portability. Giving families more options and allowing education dollars to follow the child seems innocuous, even laudable. But similar policies have consistently led to greater racial and socioeconomic segregation, undermining the integration that is a bulwark against prejudice. Studies have shown that when given the option, affluent families often choose to cluster in well-funded schools, draining resources from those serving predominantly low-income and minority populations.

Project 2025 attempts to turn back the clock to a time when schools were tools of oppression, a retrograde vision that would unravel decades of progress toward educational equity.

We live in a moment that beckons concerned citizens to respond. It is a moment for parents, educators and communities to act. Whether flooding elected offices with calls, packing public hearings, or exposing the dangers of this proposal, mobilization is only the beginning. Project 2025 is a rallying cry to defend our schools and the values they represent. We cannot be cavalier about this for our children's and society's sake. The time to act is now. Educational opportunity is a civil right, and responding to the threat of Project 2025 is our civic responsibility.

More in The Fulcrum about Project 2025

    Read More

    Future of the National Museum of the American Latino is Uncertain

    PRESENTE! A Latino History of the United States

    Credit: National Museum of the American Latino

    Future of the National Museum of the American Latino is Uncertain

    The American Museum of the Latino faces more hurdles after over two decades of advocacy.

    Congress passed legislation to allow for the creation of the Museum, along with the American Women’s History Museum, as part of the Smithsonian Institution in an online format. Five years later, new legislation introduced by Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) wants to build a physical museum for both the Latino and women’s museums but might face pushback due to a new executive order signed by President Donald Trump.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Fairness, Not Stigma, for Transgender Athletes

    People running.

    Getty Images, Pavel1964

    Fairness, Not Stigma, for Transgender Athletes

    President Trump’s campaign and allies spent $21 million of campaign spending on attack ads against transgender people. With that level of spending, I was shocked to find out it was not a top concern for voters of either party, but it continued to prevail as a campaign priority.

    Opponents of transgender participation in sports continue to voice their opinions, three months into the Trump presidency. Just last month, the Trump administration suspended $175 million in federal funding to Penn State over a transgender swimmer. $175 million is a bit dramatic over one swimmer, or in the case of the entire NCAA, fewer than 10 athletes. Even Governor Gavin Newsom was recently under fire for sharing his views on his podcast. Others, like Rep. Nancy Mace, have also caught on to the mediagenic nature of transphobia right now. “You want penises in women's bathrooms, and I'm not going to have it,” she said in a U.S. House hearing last month. I had no clue who Nancy Mace was prior to her notorious views on LGBTQ+ rights. Frankly, her flip from being a supporter of LGBTQ+ rights to shouting “Tr**ny” in a hearing seems less like a change of opinion and more of a cry for attention.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Unit Cohesion is a Pretext for Exclusion

    The transgender flag on a military uniform.

    Getty Images, Cunaplus_M.Faba

    Unit Cohesion is a Pretext for Exclusion

    In the annals of military history, the desire for uniformity has often been wielded as a sword against inclusion. This tendency resurfaced dramatically when President Donald Trump, shortly after taking office, signed an executive order, purportedly rooted in concerns about unit cohesion, that banned transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. It was challenged and blocked by a federal judge on March 18, who described the ban as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.” On March 27, a second judge issued an injunction on the ban, calling it “unsupported, dramatic and facially unfair exclusionary policy” (the Trump administration asked the 9th Circuit to stay the ruling; they were denied on April 1). It turns out that the argument that introducing any minority into military ranks would disrupt unit cohesion is practically a cliché, with similar claims having been made against integrating black men, women, and then openly gay service members. It is a tale as old as time. But that’s just it–it’s just a tale. Don’t believe it.

    The military top brass have, at times, insisted that the integration of minority groups would undermine the effectiveness of our armed forces, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Air Force General Henry Arnold wrote in 1941 that “the use of women pilots serves no military purpose,” only to have “nothing but praise” for them by 1944, after having served with them. Regarding integrating women into combat roles in 1993, Congress members argued that “although logical, such a policy would [erode] the civilizing notion that men should protect…women.” Of course, they also offered the even more convenient cover story that integration would be “disruptive to unit cohesion.” Similarly, although many claimed that “letting gays serve openly would ruin [unit cohesion],” the resistance was found to be “based on nothing” except “our own prejudices and . . . fears.” Dozens of studies conducted by the U.S. military and 25 other nations confirmed the presence of gay soldiers had no impact on unit cohesion. These results were ignored in “the service of an ideology equating heterosexuality with bravery and patriotism.” Unit cohesion is a simple—though thinly veiled—rationale.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Banned Books Damn Our Children's Future

    Two children reading in school.

    Getty Images, Jim Craigmyle

    Banned Books Damn Our Children's Future

    April 2nd is International Children's Book Day. It is time to celebrate the transformative power of children's literature and mourn the spaces where stories once lived. The numbers are staggering: there were over 10,000 book bans in U.S. public schools during the 2023-2024 school year alone, affecting more than 4,000 unique titles. Each banned book represents a mirror taken away from a child who might have seen themselves in those pages or a window closed to a child who might have glimpsed a world beyond their own.

    I'm a child of the 80s and 90s, back when PBS was basically raising us all. Man, LeVar Burton's voice on Reading Rainbow was like that cool uncle who always knew exactly what book you needed. Remember him saying, "But you don't have to take my word for it"? And Sesame Street—that show was living proof that a kid from the Bronx could learn alongside a kid from rural Kansas, no questions asked. These and other such programs convinced an entire generation that we could "go anywhere" and "be anything.” Also, they were declarations that every child deserves to see themselves in stories, to dream in technicolor, and to imagine futures unlimited by the accidents of birth or circumstance.

    Keep ReadingShow less