After Kirk murder, op-ed argues education unions fuel incendiary rhetoric and risk further polarization

The Sept. 10 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has prompted a renewed reckoning over the rhetoric that underpins U.S. political debates, according to a New York Post opinion piece. The author argues that within days of the tragedy, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, pushed a new book and a broader framing that the piece contends equates political opponents with historical evils, a move the author says mirrors the intensity that preceded and followed Kirk’s killing.

The essay describes Weingarten’s book, Why Fascists Fear Teachers, as starting with language that invokes Adolf Hitler and as portraying conservatives, including former President Donald Trump, as fascists. The author frames this as part of a broader pattern in which teachers’ unions employ extreme rhetoric to cast right-leaning figures as existential threats to public education. The piece notes that a section of the discussion ties public education to battles over political power, labeling opponents and opponents’ policies in stark terms.

The opinion identifies Todd Wolfson, a vice president of the AFT and president of the American Association of University Professors, as another example of heated rhetoric within the labor world. It cites his social-media posts arguing that Trump is an adversary and comparing presidential adviser Stephen Miller to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. The author asserts that such commentary, even when not tied to a specific act of violence, has helped normalize a divisive narrative that teachers and university staff are under constant threat from right-wing extremism.

The piece contends that the climate inside teachers’ unions extends beyond social media. It notes that hundreds of educators publicly celebrated Kirk’s death online, prompting backlash from parents and others who argued that celebratory postings crossed lines of civility. According to the author, union officials responded by portraying the backlash as baseless online smear campaigns, while some chapters and affiliates pledged to defend teachers targeted for celebratory remarks.

In one example cited by the op-ed, the Texas affiliate of the AFT wrote to its members that it would vigorously defend educators targeted for praising or supporting Kirk’s death, and a statement from Weingarten’s office defended the right to free speech by individual teachers. The author emphasizes a distinction, arguing that while individuals may have a right to express themselves, taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize educators who use their positions to promote political agitation in class settings.

The piece also highlights formal organizational positions that critics see as evidence of a broader strategy. It references a recent AFT resolution aimed at protecting public education from right-wing extremism and notes that it includes language about addressing what it describes as white-supremacist influence. It also points to a 2023 AFT annual convention moment in which Weingarten showed images of perceived adversaries on a large screen during her keynote, framing those figures as existential threats to education.

As a counterpoint to the attack on conservative figures, the opinion notes that the National Education Association, the other major teachers’ union, also took up hard-line language at its recent convention in Portland, Oregon, including a resolution that characterized Donald Trump as a fascist, albeit with a misspelling of the term in the document. The piece argues that such rhetoric persists even after high-profile political violence and assassination attempts, implying a continuing cycle of heated invective that could further polarize the country.

The article notes that some public figures, including former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, publicly supported Weingarten’s book launch, suggesting that the rhetoric has appeal beyond a single political faction and is influencing broader political discourse about education policy and parental rights.

On the policy side, the op-ed argues against the continued use of union-backed messaging that it says casts opponents as existential threats. It advocates for accountability for educators who engage in inflammatory or partisan conduct in a classroom or school setting and calls for exploring alternatives to traditional union structures to counterbalance what it views as heavy, left-leaning influence on education policy.

Turning to student responses, the piece describes a rising counter-movement led by Turning Point USA. It cites Andrew Kolvet, a TPUSA spokesperson, who said the organization has seen substantial growth in student interest, with inquiries reaching into the hundreds of thousands and a belief that chapters could eventually be established at many high schools and colleges nationwide. The author frames this as part of a broader push by students to challenge perceived left-leaning trends in education and to promote more parental engagement and school choice.

The op-ed closes with a call for teachers who disagree with such rhetoric to consider opting out of unions and seeking nonunion avenues for professional advocacy, citing the Teacher Freedom Alliance as one example. It argues that reducing financial support for union leadership would help curb the spread of political messaging in schools and encourage a more balanced approach to education funding and governance.

Overall, the author maintains that the Kirk tragedy should prompt reflection and a renewed commitment to sober, fact-based political discourse in schools and on campuses. It suggests that the current trajectory—if left unchecked—could deepen social fracture and fuel further acts of violence, a risk that the piece says demands both accountability and reform in how educators engage with politics inside and outside the classroom.