
He's a Foe of D.E.I. in Schools but Not a Fan of Trump's Crusade
In 2008, Steven F. Wilson, who had been an adviser to the former Massachusetts governor, William Weld, on education policy, opened a charter school to educate children from low-income families, in central Brooklyn. Over the years that followed, his vision grew to a consortium of 15 schools, the Ascend Network, serving roughly 5,500 students, 84 percent of whom were living in poverty. They were reading Shakespeare in the middle grades, studying the Dutch masters, and outperforming city and statewide averages on standardized tests. Then in 2019, Mr. Wilson was canceled.
Schools and nonprofit organizations had seemed to convert overnight to the teachings of the authors Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo and their emphasis on antiracist education. In the wave of all this, Mr. Wilson had posted a long essay on the Ascend website titled 'The Promise of Intellectual Joy.' In it, he blamed both progressives and conservatives for the disappearance of intellectual rigor in the country's public school system. Rich academic study was under attack from the left 'as 'whiteness,'' at the risk of reducing intellectual expectations, he wrote.
Shortly after, a member of his staff circulated a petition calling out Mr. Wilson's thinking as an example of 'white supremacist rhetoric.' An exacting manager, a middle-aged Harvard graduate, the son of a Harvard professor and the brother of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Mr. Wilson provided an easy target for charges of academic elitism. His largely white board of trustees fired him.
Since he left Ascend, he co-founded the National Summer School Initiative, which has worked to help students recover from pandemic-era learning loss. And now he has written a book, 'The Lost Decade: Returning to the Fight for Better Schools in America.' In it he argues that antiracist education failed students in terms of achievement. At one school that implemented the programming, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding standards on the math section of the SAT plummeted from 41 percent in 2017 to 4 percent in 2024.
The book arrives just as the Trump administration is threatening to revoke funding from K to 12 schools unless administrators can verify that they have eliminated programs in diversity, equity and inclusion.
Our conversation — about the aftermath of his dismissal, shifting attitudes toward D.E.I. and the repercussions for public schools — has been condensed.
G.B.: You got caught up in an intense cultural moment. What was leaving Ascend like and how have you processed what happened?
S.W.: It was a moment of moral panic in America. I was arguing that the canon belonged to all. I was not claiming in any way that it was the province of white people.
To my mind, Ascend had been a clear success. I was baffled. Did I think that being canceled, as it were, meant that I wouldn't work again? I don't think so. But I had an enormous amount of anger, and it took me some time to work through. It was a searing experience. There was a deep conflict between the liberal arts commitment Ascend had made and the anti-intellectualism of the doctrine I was being asked to implement.
Can you say more about what you were being asked to do?
I think of the programming as a kind of secular religion, a progressive penitence. The real work of advancing equality is never mentioned. One exercise that consultants recommend is for students to visit a grocery store to observe who is 'enforcing white supremacy culture.'
The test of the decision is always, 'Will it advance student achievement?' The new criterion was, 'Is Choice A more antiracist than Choice B?'
Your book looks at charter school networks in New York, Boston and Chicago and their pivot to antiracist programming. At the Chicago network, the outcomes seemed especially dismal. Did these results surprise you?
I was struck by the magnitude of the fall. Schools and networks that stuck to their mission of academic excellence found that test results were stronger even through the pandemic. The internal pressures to make changes were terrific, but some leaders just said: 'Nope. We're here to educate.'
Why do you think this sort of antiracist programming failed?
Because children were bored. Indoctrination is boring.
Did you find a generational divide among teachers dealing with all these changes?
Yes. There becomes this tremendous gulf between newcomers and veterans. Charters are so interesting, because they have such high staff turnover. This made them more vulnerable to these ideological shifts, which provided a quicker visibility into the effects of these ideas.
Aside from the right wing effort to dismantle D.E.I., there seems to have been a cultural shift among people across political lines who have found it problematic.
There has been a recognition that 'wokeness' — a term I never use in the book — is receding. But while it may be receding in the popular debate, it is very much institutionalized in K-to-12 education.
What is your view of the federal government's current approach?
It counters illiberalism with more illiberalism. I think it must be fiercely resisted. They are attempting to hold up funds for poor students and disabled students to bully schools into their preferred teaching. Harvard can tap its endowment, potentially; school districts cannot.
Part of the problem is that D.E.I. can seem vague to the point of being meaningless now.
At the height of Black Lives Matter, schools adopted programming that they bought from consultants, off the rack. The content was all the same. But you can imagine forms of diversity, equity and inclusion that do not seek to accuse and divide.
The edict of the Trump administration puts all the various interpretations in the same basket. Is Black History Month D.E.I.? Is a Latino students' organization D.E.I.? Of course not. But state education agencies are legitimately anxious that if their districts engage in those teachings they might see their federal funds rescinded.
What is the path forward?
Universities are the centers of knowledge production. Schools are the means of knowledge dissemination. We need to take the kind education long afforded the privileged and provide it to all children.
Let them wrestle with the claims of Kendi; let them wrestle with the claims of MAGA. And let them sort it out.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Protect LIGO's science and local impact from Trump's budget cuts
The Trump administration wants to slash funding for America's two Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatories (LIGOs) as part of broader cuts to the National Science Foundation. That would be a devastating blow to the nation's global leadership in scientific research. When Congress writes its fiscal 2026 budget, it should ignore the president's anti-science request. One of the LIGO sites is on the Hanford nuclear site. The other is in Louisiana. The White House proposes cutting 40% of their funding – $48 million to $29 million. And it also dictates how that cut should be made. It wants one of the two sites shut down. Given that Washington is a blue state that is participating in multiple lawsuits against the Trump administration and Louisiana is a red state that voted for the president, the odds of LIGO Hanford surviving seem low. Either way, scientists' ability to explore the universe by detecting gravitational waves would suffer significantly. Shutting one site down would compromise scientists' ability to verify detections of cosmic events and weed out false readings originating from local disturbances. It also would prevent the two sites from triangulating where an event occurred in the sky, allowing telescopes that rely on light for observations to also find and research them. The two LIGOs work in tandem. In 2015, the Hanford observatory and its sibling in Louisiana detected gravitational waves for the first time when they measured the ripple in space-time caused by two black holes merging 1.4 billion light-years away. The findings provided fresh confirmation of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity and earned researchers a Nobel Prize in physics. Since then, LIGO has detected hundreds of events, including black holes merging and neutron stars colliding. The Hanford site continues to refine its tools and push science forward. An upgrade a couple of years ago installed quantum squeezing technology that allows scientists to detect 60% more events and probe a larger volume of space. If funded, the observatories will continue to help humanity answer profound questions about the universe. Projects like LIGO are expensive. The National Science Foundation has spent more than $1 billion on detecting gravitational waves over four decades. At the start, skeptics deemed it risky, but it has provided tremendous return on investment. It epitomizes the sort of Big Science research that few institutions other than governments can afford. Think Europe's Large Hadron Collider, the Manhattan Project and the international Human Genome Project. Undercutting LIGO as it reaches its full potential and produces its most impressive results just to save a few million dollars would be a colossal mistake. As one commenter on the Tri-City Herald's website put it, 'It would be like inventing the microscope, seeing a cell for the first time, and then discarding it.' The best is yet to come. Even if a future administration were to restore funding, rehiring skilled researchers would be a monumental hurdle. A temporary shutdown will delay scientific progress and result in America losing ground to international researchers. LIGO has a local impact, too, and not just that it is visible from outer space. Its presence helps the Tri-Cities and the Hanford nuclear site evolve their scientific narrative from Cold War-era nuclear development to 21st-century astrophysics. It is a symbol of progress, diversification and positive global contribution that is invaluable for regional identity and attracting future talent and investment. LIGO staff go the extra mile by working with local STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) students. They speak in classrooms about science careers and explain the complex workings of the observatory in a way that young people can understand. An $8 million LIGO Exploration Center, which opened in 2022 and was funded by Washington state, further enhances that public-facing mission. Such direct engagement cultivates future STEM talent and inspires the next generation of scientists and engineers. The proposed cuts to LIGO would lead to an irreversible loss of U.S. leadership in gravitational wave astronomy and an immense loss to the Tri-Cities. The Trump administration must reconsider. If it does not, Washington's congressional delegation must convince their colleagues to preserve this cornerstone of American scientific preeminence.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Harvard can't truly win its fight against Trump
Imagine a boxing match in which one fighter can block the blows of his opponent but isn't permitted to hit back. When struck by a low blow, the injured fighter may appeal, but the referee can only admonish the unscrupulous fighter to abide by the rules. He is not allowed to end the match by throwing in the towel — and his opponent is free to keep punching. This is the situation in which Harvard now finds itself. The Trump administration has accused Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism and implementing diversity, equity and inclusion policies that violate civil rights laws. On those tenuous grounds, the federal government has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight highly intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and tried to end its ability to enroll international students. If a private actor illegally crippled Harvard's ability to operate, the university could ask a court to order the defendant to desist, award the institution attorneys' fees and costs and mandate monetary compensation for the harms it suffered. But the federal government has sovereign immunity, largely protecting it from suits and monetary damages. Harvard has already sued the government twice. The first lawsuit, filed in April, accuses the Trump administration of withholding billions in federal funding 'as leverage to gain control of academic decision making' in flagrant violation of the First Amendment and the procedural safeguards of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The second lawsuit, filed in May, challenges the government's revocation of Harvard's right to enroll international students 'without process or cause, to immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and more than 7,000 visa holders,' as another 'blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.' In both suits, Harvard seeks injunctions vacating the government's orders and reimbursement of its legal fees and costs. Just hours after Harvard filed its second lawsuit, the judge issued a temporary restraining order barring implementation of the edict prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students. But neither lawsuit seeks — or can request — monetary compensation for the extraordinary harm Harvard is suffering at the government's hands. Harvard's research programs have been thrown into disarray, its reputation tarnished and, it argues, 'its ability to recruit and retain talent, secure future funding, and maintain its relationships with other institutions' significantly diminished. Harvard has been forced to allocate at least $250 million to salvage some of the research jeopardized by the government's funding freeze. The school has already spent huge amounts of time, energy and money responding to the government's many investigations and sweeping demands for information. And the fight is only in its early rounds. Although the Constitution does not explicitly address sovereign immunity, courts have held from the earliest days of the republic that the government cannot be sued without its consent. This principle is drawn from English common law, which assumed that 'the King can do no wrong.' As legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky has observed, the effect of sovereign immunity is 'to ensure that some individuals who have suffered egregious harms will be unable to receive redress for their injuries.' Congress can waive the government's immunity from suit through laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act, which underpins most of Harvard's claims against the government. But while that law allows courts to declare certain government actions illegal and issue injunctive relief, it does not permit the award of monetary damages. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows plaintiffs to seek damages for certain negligent or wrongful acts by government officials, such as a car crash or sexual assault. But its waiver doesn't extend to acts involving the performance of 'a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.' The law is thus rendered useless to parties injured by government edicts or policies, however damaging or illegal. As the Supreme Court has noted, protecting the government from monetary damages for policy judgments 'prevents judicial 'second-guessing' of legislative and administrative decisions.' Sovereign immunity also reduces the risk that liability concerns will prevent government officials from taking sound but potentially costly actions. But monetary damages serve two important legal functions: they help compensate victims for their injuries, and, by leveling the playing field, they deter government officials from committing wrongful acts. Without the ability to obtain monetary compensation, Harvard can deflect some of the government's attacks through court orders, but it cannot be made whole for the harm done to its finances, its reputation and members of the campus community. Worse still, there is nothing to deter the government from continuing its assault. And some actions will be difficult to challenge in court, such as the government's threat to exclude Harvard from future research grants, and its recent decision to pause all international student visa interviews, an action that will harm hundreds of colleges and universities, including Harvard. And under legislation working its way through Congress, the school may end up paying roughly $850 million annually in endowment excise taxes. As much as some critics of Harvard may revel in watching America's oldest, richest and most influential university humbled, the country benefits enormously from an institution that has trained eight American presidents, produced 161 Nobel laureates and made countless life-changing discoveries in medicine, science and technology, earning 155 patents last year alone. Harvard's experience demonstrates how much the rule of law depends on those in power exercising that power with restraint and in the public interest. Harvard cannot win this fight. It is rigged. But that doesn't mean the university should not stay in the ring, litigate, mobilize its alumni, donors and friends, and enlist the support of other colleges and universities, hoping to remain standing long enough for a new Congress and administration to stop the carnage. And, to that end, to make sure voters understand that when government officials are hell bent on punishing their political enemies (real and imagined) regardless of how large the collateral damage, just about every American loses. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wall Street Journal slams Vance's foreign student stance as ‘false choice'
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board on Friday slammed recent comments by Vice President Vance on foreign students as a 'false choice' amid tensions between the Trump administration and higher education institutions. In an interview on Newsmax's 'Greg Kelly Reports' late last month, Vance said that an 'idea that American citizens don't have the talent to do great things, that you have to import a foreign class of servants and professors to do these things, I just reject that.' The Journal noted Vance's comments in a Friday opinion piece, alongside other comments in which he said 'we invest in our own people' and that he believes 'that's actually an opportunity for American citizens to really flourish' when it comes to international student visa restrictions. 'This is a classic false choice. Of course the U.S. has talent and should invest in it. But welcoming foreign students doesn't hinder Americans,' the editorial board said in their piece. 'The cold, hard numbers show that too few Americans are pursuing STEM fields to meet the future needs of business and government. Of all U.S. bachelor's degrees, biology and engineering fields make up about 13%,' they added. Earlier this week, limits were placed on foreign student visas at Harvard University by President Trump. 'Admission into the United States to attend, conduct research, or teach at our Nation's institutions of higher education is a privilege granted by our Government, not a guarantee,' Trump said in a Wednesday proclamation restricting the visas. In recent months, the Trump administration has targeted multiple higher education institutions over alleged inaction on campus antisemitism and policies around transgender athletes. 'Does the Trump Administration want to stop illegal immigration, or nearly all legal immigration, including foreign students? The evidence is growing that it wants the latter, which will sharply reduce the human capital the U.S. needs to prosper,' the Journal editorial board wrote. The Hill has reached out to Vance's office for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.