Education’s Political Landscape
In 2025, it seemed like the right had the upper hand in opposing what some call “woke” culture. President Donald Trump assumed office with strong backing, quickly issuing executive orders to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, as well as gender theory in schools.
However, by early November, candidates promoting progressive ideas were back in play in states like New York, Virginia, and New Jersey. The influence of progressive thought isn’t vanishing. In fact, recent data from a partnership between the University of Maryland and the University of Michigan indicates that the education sector is the most liberal part of the U.S. workforce, with Democrats outnumbering Republicans in K-12 classrooms two to one.
This wouldn’t typically raise eyebrows if teachers kept their political beliefs out of the classroom. But with the prevalence of issues like boys competing in girls’ sports, the presence of Black Lives Matter and Pride flags, and the implementation of DEI policies, it’s evident that many schools have become highly politicized environments.
One might wonder why teaching seems to attract so many left-leaning individuals, and why these educators sometimes push their views onto students. The roots of this can often be traced back to teacher training programs at universities, where progressive ideologies are frequently instilled in future educators.
Critics have pointed to the introduction of ethnic studies in K-12 as problematic, arguing that it invites discussions about non-heteronormative standards and the Black Panther Party.
For instance, at the University of Georgia, elementary education students must “explore sociocultural perspectives on diversity.” One of the course’s main goals is to foster an understanding of “diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice” within educational settings. The syllabus aims to empower teachers to engage in social justice advocacy, tackling issues like racism, sexism, and xenophobia.
Columbia University, home to renowned teacher preparation programs, offers courses like “Making Change: Activism, Social Movements, and Education.” Unfortunately, this course tends to highlight problematic examples, urging students to learn from organizations like the Chicago Teachers Union and the fight for ethnic studies in Tucson.
Speaking of the Chicago Teachers Union, it has a notorious track record for subpar academic outcomes and has not released a financial audit in years. Its collaboration with movements like BLM, which seeks to reduce school police funding and implement contentious disciplinary measures, has led many to question the effectiveness of this approach.
And it’s not just these institutions; at Michigan State University, aspiring teachers take multiple courses focused on “Justice and Equity.” Similarly, the University of Maryland teaches high school education majors a socially conscious perspective on social studies, while Arizona State University emphasizes “Education for Social Change.”
The problem isn’t just what these courses teach; it’s also what they omit. The time devoted to politically charged content often detracts from the core mission of training effective educators.
The need for teachers who can focus on fundamental skills is critical now more than ever. The latest National Report Card shows that merely 34% of high school seniors read at a proficient level and only 22% excel in math.
This reality presents a significant challenge for the nation. Universities that are committed to preparing competent educators should prioritize equipping future teachers with relevant skills, rather than immersing them in radical ideologies.
As the country moves away from radicalism, a report from the Freedom Defense Institute highlights how teachers’ unions persist in promoting extreme gender identity policies and oppose school choice. They actively encourage boys to participate in women’s sports and often mobilize teachers to protest against immigration enforcement.
States aiming to eliminate DEI and CRT from their public schooling systems should closely examine their teacher preparation programs. It’s vital for these universities to reflect on whether they are indeed fostering effective educators or just training them to dispense ideology.
While the needs of students are evident, many graduates of teacher programs seem unprepared to fulfill those needs. The push for radical ideology in schools will only cease when universities pivot away from preparing teachers to advocate for it.
