Randi Weingarten, who leads the American Federation of Teachers, is trying to silence critics by tossing around a dangerous label: fascist. She insists that people who resist union monopoly rules are motivated only by hatred. That line collapses under the weight of history.
“On more than one occasion,” wrote Douglass, “we have attempted to convince the workingmen of the absolute injury to their interests of the labor unions of this country, and also their oppressions and tyrannical course toward fellow workmen, as well as to their employers.”
As a former slave and fierce advocate for black opportunity, Douglass warned against union bosses who used coercion and exclusion to lock out African Americans. That was more than rhetoric; it reflected real patterns of patronage and racism in the late 19th century. Those same patterns can still be seen in modern union practices.
Today, accusations persist that some construction trades and hiring halls systematically skip over black workers when handing out referrals. Those legal actions and civil complaints show the problem is not just history. You cannot cure union monopoly by pretending the past never taught us anything.
In her new book “Why Fascists Fear Teachers” Weingarten flips the script and paints anyone who questions union power as the villain. According to Weingarten, “fascists don’t like unions” because unions “make life better for all working people.” That rhetorical shortcut silences debate about union monopoly and parental rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually affirms a basic point most people accept: “[p]arents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that is given to their children.” That sentence isn’t a get-out-of-debate card for the wealthy. It is a recognition that parents deserve a say even when they can’t pay private-school tuition.
Weingarten insists that vouchers or tax-credit laws that expand parental choice are somehow ‘fascist.’ The charge is absurd when you look at real historical fascists, who outlawed private schools and forced state curricula on children. Hitler and Mussolini made education a tool of the state, not an instrument of parental choice.
Worse, she has doubled down, suggesting that parents who broadly support figures like Charlie Kirk should be barred from influencing which teachers are allowed to instruct their children. That stance treats parents as second-class stakeholders in their kids’ daily education. It also elevates union bosses over the people who pay taxes and vote.
About two-thirds of states still legally give union bosses monopoly bargaining power over public-school employees. That legal advantage lets union leaders impose policies on communities without direct parental consent.
That is exactly the setup Jerry Wurf celebrated decades ago when he said officials must “respect” AFT and other government union bosses but not parents or anyone else “as equals and deal with [them],” and then treat them like the primary partner. Think about the consequence: elected officials sidelined while union machinery calls the shots. No surprise that monopoly bargaining produces costly staffing surges and bloat.
Over the last few decades schools added thousands of nonteaching staff even as enrollment flattened or fell. Those staffing choices reflect union priorities more than classroom needs.
Smearing every critic as a ‘fascist’ won’t fix the incentives that reward union bosses at the expense of parents and students. Real reforms happen when voters see how monopoly bargaining works and demand change.
