Cagle World

This upcoming school year, thousands of high school students in Oklahoma will be required to “learn” about President Trump’s discredited claims that fraud marred and corrupted the 2020 election.

This course will not cover debunked conspiracy theories. Instead, it will be an official, approved segment of the state’s social studies curriculum that Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction and Republican right-wing advocate Ryan Walters developed. At a board meeting earlier this year, Walters described the curriculum’s purpose as “ensuring our kids have a well-rounded education and understand American exceptionalism, understand civics, and understand our Constitution and those constitutional principles.”

The new curriculum includes a section that requires students to “analyze contemporary turning points of 21st-century American society.” It requires that high school students “identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by perusing graphs and other information,” informing educators that students should examine the supposed “security risks of mail-in balloting,” ballot dumps, and the “halting of ballot-counting in select cities.” The curriculum also states educators should point to the election’s “unforeseen record number of voters” as a sign that something was amiss. Yes, you read that correctly.

Walters stated the purpose of incorporating this section was to teach “students to think for themselves” and “not be spoon-fed left-wing propaganda.” Walters himself believes there are “legitimate concerns” about the 2020 election’s integrity that were “raised by millions of Americans in 2020.”

Walters is profoundly incorrect. At present, numerous courts nationwide have decisively debunked all claims of fraud in the 2020 election, declaring them totally bereft of merit. Trump and his supporters’ claims that such results were questionable or fraudulent are sour grapes. In essence, the new curriculum is simply a hodgepodge of unsubstantiated allegations.

The individuals involved in developing the standards also created controversy. Walters announced that far-right-wing media personalities and policy advocates such as Dennis Prager and Kevin Roberts, the Heritage Foundation president and the architect of Project 2025, were instrumental in crafting the standards. To add insult to injury, Walters laughably insisted,  in a statement that also peddled unfounded conspiracy theories about the media’s role in the election, that his office’s changes to the curriculum are uncontroversial. Such a comment is akin to stating water is dry.

The so-called curriculum also champions other right-wing propaganda, such as indisputably teaching students COVID-19 came from a lab in China,  a theory scientists have so far proven is false. The curriculum heavily promotes Christianity and Christian principles and theology, standards identical to Walters’s previous Christian nationalist doctrine. This includes requiring every classroom in Oklahoma to keep a copy of the Bible, an order that residents are currently contesting as infringing upon their and their children’s First Amendment rights.

Moms for Liberty, a far-right activist organization, sent a letter to Republican members of the Oklahoma legislature lauding the new curriculum as “truth-filled, anti-woke, and unapologetically conservative.” Additionally, they issued a warning: “In the last few election cycles, grassroots conservative organizations have flipped seats across Oklahoma by holding weak Republicans accountable. If you choose to side with the liberal media and make backroom deals with Democrats to block conservative reform, you will be next.”

If Oklahoma conservatives and Republicans resemble the GOP that currently dominates Congress, they will sheepishly fall in line with right-wing conservative demands.

Trump has continued to promote the “big lie” he was the 2020 presidential election’s real winner. The fact is that Trump has only been victorious in two of his three presidential campaigns. Trump won in 2016 by securing a higher Electoral College vote count, despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. In 2024, Trump defeated Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in both the Electoral College and popular vote.

He did not defeat Joe Biden in 2020 any way you count it.

Something tells me Ryan Walters and his posse of intellectually dishonest right-wing renegades know this to be the case, but they willfully argue otherwise because reveling in such dishonesty is more politically and economically profitable for them. Perhaps they should remind themselves that such behavior is hardly the Christian way to behave.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Pope Francis was known for his sincere and genuine nature.

Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, he likely adopted the name Francis for several reasons. Many scholars have suggested he got the idea from St. Francis of Assisi, who forfeited the comforts of wealth and privilege, distanced himself from any attachments, and dedicated his life to loving and caring for others.

Throughout his years as pope, Francis, who died on April 21, 2025, at age 88, focused on the dignity of human beings, especially those whom others viewed as outsiders on the margins of society  —  whether migrants, prisoners (whom he routinely visited), or LGBTQIA+ people.

“Who am I to judge?” he famously said when asked about his attitude toward gay men and women, comments that differed sharply from those of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, who once described homosexuality as a tendency “ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil.” Such acute attention focused on outsiders was likely due to Francis’s own personal trajectory. He grew up in Argentina, several thousand miles from the Vatican. He was the child of migrants who arrived in Buenos Aires in 1929, looking for a new beginning after closing the door on life in rural Italy.

There is little doubt that such circumstances, coupled with the Gospels, were pivotal in shaping the late pope’s thinking. He emerged as one of the most effective communicators of Christian faith, loquaciously expressing himself while attending his general audiences in St. Peter’s Square. He would finish reciting the Angelus prayer there every Sunday with a buon pranzo  — “have a good lunch.” He rejected the Apostolic Palace for a plain room in the Casa Santa Marta, a residence that bishops and cardinals used when visiting Rome.

Francis also made himself a pope of the Global South by speaking out forcefully on health, poverty, climate change, and migration. In his 2015 encyclical, Laudato Si’, Francis elevated climate and environmental protection to the same level as social justice in the Vatican’s doctrine. During the COVID-19 pandemic, his iconic address in a barren St. Peter’s Square will remain forever deeply etched in the hearts, souls, and minds of hundreds of millions of viewers who witnessed the spectacle. Such an atypical style formed a crucial part of his legacy.

When the cardinals gathered in Rome to vote for Benedict XVI’s successor after his abrupt resignation in 2013, they wanted a reformer who could shake up the dreadful management of the church’s finances. Francis replaced the previous group of cardinal overseers and installed his own team of clerics and lay experts after revelations of mismanagement of the Vatican’s own finances.

As with his less than definitive dismissal of LGBTQI+ rights, Francis attracted conservative Catholics’ fierce ire because of his decision to urge parish priests to decide on individual cases whether divorced Catholics who remarried should receive communion. After this, his fiercest opponents published an unprecedented document  —  a dubia, or expression of doubt — about his teachings. Liberals were frustrated, too, particularly by his refusal to support women in becoming priests and failing to endorse same-sex marriage. Nonetheless, he appointed several women, the vast majority of them being nuns, to key Vatican positions that only men previously occupied. Such a move marked a huge change, as did his recent synods that granted lay participants at such gatherings  —  the representatives of ordinary Catholics in the pews  —  duplicative discussion and voting rights with bishops and cardinals.

Pope Francis never fit comfortably into political binaries. He never engaged in clever publicity stunts for good optics. He said, “Who am I to judge?” not to indicate diplomatic neutrality or a cop-out but as a spiritual gut-check to a church that too often mistakes rules for self-righteous gospel. He launched the synod not as a bureaucratic reshuffling but as the power of the Holy Spirit to communicate through everyone. He engaged in deep prayer about all of this and created the space to turn such activism into action.

For generations, progressive Catholics bemoaned what they perceived as the papacy’s excessive power, it monarchical authority in a supposedly democratic age, and the way the concept of papal doctrine restricted Catholic debates. In theory at least, Pope Francis shared similar concerns, promising a more collegial and transparent church. In practice he often exercised his power in the same manner as his predecessors did to monitor and short-circuit acts of defiance to his authority. However, during his tenure, such targets were reactionary conservatives and staunch traditionalists as opposed to progressives and modernizers.

Pope Francis left huge shoes for the church to fill. The question is whether his successor will be able to rise to the occasion and continue his renaissance legacy. Time will indeed tell.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Ample sighs of unrestrained relief frantically cascaded throughout the higher education community upon Harvard University’s refusal to capitulate to the Trump administration.

Last week, Harvard defied Trump’s threat to cut federal funding aid and announced it would not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Harvard President Alan M. Garber wrote, “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. The University will not surrender its independence or its constitutional rights.”

Hallelujah was the word of choice among more than a few people across many professions.

Notably, Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber stated he would refuse to surrender to the administration. Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University and a perennial outspoken critic of the Trump administration’s directives to colleges, applauded Harvard’s position.

“Federal funding for universities must not depend on a loyalty oath,” Roth said in a statement.

Stanford is also prepared not to comply. The faculty council at Indiana University has organized other Midwestern universities to refuse, as has the University of Massachusetts with land-grant universities. Harvard sounded the alarm, and the results have become a growing chorus of opposition picking up considerable amounts of steam.

Claire Shipman, Columbia University’s interim president, has signaled the institution may refuse to accede to any demands it believes compromises its integrity and autonomy. Interestingly, as of this column, Columbia has yet to see any of its funds returned. Now Trump is considering whether to seek a federal consent decree to ratify any negotiated agreement with the school.

In a sad, pathetic effort to save face, two Trump administration sources told the New York Times an April 11 letter to Harvard President Alan Garber and signed by three federal officials was “unauthorized” and should not have been sent. Needless to say, the university balked at such assertions. Harvard refused to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, ban masks at campus protests, enact merit-based hiring and admissions reforms, and reduce the power of faculty and administrators the Republican administration has called “more committed to activism than scholarship.”

Apparently, the university’s ultimate decision to resist wasn’t the initial one. It simply became the end result after the White House sent a list of demands so detailed, draconian, humiliating, and blatantly anti-intellectual that Harvard was left with no option but to reject it.

Hundreds of Harvard students, faculty, and staff members protested earlier this month, demanding the university administration not give in to Trump. A previous public letter with a similar sentiment was signed by 600 university educators, who expressed fear the school would follow Columbia University’s actions. Spitefully, the Trump administration responded by revoking $2.2 billion in federal funds and $60 million in contracts. President Trump has also suggested the institution should forfeit its tax-exempt status. In response, the university filed a lawsuit against the administration on April 21st.

Many if not most universities are relieved by Harvard’s actions. Nonetheless, the truth is Harvard has a $50 billion endowment, numerous wealthy alumni, and multiple other resources at its disposal. Institutions with a fraction of such resources may feel much more pressure to adhere to administration demands and redefine their policies.

Such a reality could certainly pertain to smaller, regional state institutions and lesser-known small colleges. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) would be specifically vulnerable to such callous bullying. Some have millions of dollars in federal contracts. A number of HBCUs barely treading water are particularly in danger of being subjected to the intense pressure this administration could or would apply.

Conservatives’ war on academia has been decades in the making, and Trump is eagerly amplifying the battle. However, regardless of their reputation, financial situation, or stature, universities shouldn’t allow themselves to become educational doormats.

This current political climate provides higher education with the ability to demonstrate the diversity of resources they offer to the public and broaden their appeal. Such efforts would likely go a long way in rehabilitating and reaffirming higher education’s value to more than just an increasingly narrow elite segment of society. Words for thought.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

What do Sandra Bullock, Madonna, Tom Cruise, Jane Fonda, Steven Spielberg, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Angelina Jolie have in common? All have adopted Black children or children of African descent.

Interracial adoption is a topic that seems to periodically resurface in the public arena. Matters usually reach a fever pitch when a movie about a white family saving the life of a Black child. There’s 2009’s “The Blind Side,” starring Bullock, who won an Academy Award for her performance. Or 1995’s “Losing Isaiah,” starring Oscar winners Halle Berry, Jessica Lange, and Cuba Gooding Jr.

While both movies tackled racial identification from different perspectives, the issue was at the forefront of each. Arguments surrounding the topic tend to be hypersensitive, defensive, and based on emotions. Critics of cross-cultural adoptions argue such a practice reinforces the belief that socially-conscious, savior-minded white people must rescue disenfranchised Black children. They also claim white people who partake in such efforts are well-intentioned but misguided, or that in some cases are engaging in a trendy form of altruism in an effort to assuage their guilt of benefiting from privilege.

In 1972, the National Association of Black Social Workers referred to trans-racial adoption as “cultural genocide.” The group further stated that under no circumstances should any Black child be placed in a white two-parent home. Now, more than half a century later, the organization has softened its stance but still encourages and maintains the belief that children of color are better served in environments where the influences of their racial and cultural heritage are evident. Such factors, the group argues, are seen as vital for cultivating the child’s sense of awareness and positive self-esteem and protecting them from racism.

This argument is politically charged and somewhat flawed.

First, children adopted by celebrities are going to have lives that are atypical of most ordinary people, regardless of race. Often, the level of wealth and social contact offset any traditional issues ordinary folks have to deal with. Second, who is to say that because a Black kid is with a Black family, the family members will be able to protect the kid from racism any more than a white two-parent family? Can a Black, two-parent family teach a non-white child to face racism more effectively? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Second, a person could grow up in a Black household, live in an all-Black neighborhood, attend a predominantly Black high school, worship at a Black church, and spend their entire lives within the Black community and still suffer from low self-esteem, self-hatred, and other insecurities. The same could hold true for a person of any racial group who is solely immersed in their culture’s mores and customs.

In contrast, a Black child could live with two non-Black parents, reside in an integrated environment, and harbor a high level of self-worth, racial awareness, and respect for others. White parents can be racially and culturally aware, and Black parents can be resistant to any sort of Black culture. Similar arguments could be made in regard to biracial children.

Former President Barack Obama is a prime example of a person who has moved in both worlds. He was raised by his white grandparents, married a Black woman, and developed friendships with people across racial lines.

Agencies should prepare families considering interracial adoption to comprehend the indisputable impact of race on achievement, self-esteem, self-concept, and mental health. Parents who adopt children of color should recognize and challenge systemic and systematic racism’s pervasive force. They should ensure that such children are connected to appropriate role models and are not racially isolated.

Children, regardless of their race, should be placed in families that will love them, discipline them, and provide for them. In some cases, race could and perhaps should be considered, but common sense and pragmatism should be the deciding factors in adopting children of any race or ethnicity. In our increasingly multiracial nation, it would only make sense.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Right-wing personalities have taken to their podcasts and radio programs to deride Donald Trump for his egregious and horrendous missteps concerning a multitude of issues ranging from tariffs and callous immigration policies to free speech constraints and damaged relations with allies.

Such discontent from his most ardent supporters, which includes Ben Shapiro, Tim Dillon, and Joe Rogan, combines with Republican lawmakers enduring fierce outrage at town halls across the nation in recent weeks, where constituents have expressed concern about mass federal layoffs, social security, health benefits, and the potential unraveling of our postal system and other public services. Elon Musk’s tremendous influence and continued soaring prices have contributed to such frustration, unease, and anger.

One particularly egregious example of public discontent is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a naturalized Hispanic man from Maryland whom Trump administration officials deported after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained him while looking for another person on a deportation order. Garcia’s subsequent arrest and deportation to El Salvador, which the Trump administration belatedly admitted was a mistake, culminated in massive levels of horror and monumental shockwaves that transcended well beyond his own family, his local community, and the nation.

Next door in the state of Virginia, law enforcement officials heavily interrogated another naturalized Hispanic resident, Jensy Machado, and forced him to provide documentation of his legal status. After an intense confrontation, they concluded he was not the suspect in question and released him. Nonetheless, the agents detained two other individuals with Machado for reasons unknown to him. He conceded that the entire episode has left him so disillusioned and rattled that he regrets having cast his ballot for Trump last November.

The conclusion he reached isn’t surprising: “I voted for Trump last election, but, because I thought it was going to be the things, you know, like . . . just go against criminals, not every Hispanic-looking, like, that they will assume that we are all illegals.”

Sad to say, he may well be correct.

A considerable segment of the populace is having second thoughts about electing Donald Trump as president. Indeed, such buyer’s remorse among Trump voters isn’t confined to right-wing podcasters or misguided Latino voters who were arguably arrogant enough to believe the Republicans would not direct their virulent hostility toward illegal immigrants. After launching and engineering a sinister campaign that fractured Americans into resentful, paranoid factions, those who ascribed to such sentiments are coming to the realization such perceived contrasts are far more muddled than they were previously led to believe.

Such circumstances remind me of an October 2015 report conducted by Nobel Prize-winning economist Angus Deaton and his wife Anne Case. In their study, published almost a decade ago, they examined disillusionment among many middle-class white people, especially white men, and highlighted skyrocketing suicide rates and other issues caused by alarming rates of  substance abuse. For many of us whose academic scholarship focuses on race, gender, and cultural topics, such revelations were somewhat shocking though not all that surprising.

The truth is these people have largely brought into the arrogant, brash, and largely misguided illusion if they worked hard enough, were married to a respectable spouse, and harbored condescension, disdain, and contempt toward the right minorities, they could rapidly ascend the social ladder and pursue the American dream. Instead, many came to the dramatic realization the ladder has been pulled out from under them. They had driven down a cul-de-sac with no U-turn available. As a result, alcoholism, drug use, and sordid vices have served as a tragic yet reliable refuge from an environment and reality increasingly filled with despair. A precarious form of self-medication, so to speak. A sad commentary for sure.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

It’s been a couple of weeks since the Signal leak crisis, where several of President Trump’s senior-level national security officials engaged in a text chat session.

In case you’ve forgotten, they wanted to hash out plans to bomb Houthi targets in Yemen and used a messaging app to share the plans. However, they mysteriously added Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, to the group chat and continued to divulge information that was, needless to say, highly sensitive.

Additionally, many of the chat’s messages were set to auto-delete in what appears to violate federal records-keeping laws. It’s difficult to decide what the most disturbing aspect of the entire scandal was. Reckless behavior or gross incompetence? The potential danger that such antics could produce? Texting prayer emojis prior to launching weapons? It was a 21st-century version of Dr. Strangelove, the 1964 film starring Peter Sellers, James Earl Jones, and George C. Scott I have shown to my students when discussing the the Cold War.

For those of you who have not seen it, the characters in the war room expose their incompetence and talk about the danger they are unable to grasp until it is too late to do so.

Rather than confess to a major screw up, the Trump administration went on the offensive, trashing Goldberg, a journalist Trump detests. Vice President JD Vance argued that Goldberg “oversold what he had.” National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who appears to invite Golberg to the chat, called him a “loser” and a liar. Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s press secretary, dishonestly debunked successive stories on the major mishap as “another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well known for his sensationalist spin.”

So much for taking responsibility for one’s own actions.

Do not let the false bravado deceive you. Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and company are focused on disingenuous arguments on issues such as wokeness, DEI, LGBTQIA+ rights, and transgender people rather than preparing for important battles with the nation’s enemies. Think about it – they have demanded the Pentagon delete tributes to the Tuskegee Airmen, remove photos of soldiers of multiple races and ethnicities at Iwo Jima, and purge images of the plane that dropped the atomic bomb that ended World War II because its name is the Enola Gay.

Irrefutably stupid.

This scandal points to the larger issues of hypocrisy. When it comes to far-right politics, every accusation tends to result in messy and awkward revelations where the truth, which most people largely know, is dramatically exposed. DEI is no exception — Trump’s cabinet is one of the least diverse, least credentialed, and most professionally inept in history, saturated with incompetence. The retrograde discussion on Signal highlighted the juvenile, frat boy, manosphere environment at the administration’s senior levels.

The truth is no individual in the Trump cabinet is genuinely qualified for their jobs. South Dakota governor Kristi Noem, who callously shot a puppy in the face, is now running the Department of Homeland Security. Hegseth, a former Fox News presenter who decorates his body with despicable white nationalist tattoos and blatantly demonstrates his chronic personal and professional deficiencies, is now defense secretary. Attorney General Pam Bondi has adopted a “hear no evil, fear no evil, see no evil” stance when it comes to addressing any conflict relating to untoward behavior in the Trump administration. Likewise, “my boss can do no wrong” Leavitt received a top-level communications gig at the White House due to a Fox News internship.

This current administration is bereft of competence. The executive branch has no talent, experience, or knowledge — Republicans have replaced DEI with mediocrity. Right-wing lunatics are running the political asylum.

Many white people, particularly those in the middle class and above, consider their skin pigmentation an entitlement to success and high-paying careers. This has been the case throughout American history. Eradicating DEI programs is a less vile approach to promote and usher in a new era of racial segregation. “Make America Great Again” was always about returning to a Jim Crow era to make the nation “great” for an elite segment of white folks.

We must forcefully challenge such racism, sexism, and elitism

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Federal websites have been a surprise target of President Trump, who ordered the Pentagon and other agencies to scan their pages and remove any content that promotes “diversity, equity and inclusion.”

Numerous websites under Pentagon control abruptly removed thousands of pages documenting the history of people of color, LGBTQ people, women, and others from marginalized backgrounds and their contributions to the American military. Following an order from Pentagon Press Secretary John Ullyot, multiple pages about baseball legend, military veteran, political activist, and public statesmen Jackie Robinson were removed, including a documentary about “Negro League” players discussing Robinson’s tenure in the military.

Tidal waves of anger and outrage were followed by intense media coverage over this scurrilous and blatant disrespect directed toward the iconic Robinson. ESPN’s Jeff Passan wrote on X: “The ghouls who did this should be ashamed. Jackie Robinson was the embodiment of an American hero. Fix this now.” Christina Karl, sports editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, wrote on X: “Erasing Jackie Robinson’s fight against segregation while serving our country is the definition of un-American. Robinson’s battle to make this country better by empowering its diversity while fighting for equity & inclusion is the defining struggle of 20th century American sports.”

Needless to say, the Trump administration quickly cut tail and reinstated the photos. They also quickly removed the fool who was in charge of this division to another department. He should have been terminated for incompetence.

Outrage further festered when the Department of Defense’s response to reporters from various news outlets consisted of an e-mail that looked to be cut-and-pasted from the transcripts of fascist YouTube: a sub-world that Defense Secretary Peth Hegseth seems to be familiar with. The statement said celebrating the achievements of people of color like Robinson was an example of something the military now opposes: “cultural Marxism.”

Yes, you read that correctly. Mind you, this is the same Hegseth who appears to believe women and people of color are inferior. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Hegseth and his motley crew of right-wing cohorts were not erasing Robinson solely because of his Blackness, but because of what is indisputable and undeniable to it: a life story cultivated by the reality of Jim Crow and American apartheid. Attempts to eradicate such a compelling narrative are intended not only to abolish past sins, but also to make a declarative statement on who gets to claim the status of “citizen” in the present. In Jackie Robinson’s case, restoring the information came too little too late. The perpetrators’ intentions were exposed, and the damage was done.

No one should be all that surprised by such bigoted and reactionary antics. Trump adamantly and unabashedly campaigned on eradicating DEI throughout his campaign, despite having no idea what it entailed. His efforts received rapturous applause from his MAGA base, and being appeased by his supporters is his primary concern. Many members of his cabinet and other advisors around him — particularly the Project 2025 authors who unsparingly called to cut every DEI program that exists in government — do know what DEI eradication involves. Trump is dutifully following their suggestions.

All federal DEI programs have been canceled, and the people running them have been terminated. Scientific research is being suppressed by orders from the National Institute of Health and Centers for Disease Control. University grantees are being forced to eliminate any research focused on diverse populations (including “women”). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice have targeted law firms, higher education institutions, and private companies, demanding they account for their diversity programs and suggesting that they are guilty of discriminatory hiring practices. This is a direct assault on racial and gender equality.

These individuals believe the stories of particular patriots who overcame discrimination and adversity and became “pioneers” and the “few” are not important. Indeed, they resent such inspirational historical accounts that highlight race, gender, LGBTQIA+, non-Christian denominations, and so on. They would rather obscure, if not outright erase, all evidence of such discrimination and adversity altogether, acting as if such injustices never occurred.

Trump and his cohort want to pretend the world is a meritocracy where white men just happen to be the best. DEI dispels such intellectually dishonest falsehoods. Those of us committed to fairness for all must make a valiant effort to prohibit such a retrograde and sinister agenda from reaching fruition.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Debates over free speech, cultural appropriation, intolerance, and other controversies covered by the umbrella term “cancel culture” have woven themselves firmly into the fabric of our current culture over the past few years.

By now, most Americans are aware of the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia University with permanent residency in the U.S. who is in the middle of a deportation fight with the Trump administration for being a pro-Palestinian activist.

“This is the first arrest of many to come,” Donald Trump posted on Truth Social. “We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it.”

Khalil’s arrest comes against the backdrop of the administration’s decision to pull some $400 million in support from Columbia because of its supposed anti-Semitism, which includes much-needed funding for Jewish researchers doing medical research. It also comes as the Office of Civil Rights sent a letter to some 60 colleges and universities, informing them they are under investigation for not doing enough to combat anti-Semitism on campus.

I’m inclined to agree with nationally-syndicated columnist Susan Estrich, who is Jewish, who thinks the Trump administration is disingenuously exploiting anti-Semitism in an effort to further enact a right-wing agenda largely characterized by… anti-Semitism.

“I sympathize with Jewish students who, especially last year, felt vulnerable and unprotected on their campuses. Many colleges should have done better. They did not enforce their own rules guaranteeing students secure access to classes and activities,” Estrich wrote. “But we don’t need ICE to solve that problem.”

Even as Republicans have declared themselves to be the arbiters of free speech, Trump is stating in no uncertain terms anyone who disagrees with him will be silenced. This includes college students who protested the war in Gaza. In a Truth Social post on March 11, Trump threatened to pull federal funding from universities that allow “illegal protests” and vowed to arrest, expel, and deport so-called agitators.

Student protests, like other forms of expression, are crucial to American democracy. Young college students have the right to express their feelings about issues, and we should be shuddering about the potential negative results for our first amendment rights if institutions of higher education give in to Trump’s draconian demands. People are allowed to disagree with the federal government’s manner of doing things and to protest wars (and anything else) they don’t support.

College campuses are supposed to be citadels for the rational examination and exchange of ideas among people with diverse views. In these important spaces, individuals can become immersed in various forms of inquiry. This intellectual universe is deeply embedded in the American social and cultural imagination. However, the current Middle East conflict has resulted in numerous universities morphing into battlegrounds, where politics and ideas have been weaponized in an acrimonious manner, leading to an increasingly bellicose inquisition.

Certain politicians (including President Trump), pundits, academics, and other provocateurs across the political spectrum find themselves in an echo chamber where they must rabidly denounce, dissect, and discredit their opponents. Each fiery exchange provides them with ample ammunition to vilify their opponents and entities whom they despise and, in some cases, fear and view with a jaundiced eye as the “other.”

Such drama is occurring during a tenure when public opinion of higher education — routinely ambiguous at best, especially among conservatives — has reached new depths. There is no doubt such a dramatic drop in popularity is the result of a constant barrage of criticism regarding the increasing cost of a college education, as well as merciless right-wing attacks.

Free speech is crucial to our democracy. Either you have it, or you don’t. It is important to remember that when you attempt to curtail the civil rights of others, it may be only a matter of time before yours are stifled in turn. Denying others the right to voice their opinions is a misguided and dangerous activity that can result in dramatic and disastrous consequences for all.

The scorched-earth approach that many purveyors of so-called cancel culture often engage in is a malignant form of dictatorial behavior that cannot be condoned or tolerated in a society that prides itself on liberty, freedom, and justice for all.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Over the past few weeks, many have bemoaned what they see as the Democratic Party’s downward spiral.

Democrats have no message. Their party is broken beyond repair. They are in disarray with no sign of rebounding anytime soon. And so on. For all the Chicken Littles among the pundit class who believe the political sky is falling, allow me to remind you that politics is cyclical.

During the mid-1990s, there were countless articles about how the Republican Party was in the political wilderness, mortally wounded, and bereft of any ideas. Less than four years later, George W. Bush and the GOP won the White House (with the help of the Supreme Court) and Congress.

Let’s go back even further. Remember in early to mid-1991 when George Bush Sr. reigned victoriously after Operation Desert Storm and his popularity was a record 92 percent? Virtually everyone in the pundit class argued he was unbeatable, yet a year and a half later, Bill Clinton won the 1992 presidential election.

Two months into Donald Trump’s second term, the honeymoon is over. His job approval numbers have plunged, and Elon Musk’s numbers are even worse. Not surprising, the public appears overwhelmingly opposed to mass civil service firings, the shuttering of federal agencies, banning transgender people from military service, and eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Meanwhile, Trump’s tariffs have depressed consumer confidence and could lead to a recession, and Republican town halls have devolved into forums where irate voters confront members of Congress about callous spending cuts and various programs being defunded across government.

Last week, polling gave Democrats a three-point advantage in the generic congressional ballot test. It would take little effort for Democrats to regain the House — they need only three seats to regain the majority in 2026. The only time during the last 75 years the party out of power failed to garner at least four seats was during the 2002 midterm elections, when President George W. Bush was riding high in the polls after the 9/11 tragedy but had not yet embarked upon the Iraq War.

The major challenge facing Democrats at the moment is strategy. Centrists and neoliberals, such as party consultant James Carville, argued in a recent New York Times op-ed “the most radical thing [Democrats] can do” is nothing at all.

Such a “give your opponent enough rope to hang themselves and it will happen” response is irresponsible. Carville himself should be aware no competent or responsible person or organization would “take a break” when they are being severely attacked and in considerable danger of being defeated. Such a benign form of respectability politics is insufficient in a political climate that is anything but respectable or polite.

Those that have acted haven’t had much success. Numerous Democrats demonstrated during Trump’s joint address to Congress. Some women wore pink, others were mock for holding paddles with statements written on them. Texas representative Al Green heckled the president and was later censured by some of his colleagues for doing so ( as some colleagues sand “We Shall Overcome”). Such largely hollow performative antics do little to reassure voters Democrats possess either the sincerity or temerity to do battle with the Trump administration.

At the moment, Democrats appear to be clueless, or at the very least apprehensive about taking on President Trump and his draconian efforts. They need to grow a backbone and transparently fight for the people to prevent the nation from becoming autocratic and fascist. Simply waiting for Trump to implode politically (which he may very well do) is not the wisest choice of action.

Trump, if anything, is a political Houdini. He has managed to evade justice throughout his life, including during his tenure as president. It is as if he has made a deal with the devil. While karma may indeed catch up with him (karma has been distressingly belated), the best course of action for Democrats is to get proactive, develop a clear, unambiguous message, and declare to their constituencies that they are ready to address their needs and concerns. The current affairs facing the nation are far too dire to not do so.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

It was political theatre of the surreal, the person who attempted to engineer the destruction of democracy shamelessly taunting the individual who is fighting to defend democracy.

A battle royal emerged in the White House last week as two world leaders – President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy – had an acerbic fracas in the Oval Office, which the media captured with their cameras rolling.

Trump and Vance’s antics presented the nation to the rest of the world in a distressingly negative light, clearly demonstrating our government is no longer a reliable and trusted ally to progressive democracies throughout the world. As if to underscore that fact, Trump ordered a pause in military aid to Ukraine Monday night.

But it’s worth a reminder of what actually happened in the Oval Office.

Zelenskyy, who was in Washington to sign a key U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement, expressed his gratitude to Trump on the “first step toward real security guarantees” for Ukraine. But Zelenskyy also insisting there should be “no compromises” with the “killer” and “terrorist” Putin. Shortly after, Trump replied that Zelenskyy ought to be more “grateful” and that his “hatred” for Putin made it “tough to make a deal.”

Portraying himself as an arbiter of peace, Trump incorrectly and dishonestly stated his position, which is essentially to hand over Ukraine’s bargaining chips preemptively at the negotiating table, give Putin whatever he wants, and take him at his word that he won’t reinvade.

Chronically incoherent and verbally disjointed, President Trump perennially rambled, ranted, and repeated himself so that Vice President JD Vance adroitly injected himself into the discussion, disingenuously claiming Putin invaded Ukraine because then-President Joe Biden was weak and “the path to peace and prosperity is diplomacy.”

Locked, loaded, and armed with facts to thoroughly discredit Vance’s MAGA rhetoric, Zelenskyy accurately stated Putin first invaded Ukraine in 2014, occupied Crimea, and encroached on Ukrainian territory ever since, including during Trump’s first tenure as president. He also reminded all those in attendance that Putin’s brutal 2022 invasion was itself a violation of a previous ceasefire — demonstrating further skepticism and cynicism to the assumption that world leaders can take Putin’s promises for “peace” seriously.

Apparently, such indisputable truth and facts were too much for Vance who launched into attack mode, berating Zelenskyy as “disrespectful” for trying to litigate the matter (i.e., telling the truth with concrete facts) in front of the American media. Vance further derided the Ukrainian president, informing him that he should be grateful to Trump and not attack the administration that was “trying to prevent the destruction of your country.”

As the argument continued, Zelenskyy warned both men that, even though the U.S. has an ocean between itself and Europe, the country would “feel” the consequences of capitulating to Russia “in the future.” From that moment on, all hell broke loose.

Trump accused Zelenskyy of “gambling with World War III” and attempted to humiliate him by stating, “you don’t have the cards.” Pretty arrogant for a man who dodged the draft supposedly due to bone spurs to lecture an individual whose name has become synonymous with wartime bravery.

Trump also told Zelenskyy that, “I’ve empowered you to be a tough guy and I don’t think you’d be a tough guy without the United States”. Trump abruptly ended the press conference, noting “this is going to be great television” as Vance confidently patted his boss on the arm. The Ukrainian ambassador, Oksana Markarova, hung her head in her hands.

Oh, by the way, did I mention that Brian Glenn, a member of the president’s newly handpicked press pool, member of the right-wing Real America’s Voice, and bombastic congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s current boyfriend, asked Zelenskyy, “Why don’t you wear a suit? Do you own a suit?”

It is clear Zelenskyy understands the enormity of the threat, not only to his nation but also to the European continent. However, when he attempted to explain the threat’s severity during his White House meeting, Trump and Vance, rather than respond with empathy and understanding, became combative and irate. Obviously shocked by what they had witnessed, numerous world leaders immediately notified the Ukrainian president they would rally in support of Zelenskyy and offered him their unwavering support.

Many have expressed skepticism over Trump and Vance’s supposed naiveté as it pertains to Russian-Ukrainian relations. Rather, these policy experts argue Trump and Vance purposely ambushed Zelenskyy to establish an even wider path of appeasement toward further solidifying a friendship with Vladmir Putin and to accumulate certain, vital natural resources from Ukraine for American consumption.

This sounds like an accurate yet sad assessment of the situation.

–

Copyright 2025 Elwood Watson, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.