The surge of political violence sweeping across America is rattling the nation, prompting urgent questions about why it is intensifying now. A close examination of K–12 education points to a troubling influence—suggesting why so many, especially young people, are turning to violence. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s tragic assassination, Americans united in grief and gathered in prayer. Yet even in this moment of mourning, a significant number of people showed a chilling lack of compassion—dehumanizing Charlie, calling for more violence, and grotesquely attempting to justify his murder. These perspectives are deeply concerning, and understanding how they take root is the essential first step toward confronting the destructive forces permeating throughout the country.
Research into why so many people adopt such troubling perspectives starts with examining the sources of their knowledge. It should be well recognized that K–12 teachers spend extensive time with students who are constantly absorbing new information from them throughout each school day. Every lesson they teach is designed to guide students in building knowledge and shaping thoughtful perspectives across diverse topics. Although most educators describe themselves as “unbiased,” these claims overlook the reality that bias begins the instant a teacher chooses which texts and activities will shape a lesson. (It is important to also note here that while a teacher’s greatest influence may come through the lessons they design with great purpose, it should be recognized that the informal, casual conversations that emerge from the lessons, or those that come before or after it, can be just as impactful.)
One concerning trend highlighted by research is the growing acceptance of violence as a means of protest among youth. While Martin Luther King Jr.’s philosophy of nonviolence is still often praised, his role as the leading model of protest is gradually being replaced—a shift anticipated by Howard Zinn. Instead of idolizing Martin Luther King Jr., K-12 educators have taken a particular liking to Malcolm X and his strategy of what some call “any means necessary,” or others call “self-defense,” or what most would call “violence.”
In an article from 2020, The Locke Society pointed out that in Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, Zinn expresses high esteem for Malcolm X. He states, “Martin Luther King, though still respected, was being replaced now by new heroes: Huey Newton of the Black Panthers, for instance.” Zinn continues with several quotes from Malcolm X, including one in which he accuses King of being weak. Zinn writes, “Speaking in Detroit two months after the March on Washington and the Birmingham bombing, Malcolm X said, in his powerful, icy-clear, rhythmic style: ‘…This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it…became part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. It ceased to be angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all…’”
Notably, Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States was originally published in 1980.
Contemporary research reveals a growing mindset in academia that accepts, and sometimes even glorifies, violence while dismissing advocates of nonviolent protest. Even more troubling, according to reflections from teachers, students who were taught using these lessons appear more willing to embrace violence as a solution than the very thinkers who first inspired such movements decades ago.
To grasp the context in which students are building knowledge and developing their viewpoints, it is essential to read and examine the Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program. A straightforward analysis reveals that many of these points remain relevant today, whether actively lived out or still aspired to as goals.
Lessons in Violence Disguised as Education
Source: The Zinn Education Project
Lesson: ‘What We Don’t Learn About the Black Panther Party — but Should’
The lesson’s authors, Adam Sanchez and Jesse Hagopian, introduce the lesson by critiquing how traditional textbooks portray the Black Panther Party. They argue that most accounts ignore the Panthers’ roots in opposing both racism and capitalism. To illustrate this, they cite co-founder Huey Newton, who declared: “We realize that this country became very rich upon slavery and that slavery is capitalism in the extreme. We have two evils to fight, capitalism and racism. We must destroy both.”
Notably, Sanchez and Hagopian also write in the lead up to the lesson: “Often students can glorify the Black Panther Party, especially students of color who are regularly harassed by police and are justifiably impressed with the Panthers’ bold defiance against what they called ‘the pig power structure.’”
To engage students more deeply, the lesson uses role-play rather than a traditional lecture. Each student assumes the role of a figure connected to the Black Panthers, studies a short description of that person, and then “becomes” them during the class activity—an approach designed to leave a lasting impression beyond passive reading or discussion.
The students’ reflections that followed the lesson revealed admiration for the Panthers’ defiance.
One student who was apparently impressed with his role being Bobby Seale, a co-founder of the Black Panther Party, and declared, “My character’s a badass!”
Reflecting on the decisions made by members of the Black Panthers, one student said that Luke Tripp, who thought the “confrontations with police would just get the Panthers thrown in jail and that they should focus on organizing strikes,” did not have the best approach. Instead, the student said, “I actually think confrontations with police were important because it showed people the Panthers weren’t scared.”
Another student reflected on his character role play activity stating, “‘[California State Assemblyman] Donna Mulford said that he wanted to protect society from Black people with guns. But I feel like society needs to be protected from white people with guns.”
In the same lesson outline, a suggested resource for students to use is Ursula Wolfe-Rocca’s lesson on COINTELPRO which the authors write “can be starting points for educators who hope to arm a new generation with the story of the Panthers.”
Sanchez teaches at Harvest Collegiate High School in New York City where he also works as a curriculum writer and “organizer with the Zinn Education Project.”
Source: Zinn Education Project
Lesson: ‘What We Want, What We Believe’: Teaching with the Black Panthers’ Ten Point Program
In this lesson, Wayne Au suggests that students use the Black Panther Party’s Ten Point Program and apply it to “today’s problems.” In doing so, one student applied it to the LGBTQ community (written as GLBTQ in the article), and another created a Ten Point Program that “challenges capitalism.”
In the Ten Point Program applied to challenging capitalism, the student penned points including, but not limited to, “We want the mask of capitalism lifted and economic classes disbanded;” “We want an end to the health insurance system in America;” “We want fair treatment of all criminals. Rich money launderers and tax fraud offenders should receive the same punishment as armed robbers and drug dealers;” and “We demand an end to the growing separation of the economic classes of America. The enslavement of the middle and lower classes by the bourgeoisie must be put to a stop.”
Au writes that he found the program challenging capitalism “notable for its relentless attack on corporate America.”
Source: Zinn Education Project
Lesson: ‘Unsung Heroes: Encouraging Students to Appreciate Those Who Fought for Social Justice’
In this lesson, students are taught that America’s heroes are not “the 55 rich white men who drafted the Constitution” or Andrew Jackson, “the slaver owner, the killer of Indians,” or Abraham Lincoln who was “pushed” into “finally issuing a halfhearted Emancipation Proclamation,” or Theodore Roosevelt who Zinn suggests should be remembered for “his racism, his militarism, [and] his love of war.” Woodrow Wilson was also slammed as one who “insisted on racial segregation in federal buildings” and who “brought our country into the hell of World War I, and put antiwar protestors in prison.” Even John F. Kennedy “a Cold Warrior” was slammed for “[beginning] the covert war in Indochina, went along with the planned invasion of Cuba, and was slow to act against racial segregation in the South.”
In Bill Bigelow’s forward for the lesson, he writes “Schools help teach students who ‘we’ are. And as Howard Zinn points out in his essay ‘Unsung Heroes,’ too often the curricular ‘we’ are the great slaveholders, plunderers, imperialists, and captains of industry of yesteryear.”
Instead of America’s Founding Fathers and presidents, Zinn suggests that young Americans should idolize Emma Goldman, who in her autobiography made significant comments on the assassination of William McKinley, suggesting that it was for “the good of the people.” Leon Frank Czolgosz, was an American wireworker and anarchist who assassinated United States president William McKinley on September 6, 1901.
“Even some of the reporters did not seem to be losing sleep over the case,” Goldman wrote. “One of them was quite amazed when I assured him that in my professional capacity I would take care of McKinley if I were called upon to nurse him, though my sympathies were with Czolgosz.”
“‘You’re a puzzle, Emma Goldman,’ he said, ‘I can’t understand you. You sympathize with Czolgosz, yet you would nurse the man he tried to kill.’”
“’As a reporter you aren’t expected to understand human complexities,’ I informed him. ‘Now listen and see if you can get it. The boy in Buffalo is a creature at bay. Millions of people are ready to spring on him and tear him limb from limb. He committed the act for no personal reasons or gain. He did it for what is his ideal: the good of the people. That is why my sympathies are with him. On the other hand,’ I continued, ‘William McKinley, suffering and probably near death, is merely a human being to me now. That is why I would nurse him.’”
Zinn also recommends that youth idolize people like Malcolm X, César Chávez, or Elizabeth Gurley Flynn who was the first woman to lead the U.S. Communist Party. He recommends students idolize Henry David Thoreau who reportedly suggested that it is “moral to break laws for a higher good,” and Nat Turner whose ‘character’ is quoted in the lesson saying, “It’s true I used violence, but wasn’t violence necessary to end the most violent system the world had ever known, slavery?”
– – –
Although examining history with a critical eye is essential, a lesson that tears down America’s leaders while mostly glorifying extremists endangers civic education, weakens faith in our republican tradition, and fosters hostility toward the nation’s core principles.
Source: The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Lesson: Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther Jr.: How to Respond to Violence
In the “unit overview,” author Tim Bailey suggests that students should “compare and contrast Malcolm X’s and [Dr. Martin Luther] King Jr.’s suggestions for how civil rights advocates should respond to violence directed against them.” He recommends the question: “Should they engage non-violently so as to clarify the brutality of police or mob oppression for a potentially sympathetic audience? Or should they exercise their constitutionally protected right to self-defense?”
The phrasing of these questions implies that the latter option is preferred, particularly through the use of terms like “constitutionally protected right” and “self-defense,” and the latter option represents Malcolm X.
Although the “essential questions” provide suitable guidance for the topic, the “historical background” section contains a noticeable bias that uncritical readers might easily overlook.
For example, the use of the term “white terrorists” and the emphasis on Malcolm X over Martin Luther King Jr. is highly suggestive. Additionally suggestive is the concluding remark, that while Malcolm X’s and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s approaches were different, “they shared a commitment to ending white supremacy and violence, economic disparities, and systemic racism and realizing racial equity and justice.”
The text used for Malcolm is ‘The Ballot or the Bullet’ which includes the line: “[W]hen you drop that violence on me, then you’ve made me go insane, and I’m not responsible for what I do.”
Another line included in the excerpts for the lesson is: “Southern crackers, sit there in Washington, D.C., and come to a conclusion in their mind that you and I are supposed to have civil rights. There’s no white man going to tell me anything about my rights.”
While primary sources in their full context offer an unmatched depth and authenticity to lessons, it’s important to ensure that sensitive material is age-appropriate. This lesson, including these text excerpts, is recommended for students beginning as early as seventh grade.
Framing an evaluation of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. as “self-defense” versus “non-violence” is deeply misleading, since the opposite of non-violence is violence. Labeling violence as nothing more than “self-defense” distorts the moral and historical realities of the differing philosophies of these two figures.
— — —
America’s current wave of political violence reveals deeper issues, with K-12 education playing a pivotal role in shaping the attitudes that fuel such turmoil. When lessons and classroom activities emphasize confrontation and glorify violent resistance, especially through historical reinterpretation or selective hero-worship, they contribute directly to the erosion of nonviolent ideals and the weakening of national unity. The increasing tendency among educators and curriculum writers to favor figures and philosophies that legitimize violence as “self-defense” or celebrate outrage over reason undermines both civic education and respect for republican traditions.
To address the roots of this crisis, it is crucial for teachers to reaffirm approaches that critically examine history while reinforcing constructive, civil engagement and empathy for all. Cultivating meaningful, honest dialogue and prioritizing nonviolent solutions must once again become central pillars of K–12 education, lest the next generation lose sight of the principles on which a peaceful and just society depends.
