Politics, Patriotism, and Prayer

Politics can be a religion, but religion should never be in politics.

The Trump administration has made religion, and more specifically Christianity, a central element of its politics. As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, which announced to the world that this nation and its people were no longer subjects of England but a new, independent nation, this religious emphasis has only escalated.

The term “Judeo-Christian” is a term that has entered the American lexicon over the last seventy-five years, with many claiming it is a foundational block in the creation and establishment of the United States. The Trump Administration, as we approach the 250th birthday of the nation, has amplified this notion. At a recent press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “Our nation was a nation that was founded, 250 years ago almost, on Judeo-Christian values.” However, this often repeated claim that the United States was founded on “Judeo-Christian values” is not a historically accurate description of our nation’s founding.

The Founding Fathers were not a unified religious bloc, nor were they attempting to establish a Christian nation. Having just come from a “Christian nation” themselves, which was controlled by the Protestant Church or England at the time, and had a history of bloody wars and violent opposition between various sects of Christianity, they were insistent on creating a new and different kind of nation.

Many key figures, such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin, were heavily influenced by Enlightenment philosophy, which was a radical departure from and reaction to the Christian religious zealotry that had dominated and controlled European life and heavily influenced its politics for centuries. The Enlightenment Movement emphasized reason, individual liberty, scientific inquiry, and skepticism of religious authority. To be sure, some of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, while most identified as Christians in a cultural sense, but many held Deist beliefs, rejecting core doctrines like the divinity of Jesus.

For example, Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, essentially re-wrote the Bible. The Jefferson Bible completely omits not only the Old Testament, but all the miracles, supernatural elements, and even the resurrection of Jesus. 

Also, a number of key founders, most notably Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and to some extent, George Washington, were influenced by Deist ideas. Deism isn’t atheism, but it’s also not orthodox Christianity. It generally holds that a Creator exists and that Creator established natural laws, but does not intervene in the world through miracles or revelation in the traditional sense. That worldview matters a lot when you look at the founding language. Most importantly, the founding documents themselves are explicitly secular in structure and intent.

The U.S. Constitution contains no reference to God or Christianity. Its only mention of religion is in Article VI, which prohibits religious tests for public office, a radical departure from European norms at the time and reflective of the influences of the Enlightenment Movement.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly prevents the establishment of religion by Congress and protects the free exercise of all beliefs. This was not about promoting religion, but about preventing government control over it and from it. Indeed many of the colonies were founded as a refuge from religious persecution and intolerance against them from a government. Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded by Puritans escaping religious persecution in England. Rhode Island was founded by Puritan dissenters who were ironically being persecuted for their lack of adherence to Puritan beliefs in Massachusetts. Maryland was established as a refuge for Catholics who were mistrusted and disliked by the English crown. Pennsylvania was founded as a haven for Quakers, who were intensely disliked by England. Other than Massachusetts, which established a theocracy, all of these colonies founded as an escape from religious persecution, decreed religious freedom in their colonies.

In the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, which was a treaty between the United States and the Barbary Coast pirates from North Africa, it explicitly states, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This statement was to show that the United States did not harbor any religious hostility towards the Muslim North African nations. This treaty was unanimously passed by the United States Senate and signed by President John Adams.

Even in the Declaration of Independence, which has language like “endowed by their Creator,” is also due to enlightenment influence, rather than explicitly Christian. In this framework, invoking a “Creator” represents  a Deist philosophy rather than a Christian one. It grounded human rights in something universal and permanent, rather than in a king or a specific religious authority. This was crucial in justifying independence, because if rights come from the “Creator”, then no government can legitimately revoke them.

The Declaration uses several different terms like, “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” “Supreme Judge,” and “Divine Providence.” None of which are explicitly Christian. There is no mention of Jesus Christ, no reference to the Bible, and no appeal to specifically Christian doctrine. The language in the Declaration of Independence was intentionally broad enough to include all beliefs, rather than only Christianity. 

Even our current understanding and practice of Christianity would have been foreign to the Founding Fathers. During the eighteenth century and throughout most of the nineteenth century, the central figure in Christianity was God, not Jesus. And until the Second Great Awakening in the late 1700s and early 1800s, openly and publicly discussing religion was very uncommon and was done in private among other believers. Indeed, even the phrase “Judeo-Christian values” itself would have been unfamiliar to the Founders. It did not enter the American lexicon until the mid-20th century, largely as a way to promote unity during the Cold War. Therefore, projecting it backward onto the 18th century is historically inaccurate.

The phrase actually originated in the 1930s and 1940s. During this period, the United States was confronting two major forces. The rise of fascism in Europe and, later, the ideological struggle of the Cold War. In both contexts, American leaders and thinkers sought a unifying moral identity that contrasted with their adversaries.

As Nazi ideology spread in Europe, with its explicit antisemitism, American religious and political leaders began emphasizing common ground between Christians and Jews. The term “Judeo-Christian” was promoted to foster solidarity and to push back against the idea that Jews were outsiders to Western civilization. It was, in part, a moral and cultural response to the horrors of the Holocaust.

After World War II, the United States positioned itself against the officially atheistic Soviet Union. Politicians and institutions emphasized religion as a defining feature of American life. It was during this era that “Under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance  in 1954 and “In God We Trust” became the national motto in 1956. Two things that many also believe originated at our founding.

The phrase “Judeo-Christian values” created a broad, inclusive religious identity that could unify Protestants, Catholics, and Jews under a single cultural banner. Such distinction was important because the U.S. has had long standing tensions between Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish communities. So “Judeo-Christian” functioned as a kind of compromise language, one that smoothed over theological differences and presented a common ethical tradition (even if that tradition was selectively defined). It was less about theology and more about social cohesion in a time of division.

By the late 20th century, the phrase began to take on a more explicitly political and partisan role. It was increasingly used to argue that certain moral or legal positions on family, law, or public life were rooted in this shared heritage. The phrase “Judeo-Christian values” is not a founding era concept. It’s a 20th-century construct shaped by war, prejudice, and the need for national unity. It was originally meant to expand inclusion, but has often been repurposed in modern politics to suggest a singular religious foundation for the United States. 

None of this is to deny that religion, including Christianity, played a major role in American culture or in the personal lives of many early Americans. It did. As noted earlier, Christianity played a significant role in the founding of many of the early colonies. Christianity played a significant role in the philosophy of Manifest Destiny. Virtually every President of the United States over the course of the last one hundred years has made “God Bless the United States” the closing line of many if not most of their speeches. But cultural influence is not the same as constitutional foundation. The United States was designed to be a pluralistic society where people of all faiths or no faith could participate equally under the law.

So, when political leaders claim the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, they are not expressing an historical truth, they are advancing a vision of government that risks excluding those who do not share that identity. It reframes a secular constitutional system into a religious one, which runs counter to both the text of the founding documents and the intentions of many of their authors. This is why it is especially important for Christians in the United States to be informed and vocal about this issue.

Christian nationalism is on the rise, but very often it conflicts with both democratic principles and the core teachings many Christians hold, such as humility, truthfulness, and care for others. Some of the people in the highest positions of power in our country are platforming ideas and policies that directly erode the rights of women, neglect the poor, deprive the hungry, mistreat the immigrant, target the other, disregard our planet, and pray for God to kill their enemies, all while claiming to be Christian. If unchallenged, especially by Christians and their church, it allows a specific political ideology to define what Christianity means in the public square.

Christians who value both their faith and the Constitution are uniquely positioned to speak with credibility here. By insisting on historical accuracy and rejecting the misuse of our religion for political power, we can help preserve both religious freedom and the integrity of our own tradition.

Moreover, there are more than 200 distinct Christian traditions in the United States alone, all with our own unique theologies, interpretations of scripture, and how we believe the gospel should be lived out. To have a single Christian sect, especially one that doesn’t believe that Catholics, Methodists, and many other Christians are “true” Christians, threatens the intentions of our founding documents and the intent of the Founding Fathers. It threatens our belief in religious liberties. And it threatens the very foundations of not only Christianity itself, but the foundations of virtually every other religion in the United States.

If one Christian sect claims sole authority over religious truth and the exclusive right to define American values, then the founding principle that people are " endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is nullified.

Ties That Bind and Words That Wound: Free Speech, Hate Speech, and No Speech

 

The Problem of Free Speech

The challenge for any society that allows free speech is that free speech can itself become a problem. It often leads to contempt and division. Few topics inflame the passions of indignation and hostility faster than religion and politics. Throughout history, anger and frustration have often boiled over into violence rooted in animosity toward others' deeply held religious or political beliefs.

This hostility has existed in American history since its inception—from the Puritans’ extreme prejudice against dissenters to the horrific events of this past week with the assassination of right-wing firebrand Charlie Kirk. In moments of crisis, Americans have often turned to national leaders, hoping their guidance would calm the rhetoric and reduce the threat of further violence.

Ghosts of American Political Violence

After the 1800 election between President John Adams and his former friend and Vice President Thomas Jefferson, fears of political violence ran high. America, not yet 25 years old, had already split into two political factions—Federalists (Adams) and Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson)—despite George Washington's warnings against partisanship.

The campaign was brutal. Adams’s camp accused Jefferson of being an atheist and a “slave lover.” While Jefferson was likely neither a devout Christian nor an atheist, he did father children with Sally Hemmings, an enslaved woman. Jefferson’s supporters retaliated by claiming Adams was a hermaphrodite who provided underage prostitutes to Russian diplomats—completely false accusations.

Despite fears, the Federalists peacefully transferred power after Jefferson's victory—the first such transfer between opposing political factions. The world had rarely seen such a transition without bloodshed.

Jefferson, keenly aware of the national tension, addressed it in his inaugural speech:

“We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists... error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

Jefferson not only acknowledged the political discord but also reminded Americans that political labels should never supersede our shared identity. We are a nation of laws, not of passions. We must be able to disagree—often vehemently—without turning to violence.

That held true until the political powder keg of slavery exploded.

The Civil War and Its Aftermath

After Abraham Lincoln’s election, fears of political violence again surged. Concerned about assassination plots, Lincoln was smuggled into Washington, D.C. for his inauguration, under cover of night. Soon after he took office, the Civil War erupted—America’s deadliest conflict, laying waste over 620,000 lives.

Upon his re-election, as the war neared its end, many in the North wanted to punish the South. But Lincoln viewed the South not as enemies, but as wayward family:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all... let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds..."

Lincoln's vision was one of reconciliation, not retribution. Of course he would pay with his life for that belief, becoming another victim of political violence.

All Politics (and Political Violence) Is Personal

Today, political hostility is the highest it has been since the 1960s. Social media has made it easy to dehumanize those with whom we disagree. It has become increasingly difficult to see fellow Americans simply as people with differing views and alarmingly easy to view them as enemies.

I’ve personally been the target of political threats—largely due to my role in the teachers' union and my willingness to engage in political discourse.

Between 2013 and 2015, I was a vocal critic of the newly elected conservative Republican majority on the Jefferson County School Board. Though I was then a registered Republican myself, I didn’t share their ideology. I aligned more with Eisenhower, Goldwater, and Reagan—not the brand of conservatism that would later evolve into Trumpism.

I spoke out publicly and on social media—never threatening, just critical. But that was enough. A supporter of the board began targeting me online. I was called “un-American,” a “Communist,” “fascist scum”—sometimes all in the same post, which I found somewhat humorous that I could somehow simultaneously be called a Fascist Communist. He eventually crossed the line, posting that my wife and I should have our children taken away, be arrested, and publicly executed for our “anti-American” views in front of our children.

That post triggered a police report. Officers visited him, but nothing more came of it.

There have been other instances when I was harassed or threatened for expressing my views:

• In 2018, after I was featured on the front page of the Denver Post in a story about school shootings, I received handwritten threats implying I’d be the first target during a school shooting.

• That same year, I appeared on a CNN panel of former Republicans criticizing Donald Trump. Within hours, I received hateful messages and veiled threats from people who had never met me because I had the audacity to criticize Donald Trump.

These incidents were unnerving and disheartening. That simply expressing a belief could provoke threats of violence is deeply troubling. And while those incidents didn't escalate into physical harm, the climate has worsened dramatically since then.

The New Reality of Political Violence

Today, we see actions—not just words.

• In 2020, a plot to kidnap Michigan’s Democratic governor was foiled.

• In 2022, Nancy Pelosi’s husband was bludgeoned in their home by a man seeking to kidnap and interrogate her.

• In June of this year, a Democratic Minnesota lawmaker and her husband were murdered; the suspect had a hit list of 70 judges, activists, and lawmakers.

• And last week, Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a campus event in Utah.

I disagreed with Charlie Kirk on many issues. I found his rhetoric distasteful. But I never wished him harm—and I was appalled by those who cheered his death. Celebrating someone’s murder because of what they may say or believe is grotesque and inhuman.

The Fragile State of Civility

Civility, decency, and respect are in grave condition. Far too many Americans are repulsed by opposing viewpoints. Many retreat into ideological echo chambers, unwilling to engage, to listen, or to learn.

We cannot protest “cancel culture” while seeking to silence others.

We cannot defend free speech while working to restrict it.

We cannot call for unity while name-calling and hurling insults.

Both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, share blame. We are all complicit in the erosion of civility when we fail to treat or see each other as fellow Americans citizens.

We must step back from the precipice were are currently toeing. We must take a breath, look around, and see one another not as enemies—but as fellow citizens. No one deserves to be harassed, threatened, or killed for what they believe or say.

If we’re to preserve our democracy and social fabric, we must rebuild the capacity for respectful disagreement and principled discussion.

Because no idea, belief, or opinion is worth more than a human life.

 

Prelude To A Requiem

A Brief History of JeffCo’s Bad Board and Why It Could Happen Again

In 2013, three seats were up for election for  the school board for Jefferson County Schools. School board elections had always been fairly uneventful, sleepy affairs. I don’t ever remember school board elections being all that eventful or interesting- either as a student in JeffCo during the 1980s or when I was hired as a teacher in JeffCo in 1998. Certainly there were preferred candidates but even if your candidate did not win a seat on the school board, there was not a lot of concern that policies or the direction of the district would radically change, so not a lot of energy or attention was paid to school board elections. 

Then came the 2013 election. It was a perfect storm of ballot initiatives, a struggling economy, and three candidates who were not in any way mainstream or conventional. Ken Witt, John Newkirk, and Julie Williams ran as a slate for the school board. They were bold, boisterous, and had a lot to say while never really saying anything. They claimed that JeffCo had for years been failing the students of the county, they promised to be good stewards of the JeffCo budget which they said was woefully mismanaged and designed to obfuscate where and how money was spent. I was then, as I am now, very involved in JCEA and the district and I remember we were all concerned about the prospect of these three obstreperous firebrands being elected and taking control of the school board. But, while we were worried, I don’t think any of us were that worried. Certainly they were too controversial and too radical, and just too much to truly be elected…. And then, they were.

This fall, those same three seats are up for election; representing the majority of the school board. And again, we stand at a crossroads for Jefferson County Schools, with two very different paths for the future of JeffCo Schools. And again, it is not unfathomable that similar candidates again take control of the school board. And again, I fear if this happens, the tumultuousness, the rancor, and the tempestuousness of the past will return.

Over half of the educators currently in JeffCo were not here during the so-called Bad Board years (2013-2015). This is a very brief- although it may not seem like it at first glance, but I assure you it is- history of that time in hopes that if you were  not here at that time why it is imperative that we cannot allow it to happen again. And if you were here during that time, I hope this serves as a reminder that we must never go back.

 The Perfect Storm 

In the Fall of 2013, the economy was slowly staggering, attempting to recover from the bruising, devastating economic downturn now known as the “Great Recession”. While things were not great economically, they were improving- albeit, very gradually. For whatever reason, a group of well-meaning education advocates placed Amendment 66 on the Colorado ballot. Amendment 66 asked voters to increase schools funding by $1 Billion by increasing income taxes in Colorado. Voters in general are very resistant to increasing their taxes, but are especially so during an economic downturn. The measure failed miserably.

To add to the growing discontinent, JeffCo had begun rolling out a new data collection program it was calling “Dashboard” which many parents feared would jeopardize their students' identities and  information. It also didn’t help that JeffCo had spent a very large sum of money on a program that was backed and being pushed by Bill Gates. 

Using the public dislike of Amendment 66, the frustration of the new data collection program, as well as seizing on the voter mistrust of JeffCo Schools  due to the narrative that too few tax dollars were spent in schools and classrooms (a narrative that, at that time as is now, is not unfounded), three school board candidates placed their names on the ballot. Ken Witt, John Newkirk, and Julie Williams ran as a slate of pro-student and pro-parent candidates promising to cut wasteful spending in JeffCo, spend more money in the classrooms, be faithful, transparent stewards of tax dollars, and to improve student achievement.

JCEA endorsed three other candidates and the campaign for these candidates was spirited and well organized but it was plagued with complacency. I think there was an attitude that assumed we chose a candidate, we have a few door knocking events and the candidate that we wanted wins, and if they don’t, well, it’s usually a little more difficult but overall it will be okay. But this time was different. Witt, Newkirk, and Williams buoyed by the general distaste for Amendment 66, a staggering economy, and a gnawing dislike and mistrust of JeffCo Schools won the election by large margins. And the execrable ride began.

A Mega Preview of MAGA

None of us could have known at the time, but what we were about to experience in JeffCo was simply a sneak preview of coming attractions of the rise of MAGA and Trumpism in the Fall of 2016.

The day after the election the Superintendent of JeffCo Schools, Cindy Stevenson, announced that she would step down as Superintendent at the end of the school year in June of 2014. Witt, Newkirk, and Williams had no interest in waiting until June. On a cold Saturday in February of 2014 the school board called a “special session” to review Cindy Stevenson’s employment. Before a raucous, packed, standing room only Board Room at the Ed. Center the board majority began to list the ways that, in their view, Cindy Stevenson had failed the district. Some of the criticisms were about her management style and the direction she had taken the school district. Other criticisms were more personal. In the end, by a 3-2 vote (which, over the next two years, would become the predictable voting outcome) Cindy Stevenson was publicly fired. I will never forget the chaos that ensued following that vote; there were shouts and chants of anger directed at the board majority as they were castigated by the angry mob they had created, crude names and scurrilous insults were hurled at Witt, Newkirk, and Williams. John Newkirk and Julie Williams stood behind their chairs as if they were using them as shields against the pejoratives being leveled at them. Ken Witt nervously paced back and forth behind dais until he finally quickly fled out the side door into the secured hallway behind the boardroom where he was quickly followed by Newkirk and Williams. Soon after the chaotic exit of the board majority, Cindy Stevenson, tearfully addressed the now silent crowd thanking them for their support and hard work during her time as Superintendent. She was silently supported on the stage by the two dissenting school board members, Leslie Dahlkemper and Jill Fellman.

Soon after the dismissal of Cindy Stevenson, the board majority began an avalanche of “reforms”. They hired their own attorney, anti-public school champion Brad Miller, despite the fact that the school district has an entire department of lawyers to advise and assist the school district. When JCEA and other community groups demanded that the school board provide the records showing what they and Brad Miller discussed as well as how much public tax payer money was being spent on Brad Miller, they released heavily- and I mean HEAVILY- redacted records. So much for the accountability and transparency that was promised.

The Board Majority decided that instead of holding board meetings in the board room at the Ed. Center, the meetings should be held in the auditoriums of local high schools. This way, they argued, instead of the community coming to the meetings, the meetings would come to the community. The February 2014 meeting was held at Bear Creek High School, the March meeting was held at Golden High School. Both were shocking and chaotic. First it appeared that two different times were given as to when the audience could enter; one time was given to supporters of the board majority and a different time was given to everyone else. Because when educators and other community members arrived into the auditoriums we were shocked to find that a large portion of the seats, and all of the seats closest to the stage were already occupied! Things only got worse when JeffCo security would decide, seemingly almost arbitrarily, when the meeting had reached capacity and they would then shut the doors, barring anyone else from entering. At both meetings the hallway outside of the auditoriums were filled with educators and other community members who were being denied entrance. In anger and frustration, the locked out crowd would begin to pound on the doors and loudly chant denouncing the board majority to the point that it drowned out whatever was taking place inside of the auditorium. Soon after this, the school board decided it would probably be best if the meetings returned to the Ed. Center.

Throughout the entirety of their time as the school board majority there were a number of very bizarre and off-putting events. Julie Williams would show up at graduation ceremonies wearing a Master’s robe despite only having a high school diploma. John Newkirk, while lamenting at a school board meeting that charter schools do not receive the same amount of funding that regular public schools do, compared the plight of charter schools to that of the civil rights movement during the 1950s and 60s. Ken Witt would routinely criticize and attempt to belittle fellow school board members Jill Fellman and Leslie Dahlkemper during meetings. Everything just seemed so erratic and confusing. However, soon the erraticness which was almost fatalistically comical, became gravely serious. May of 2014 changed everything.

The Storm

Napkingate

Throughout the Spring of 2014 the JCEA Bargaining Team was furiously and feverishly working to secure some sort of agreement with the district. Since the election of Witt, Newkirk, and Williams JCEA/District negotiations, which had never been simple and easy to begin with, became exponentially more difficult. The Board Majority demanded several concessions and significantly reduced the size of the contract by removing language, articles and with it protections and guarantees for educators. Finally the JCEA Bargaining Team reached what they believed was the best possible agreement. While the size of the contract was reduced and weakened they did achieve some language around controlling class size as well as a 2.5% COLA for all educators. The District Management Bargaining Team- of whom it must be said was just as nonplussed as were the JCEA Bargaining Team- assured JCEA that the school board would approve the agreement. JCEA quickly organized a Council meeting at the JCEA office to introduce and explain the agreement so that a quick ratification could take place and be sent to the school board for final approval. JCEA believed it was imperative to get this done as quickly as possible given the capriciousness of the Board Majority.  

Literally hours before the special Council meeting, the district informed the JCEA Bargaining Team that the Board Majority had changed its mind and would not support the agreement because of concerns about the salary schedule. An exasperated JCEA Bargaining Team explained what had transpired just hours before and recommended that an impasse be declared. During fact finding the mediator ruled in favor of JCEA. On the now very familiar vote of 3-2 the JeffCo School Board rejected the fact-finder's ruling. Then things got even more peculiar.

At a school board meeting during the 2014/2015 school year Ken Witt produced an entire new salary system for the licensed educators in JeffCo that he had drawn up on a napkin while at dinner in a restaurant… Yes, you read that correctly. Ken Witt developed the new salary system on a restaurant napkin while out to dinner. I. Kid. You. Not. This new system would increase the starting pay from $33,000 to $38,000 a year and would base salary increases on evaluation ratings. Those who were rated “Highly Effective” would receive a 4.25% salary increase while those educators who were rated “Effective” would receive a 2.43% salary increase. Soon after the introduction of the napkin salary schedule, rumors began to circulate that building principals were being given a limit of how many teachers could be rated “Highly Effective”. The Napkin Salary Schedule was adopted by the school board by a, you guessed it, 3-2 vote. And the educators roiled while the discontent grew.

Students Stand Up

While Napkingate was unfolding- pun intended- a new, equally controversial action was beginning in JeffCo, this one revolving around Julie Williams. In 2012 the College Board revamped the AP US History curriculum so that more diverse and under-represented perspectives would be included. As an AP US History teacher, this new curriculum required some extra work but it wasn’t particularly onerous, nor did it seem to detract or degrade the history of our nation. It essentially was a framework for the class; there were certain ideas and perspectives you had to teach but how you taught them and other topics or voices you included were up to the individual teacher. Not a big deal at all. Julie Williams saw it otherwise.

Julie Williams claimed that the new AP US History curriculum was UnAmerican and taught a negative history of the nation, teaching our students to dislike or even outright hate America. Sound familiar??? Williams proposed either teaching AP US History without the required expansion of more diverse and under-represented perspectives, or completely ban AP US History in JeffCo Schools. The backlash against the proposal was swift and loud. And best of all, it didn’t really come from educators, it came from students.

High school students across the district began to stage massive walkouts during school. They marched up and down major streets near their school chanting and holding signs protesting Williams and her proposal. The students organized themselves into a student advocacy group and began to speak at board meetings, Ken Witt would just as frequently treat them dismissively and rudely questioning their integrity and commitment while cutting them off during public comment. Students would randomly sit in the audience during school board meetings and suddenly rise out of their seat to read aloud from an AP US History textbook until they were removed by security only to have a different student in another part of the audience rise to continue reading from the textbook. It was so great, entertaining and fun. There is even an exhibit featuring these students in the Smithsonian Museum of American History…unless it has recently been removed, but that’s a different story.

These students really irritated the Board Majority, especially Ken Witt. It all came to a head in May of 2015. School Board meetings under the Witt, Newkirk, Williams regime were notoriously long. I mean really long. As in if the meeting ended before 1:00 in the morning it was considered a “short” meeting. At one of the meetings one of the student leaders, Ashlyn Maher, posted on her social media commenting on the length of the meeting and how she would really appreciate a burrito to help sustain her through the meeting. At the May school board meeting, Witt seemingly went off script- WAY off script- and began ranting about how disrespectful and insulting the students protesting were. He then demanded that the post from Ashlyn be publicly displayed at the board meeting. On the video screen Ashlyn’s post along with her picture and name were displayed, Witt read the post and then insinuated that Ashlyn was racist for wanting a burrito. Very bizarre. But then again, everything that was happening at this time seemed to be taking place in some bizarro universe. This only helped stoke the simmering rage that was about to boil over.

RECALL

I’ll never forget it. It was at the annual JCEA Board Retreat. We were having our board retreat at the CEA offices in downtown Denver and then-JCEA President John Ford called the meeting to order. He looked around the room and then told us that some JeffCo community members were filing papers to initiate a recall against John Newkirk, Julie Williams, and Ken Witt. We were simultaneously stunned and excited. John Ford asked if we wanted to support the recall effort, cautioning us that if it failed it would probably be the end of JCEA. That supporting the recall and having it fail would be the end of JCEA was a real possibility, not an idle threat. Our entire contract with the district expired in August of 2016. If the recall effort failed, the Board Majority would simply allow the entire contract to expire which would then allow the school board to do as it pleased without any input or discussion with JCEA. Teachers could be fired without recourse- this was happening in Douglas County to educators who were deemed to be “troublemakers”. The Board Majority could institute any salary schedule they pleased, set class size as they saw fit, and complete revamping and restructuring of Jefferson County Public Schools. John Ford also cautioned that all of the Board of Directors would probably be at the top of the firing list if we supported the recall and it failed. We later found out this warning was in fact true. Despite the enormous risks and potential pitfalls of supporting the recall, the JCEA unanimously voted to support and work for the recall. Finally, there was some light at the far end of this long black tunnel we had been in since November of 2013.

Throughout the summer JCEA and the various community organizations involved worked tirelessly to collect signatures so that the recall question would be included on the November ballot. What we feared initially would be a difficult task to meet the threshold of minimum signatures needed to get the recall initiative on the ballot proved to be fairly easy as far more signatures that were needed were collected. The issue was on the ballot for the 2015 election. 

As the recall campaign unfolded that fall, I found it very inspiring and energizing. Every Saturday we would meet at three different parks in JeffCo to get a list of doors to knock on and literature to hand out. Every Saturday, the number of people at each of these walk, knock, and talk events grew. We were knocking on thousands of doors all across JeffCo every Saturday. In addition volunteers were organizing their own walk, knock, and talk events during the week. We were personally making hundreds of phone calls each week to talk to voters about the Recall. As the momentum grew over the weeks and months leading up election day, the desperation and fear from the other side also grew.

John Ford and some of the staff who worked at JCEA noticed strange cars parking outside of their homes with people just sitting in the cars. They were followed from time to time. Some supporters of the Board Majority began to negatively post on social media about leaders in the Recall movement and/or contact them directly with all sorts of vague threats and insults. I personally received several emails from various email addresses calling me all sorts of names and accusing me of all kinds of ridiculousness. There was one individual who posted on Facebook that I- he called me out by name- and my wife should be arrested and publicly executed in front of our children for being UnAmerican and supporting the recall. This particular individual also made several other general threats against teachers as a whole as well as other specific individuals. Police were of course contacted and they did speak with him, but there wasn’t much else that was done to this particular person.

Finally on Election Night we all gathered in the ballroom of Sheraton Hotel on 6th and Union to watch the results come in. It didn’t take long. About ten minutes after the polls had closed, all three-Witt, Newkirk and Williams- had lost in a landslide. Sanity and stability had been restored in Jefferson County Schools.

The Election of 2025

The point of history is to learn from it. To use it as a cautionary tale of what once was but could be again. I wrote this short history- I assure you what I have written above is a very condensed history of what happened in JeffCo Schools between 2013-2015- to educate those who were not here during that time as well as a reminder to those who were of what a dark and perilous time it was in JeffCo. This November we will once again have those very same seats up for election. I know it is said every year that ‘this election is the most important one ever’, but this time it truly is. This coming election will be the most consequential election for Jefferson County Schools since 2015. We don’t know who the other side will be running for these seats, they never announce their candidates until around the end of August, but rest assured they will have candidates and will be coming hard after those seats. If they could win in 2013 when it seemed unfathomable that candidates such as Witt, Newkirk and Williams would win, they can certainly win in 2025 by declaring they want to “Make JeffCo Great Again.”

It can happen again, if we allow it. We can’t allow it. Please, this fall work to protect our profession, our district, our schools, our classrooms, and our students. Give some time to walk, knock and talk for our candidates Michael Yocum, Peter Gibbins, and Tina Moeinian. This election is too important.  

The Weird, Wacky, Wild World of Presidential Elections

For whatever reason President elections tend to bring out the worst in our leaders and in ourselves. Are you turned off by the nastiness and brutishness of today’s politics and elections? Just be glad that you live today and were not around during our nation’s past. Your friendly American History teacher here with a quick lesson on the nastiness, bizarreness, and flat-out meanness from past presidential elections.

The election of 1800 between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams  was remarkably sleazy and obnoxious with both sides hurling wild accusations against each other. Supporters of Jefferson charged that Adams was abusive and neglectful of his wife. That he worked against the U.S. on behalf of England. That he supplied several very young prostitutes to a visiting Russian dignitary. And most shocking of all, it was alleged that Adams was a hermaphrodite! Supporters of Adams alleged that Jefferson stole money from a widow and her children. That he was an agent of France. That he was a “slave lover” (this happened to be true, by the way). That he was an Atheist (although he probably was not, he was not really a Christian either). Adams supporters, relying on the fact that lies spread faster than truth especially in 1800, even said that Jefferson had died! Opponents of Jefferson even went so far as to warn that should Jefferson be elected president, his administration would actively teach and support “murder, robbery, and rape!” Of course, Jefferson won the election and none of these things were taught nor supported by Jefferson. 

Throughout our nation’s history there are several instances of similar crazy allegations made against presidential candidates by supporters of their opponents. In 1840, Whig supporters of William Henry Harrison, cast incumbent Martin Van Buren as a rather effeminate dandy who spent taxpayer money on fancy foreign made finger cups in which he would “wash his pretty, tapering, soft, white lily fingers”. Furthermore, Whigs alleged, Van Buren also spent taxpayer money on a closet full of fine silk, frilly clothing. Not one of those allegations were true, but Van Buren nonetheless lost the election. In 1876, Democrats charged that Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes shot his mother. He did not. In 1948 Harry S. Truman stated that a vote for his opponent, Thomas Dewey, was a vote for Fascism. In 1964 the Lyndon Johnson campaign ran a now infamous TV commercial that alluded should Republican Barry Goldwater be elected president, Goldwater would start a nuclear war that would kill your children. In 1988 Republican George H.W. Bush had a commercial that Democrat Michael Dukakis, while governor of Massachusetts, gave weekend furloughs to “268 first degree murders to kidnap, rape and murder some more”. A wildly inaccurate and misleading charge.  

Religion is also a favorite target for scurrilous lies to be spread about presidential candidates. Especially if they can connect them to the Catholic Church. 1856, the Democratic Party charged that the Republican candidate, John C. Fremont, was an alcoholic, a crook and worst of all a Catholic. While Fremont may not have been the most virtuous person, he definitely was not a Catholic. He was an Episcopalian. During the 1928 presidential campaign, many Republican Protestants argued that good Christians could not vote for Democrat Al Smith, who was a devout Catholic, because Catholicism was really a cloak for the forces of Hell. In 1960, it was widely and not so quietly whispered that Americans should not vote for John Kennedy as President because Kennedy would simply be a minion for the Pope. In recent times, religion has again often taken center stage for outrageous accusations against candidates. In 2008 and again in 2012, seizing on the Islamophobia that gripped the nation following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, many opponents of Barack Obama alleged that Obama was a Muslim who would institute Sharia Law. Obama was not, nor had ever been an Muslim and he obviously did not impose Sharia Law. During the 2020 election, there were again questions arising about the Democratic nominee Joe Biden, because he is a Catholic and concerns that if he were elected the nation would in essence be turned over to the Vatican. We know that did not happen. 

Recently in the Truly Weird and Bizarre Category there have been allegations- that have been supported by some- , that are so crazy it would seem more appropriate to have come from earlier, more informationally challenged times than now. In 2016 it was alleged that Bill and Hillary Clinton along with the rest of the Democratic Party were running a weird child-sex ring out of a pizzeria in Washington D.C. This was taken so seriously that shortly before the election a “good samaritan” charged into the alleged pizzeria armed with a high power rifle demanding that the surprised and confused pizzeria workers release the child sex slaves from the back room. Also, in 2016 opponents of Donald Trump stated that, while on a business trip to Russia, Trump had two Russian prostitutes urinate on each other while he watched. Eeeeeewwwww. Gross. While Trump did pay a porn star to have sex with him, there is not any evidence that Trump watched Russian call girls urinate on one another. In our current election, Trump seemingly accused Kamala Harris of not actually being black, but instead decided one day that she would say she was black. To be clear, Kamala Harris has always claimed to be partially black, because she is! Her mother was an Indian immigrant and her father is a immigrant from Jamacia. Finally, the election of 2020 provided American voters perhaps the most bizarre story of all. One so kooky and fantastic, not even the supporters of Adams or Jefferson in 1800 could have envisioned it. In our current 2020 election there is a story circulating that shadow forces are at work to ensure that Joe Biden is elected president so he can cover up and protect high ranking members of the American government and powerful figures in the entertainment industry who are Satan worshipping, cannibalistic, pedophiles....WOW! 

Presidential politics have always been fraught with mud-slinging, half-truths, and outright, outrageous lies. We hopefully can take heart that, until very recently, the lies, half-truths and distortions have become more tame over time.  Hopefully, brazen and scurrilous allegations of late are only an anomaly and will fade following the election of 2024. Luckily, no one has accused the other of being a hermaphrodite. Yet.

What's In A Name? The Long, Strange Saga of Arvada High School and Its Mascot

 

Arvada High School is one of the oldest schools in the Denver area, it is the school I graduated from in 1989 and the school where I spent the first 16 years of my teaching career. While I was teaching at Arvada, the school formally adopted the Bulldogs as its mascot. How the school went from the start of what was originally known as the "Arvada School", to the Arvada High School Bulldogs is a twisty, strange, bizarre story. One that captured the nation's attention for a time and put the school, its students, and its staff directly in the crosshairs of the nation's culture wars.

The Start

    Arvada, Colorado had been a remote farming community sitting between Denver and the foot of the Rocky Mountains. By the late 1800s enough people had settled in the Arvada area that a school was needed to educate the children in the area. A one room brick school was built on what is now known as "Olde" Wadsworth Boulevard between what is now 57th Avenue and Grandview Avenue. At first the school was only for primary grades- essentially an elementary school- but by 1900 the school added grades through 12th grade. In 1904 the first senior of Arvada School graduated, Miss Angie Bates. This original one room schoolhouse still stands today and is currently the barroom for the School House Kitchen and Libations in Olde Town Arvada. Eventually there were enough students in the area that the community decided it needed a separate school for secondary grades and in 1922 the new Arvada High School building opened on the corner of Ralston Road and Wadsworth, today the location is a 7-11.

The First Mascot

Originally the school lacked a mascot. The school and its sports teams were called the "Cherry-Whites" after the colors of the school; Cherry and White. When the new school building opened in 1922 a new Agricultural Arts and Welding teacher was hired, Tom Vanderhoof. Vanderhoof started the first football team, built the football field for the team and coached the football team, as well as several other sports, for many years. Coach Vanderhoof was also the one responsible for the first mascot of Arvada High School.  

The football jersey's of the 1920s were essentially wool sweaters. Since the school colors were cherry and white, the sweaters were dyed cherry red. When the football players would finish practice or a game, many would remove the sweaters as they left the field and as a result of the sweat the dye would transfer from the sweater to their skin, coloring their skin red. Due to this the students began to call the football players "redskins". Because of this Vanderhoof wanted to make Redskin the official mascot of

Arvada High School. The 1920s were at the end of what was known as the Progressive Era in American History and Vanderhoof supported several progressive causes. Concerned that the name "redskin" may be offensive to American Indians, Vanderhoof sent letters to all of the registered tribes in Colorado asking for permission to use the name Redskin for the Arvada High School football team. All of the responses Vanderhoof received back from the tribes did not express any concerns about using the name Redskin so the name stuck and soon a depiction of an American Indian became the mascot of Arvada High School. Arvada High School would be the Redskins for the next 70 years. Until 1993.

The Controversy and Change

In the early 1990s a Jefferson County parent organization, the Jeffco Native Americans Parent Organization asked the school district of  Jefferson County as well as the administration at Arvada High School to consider changing the name of the school citing the offensiveness of the name since it was a racial slur towards American Indians. And thus began one of the most unique, bizarre, and uproarious years ever witnessed in any high school in the United States.

During the 1992-93 school year Principal Jim Melhouse, under pressure from district administration, considered changing the mascot of Arvada High School, and the circus began setting up its tents. Various groups quickly organized in support of or against the name change and began lobbying anyone and everyone they could find in support of their goals regarding the mascot of Arvada High School. The emerging story captured the attention of the national media and soon stories about the controversy were appearing in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, on NPR, and national newscasts. A community meeting was held in the auditorium of Arvada High School so that supporters, opponents, students, faculty, alumni, and community members could express their opinions. Security for this meeting was tight as there were threats of violence and media coverage was intense. The popular late night ABC News program Nightline did a live broadcast from the school auditorium about the issue and school mascot names. 

Unfortunately, as is always the case with such volatile  issues, the threat of ugly acts of violence were made by people who somehow feel threatened by change or when things are not going the way they want them to go. Because of death threats against him and his family, Principal Melhouse was given a bulletproof vest to wear in public and the Arvada Police escorted him into and out of the building. Furthermore, Melhouse had to remove his children from the neighborhood elementary schools because of threats of violence and kidnapping against his children.

Ultimately Melhouse, who was in favor of changing the name, decided that the faculty would vote to change the mascot of the school or to keep it the same. At this point, somehow organizations both for and against the change, got a hold of the home addresses and numbers of the faculty resulting in both sides beginning to lobby the faculty at their homes attempting to influence how they would vote on the issue. In a close vote, the faculty of Arvada High School elected to drop the Redskin as the mascot of the school.

Following the decision to change the mascot of the school, the parent organization that initially forced the issue came through Arvada High School and pointed out everything that had to be removed from the school. Essentially any thing with the word Redskin or any depiction of Native Americans had to be removed. The only thing depicting an American Indian that was allowed to remain in the school was a podium that had been built by a student and on the front of that podium was a painting of an American Indian that had been done by another student. The parent group determined that it was an honorable depiction of American Indians and not exploitative, so it could remain. This podium was in the classroom of Social Studies teacher Zeph Villano. I have since inherited this podium and it continues to sit in my classroom at nearby Pomona High School.

Aftermath

Following dropping the name Redskin, Arvada went through a number of new mascots. First up was a Harlequin, a type of clown dressed in costume with a diamond shape pattern. This mascot never caught on and unceremoniously disappeared almost as quickly as it had appeared. Next, the school was just known as the “Reds” without any mascot of any kind. The Reds remained the name of Arvada High School throughout the rest of the 1990s.

Shortly after the mascot changed, Social Studies teacher and graduate of Arvada High School, Craig Wilkie- who was in favor of dropping the mascot- proposed creating a museum of Arvada High School since it was the first school in Arvada and one of the oldest schools in the Denver area. In this museum would be artifacts from the school telling the story of the school throughout the nine decades of its existence. This museum would obviously incorporate the story of the Redskin mascot as well as feature artifacts depicting the former mascot. There was pushback from some that this was simply reintroducing the former mascot back into the school, however Wilkie successfully argued that museums are designed to preserve and inform others of the past. Sometimes that past is distasteful or uncomfortable but it doesn’t change the past. You can’t erase or ignore history just because some may not like it. In fact, you should preserve and talk about the past for that very reason. You have to remember the past to understand where you currently are and help you figure out where you go from here. Ultimately Wilkie’s argument won out and with the help of several students and faculty members the Arvada High School museum was created and featured prominently in the lobby of Arvada High School for the next 30 years. 

From A Color To An Animal

In 2000, new school Principal Robert Lopez decided that it was time for Arvada High School to get a new mascot and the students would be the ones to decide what that mascot was. Three possibilities were proposed as the new mascot of Arvada High School: a Miner, a Titan, or a Bulldog. Visual renderings of these three possible mascots were created by an award winning art student and were all featured in a mascot campaign put together by the Arvada Student Council leading up to the election for the new mascot. At a Spring Pep Rally the results were revealed and overwhelmingly the students had chosen the Bulldog to be the new mascot of Arvada High School.

However, the switch from a color to a Bulldog as the new mascot of the school was not without its own controversy. All of this took place in the wake of the tragedy of Columbine. Jefferson County Schools became hypersensitive and created a special committee to review all mascot depictions in JeffCo to ensure that they were not unduly aggressive or encouraged violence. The original Bulldog mascot created by the student depicted a very burly, muscular bulldog in a spiked collar, bearing sharp teeth. The Jefferson County Schools Mascot Review Committee determined that all of this was inappropriate as it encouraged violence, aggression, intimidation, and bullying and they ordered that that mascot be toned down. So, a softer, more friendly version of the Bulldog emerged. However, the original mascot that was too mean was somehow magically painted one weekend on the wall of the new band room at Arvada High School, and to the best of my knowledge, is still there today.

The End Of The Museum

The Arvada High School Museum that had been created by Craig Wilkie with the help of students and other faculty members in the mid 1990s endured for the next 30 years as a source of pride for the school and interest for all who visited. After Wilkie had retired several teachers and students served as the curators of the museum faithfully maintaining, cleaning, and updating it.

Recently the State of Colorado has determined that the museum violates state law because it tells the story of the Redskin mascot and has mandated that it be removed from the school by October of 2024. Apparently neglecting the argument of Craig Wilkie about the reason for the museum and ignoring one of the key lessons from history “If learning history doesn’t make you uncomfortable, you are learning the wrong history.”