By Sheila Suess Kennedy
October 23, 2026
During my 21 years on the Indiana University faculty, my consistent research focus was on civic education–or, more accurately, its woeful lack. After a few years of confronting students who were unable to identify America’s most foundational principles (and in some cases, unable to define the term “government”), I founded a Center for Civic Literacy where we researched the prevalence and effectiveness of civic education.
Lest you assume that I was over-reacting, allow me to share just one of the in-class moments that led me to drink.
I taught my classes through a constitutional lens. We studied the Bill of Rights and wrestled with questions about how those rights should be understood and applied today. I often introduced discussion of the First Amendment’s Free Speech provisions by asking students questions like “What did James Madison think about porn on the Internet?”
Obviously, the response I expected was something along the lines of “James Madison never imagined a communication mechanism like the Internet”–which would then lead to a (hopefully nuanced) discussion of how today’s courts should apply the values protected by that Amendment to a world the founders could never have imagined. So I was taken aback when a young woman–a junior in college–responded to that question with a puzzled question of her own: “Who’s James Madison?”
Given classroom experiences of that sort, you can understand why I consider America’s deficits in civic literacy a major issue. (I am also convinced that if more Americans had a better grasp of our history and governing philosophy, we would never have elected Donald Trump.) So when I hear about efforts to advance civic education, I am usually thrilled.
Not this time.
A reader from Muncie, Indiana, recently sent me a copy of a post she had shared to FaceBook. It was chilling.
She began by citing an article in her local press, touting a $2.7 million federal grant meant to help Ball State University expand civic education across Indiana. The university would create a statewide network to support the teaching of history, government, geography and constitutional literacy in schools.
As she wrote, “Sounds great, right? Because we need more civic education, yes?”
But no. It turns out that the effort is intended to support the Trump administration’s intended revisions to the way we teach our country’s history. The reader consulted AI, and received the following explanation. (Italics mine.)
The debate over the American History and Civics–National Activities (AHC-NA) program centers on competing philosophies regarding how the nation’s past and governance should be taught. The program itself is a long-standing federal grant mechanism, but the U.S. Department of Education has reshaped its criteria to align with the administration’s policy goals.
The two primary viewpoints on how this program shapes civic education are outlined below.
The Administration’s Perspective: “Patriotic Education”
Supporters and administration officials argue that the revised grant priorities restore balance and accurate instruction to American classrooms.
• Focus on Foundational Principles: The administration’s competitive preferences favor programs that emphasize “patriotic education,” focusing heavily on the original intent of the American founding, the U.S. Constitution, and the virtues of self-governance.
• Countering Ideological Shifts: Proponents argue this framework is necessary to push back against modern curriculum shifts—such as critical race theory or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) frameworks—which they contend present an overly negative or divisive view of American history.
• Local Control: By introducing priorities like “Returning Education to the States,” the administration asserts it is reducing federal overreach and allowing local communities to define their own civic standards.
Critics’ Perspective: Ideological Overreach
Conversely, professional historians, academic associations, and progressive educators argue that the administration’s parameters compromise comprehensive historical education.
• Omission of Complexities: Critics contend that prioritizing an “inspiring, unifying characterization” of the American founding pressures educators to downplay or omit difficult historical realities, such as slavery, systemic racism, and the displacement of Indigenous peoples.
• Politicization of Classrooms: Opponents argue that tying federal funding to specific ideological definitions of patriotism transforms history education into a political tool rather than an objective academic discipline.
• Defunding Alternative Approaches: Educators express concern that redirecting funds away from Biden-era initiatives—which focused heavily on underserved populations and multicultural history—harms students by limiting exposure to diverse perspectives.
When MAGA critics accuse educators of indoctrination, it’s usually just another example of projection. But evidently, one Indiana institution of higher education is willing to substitute a preferred ideology for intellectual honesty in exchange for funding….
Sheila Suess Kennedy is Emerita Professor of Law and Public Policy at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. As an attorney, she practiced real estate, administrative and business law in Indianapolis before becoming corporation counsel for the City of Indianapolis in 1977. In 1980, she was the Republican candidate for Indiana’s then 11th Congressional District and in 1992, she became executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. She joined the faculty of the School of Public and Environment al Affairs in 1998.
This column was originally published by Sheila Kennedy on her blog, “A Jaundiced Look at the World We Live In.” The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.
