Kimmel and the Heritage Foundation: Yup, I See a Connection

So, Jimmy Kimmel is, in essence, fired for speaking truth to power. I just listened to the monologue that led to his demise. I’d describe it as rather tame and funny; it was a clever critique of America’s “leader.” It wasn’t untruthful; the clips shown weren’t fake. The narrative was timely. The criticism was deserved, at least in the eyes of many.

I was particularly taken in by Kimmel’s description of T’s stage of grieving (a play off Kubler Ross’ model of grief): construction and destruction. As in construction of the ballroom at the WH and I assume destruction of trees (and other items like freedom).

I think T might have missed the joke because he’s not aware of the Kubler Ross stages of grief. Remember, T said: “Smart people don’t like me.”And, Kimmel is smart. The joke assumed knowledge of the paradigm for grief and the absence of those traditional stages in T’s behavior. Others have made similar observations as T played golf and attended a baseball game shortly after the killing. Deep grief?

Now, standing in contrast, the Department of Education just announced a partnership with the Heritage Foundation (among the chief architects of Project 2025) and other conservation groups. The aim of the partnership as I understand it? The development of a civics curriculum for our nation’s children in anticipation of the country’s 250th birthday celebration in 2026. (Note: Maybe we need the East Wing ballroom for that.)

Now in normal times, the federal government does not design what and how we teach in our schools. Curriculum design is hands off and left to the states. That message was pounded into my head when I worked at the Department of Education. And at the moment and in one side of his rhetoric, T espouses that states, not the federal government, need to control education.

But, here we go: the federal government is apparently designing the content of what children will learn about America. And I saw proposed funding in the 2026 budget for that. There is a push for Civics education, not a bad idea except when contextualized in the here and now.

Do you think they (the designers of this civics education) will have teaching materials (be teaching in essence) on how we destroyed Native American culture? Do you think they will have teaching materials about slavery? Do you think they will have teaching materials about the fight to win women’s right to vote? Do you think they will have teaching materials about racial segregation and the Civil Rights movement? Do you think they will have teaching materials about the Vietnam War and the plentiful protests? Do you think they will have teaching materials about disgraced presidents, including one who is a convicted felon? What primary source materials will they use, if any?

When you strip exhibits from museums and strip cultural diversity from the Kennedy Center and strip DEI initiatives as being divisive and unconstitutional and strip books from libraries in military academies, what version of history will our students learn when this administration designs the curricula? Were I guessing, the Heritage Foundation rendition of American history will be deeply, profoundly and disturbingly sanitized. It will tell the “white” version of American history, the version that they see as the “right” history.

Now, Kimmel tells truth and is removed from his job. Remember he is a late night tv talk show host, and no one is forcing you to listen to him. You can turn off your tv.

Then, moving forward into 2026, the possibility exists of America’s children being fed an inaccurate story about our nation’s history in civics class, and they cannot turn it off; it is the “government” curricula, stamped with the US seal of approval.

Three words/phrases come to mind as we reflect on these two happenings: What is truth? Where is the First Amendment? and What happens when the federal government oversteps its bounds?

In both examples, the result evidences the government’s capacity to pressure/exert influence over others. I might be mistaken but isn’t that fascism or communism, albeit dressed up in an American flag?

Many moons ago, when the Supremes had backbone, the right of individual protesters to burn the American flag was upheld as symbolic free speech. Guess we have no free speech for a late night tv host who jokes about a President but we have faux free speech to retell America’s history. Think about that. What a frightening story these two examples tell. And yes, we’re in a terrible mess, symbolized by the mess a puppy created in my home.