Local Politics: Are we Charlie Kirk?

“We are Charlie Kirk, we carry the flame. We’ll fight for the Gospel, we’ll honor his name. We are Charlie Kirk, his courage our own. Together unbroken, we’ll make Heaven known.” 

–Splalexma, “We Are Charlie Kirk”

Last month, the Ohio House of Representatives passed the Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act, a bill intended to preserve the “life and work” of conservative Christian influencer Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed at a debate event at a Utah college in September. 

The bill passed the House along party lines with a vote of 62-27 and now heads to the Senate for further consideration. If approved, the legislation would then advance to Republican Gov. Mike DeWine for signing.

Kirk was known for founding and running Turning Point USA, a self-described youth politics organization that hosts debates against typically liberal students on various college campuses. TPUSA also hosts the “professor watchlist,” a database the organization created as a means to “expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom,” and which has led to targeted harassment campaigns against educators both nationwide and in Ohio.

The House intends to preserve this legacy through the bill, which in essence aims to allow and encourage teachers in Ohio public schools to teach students about the positive impacts of religion, and specifically Judeo-Christian values, on American history. 

“The teaching of the historical, positive impact of religion on American history is consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the text of the bill reads. “An accurate and historical account of the influence of Judeo-Christian values on the freedom and liberties ingrained in our culture is imperative to reducing ignorance of American history, hate, and violence within our society.”

“It’s essential that we highlight the positive influence religion has had throughout our history – uniting communities, enriching our shared values, and safeguarding our First Amendment rights as Americans to speak and worship freely,” Representative Michael Dovilla, one of the bill’s sponsors, said in a statement at the time. 

But Columbus teachers, and educators statewide, don’t really care about that. They would instead like to know why the Assembly is wasting its time with this bill when schools across the state are struggling for resources and could use some support. 

Just this month, the Columbus City Schools Board of Education approved $50 million in budget cuts due to lack of funding. Another 36 school districts are losing millions in targeted assistance state funding; state legislators have completely cut the program that sends money to the districts that need it most.

“There’s just frustration, speaking both from a state level and a local level, that at a time when we have districts that are looking at having to cut teachers because of lack of finances and some real serious problems that we have in our system, the legislature is spending time on a bill like this that is addressing a problem that doesn’t exist, instead of addressing the real problems that do exist,” said Melissa Cropper, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers, which represents about 20,000 people across the state who work in public schools, libraries, and higher education institutions. 

Dr. Antoinette Miranda, who was elected to the Columbus City Schools board last month, said she only had one thought on the bill: “What problem is it trying to solve?” 

Patrick Katzenmeyer, also recently elected to the school board, said, “I wish they would work on real issues impacting our schools.”

John Coneglio, president of the Columbus Education Association, the union that represents CCS teachers, said he had not heard formally from any teachers about their thoughts on the bill – likely, he said, because they’ve been so busy dealing with everything else. “With so many attacks on public school educators,” he said, “I don’t think they have had the time to weigh in.”

The text of the bill focuses largely on tangible impacts of Christianity on American history, and there’s no denying that there is an impact. Our national motto is, “In God We Trust.” The bill includes extensive details of what counts as “instruction on the positive impacts of religion on American history,” such as the “authentic history” of the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving, and George Washington’s praise of religion and morality as “indispensable.” 

Coneglio, who teaches social studies, thinks that if teachers become required to include Christianity in their classes, it could be a good opportunity to get kids to think critically about religion in politics, if approached in the right way.

“Teachers could explore Charlie Kirk’s message and compare it to the teaching of Christianity, and how they align and are different,” he wrote. “A good teacher would not use this law to indoctrinate students to one religion or another but have students look at different viewpoints and make their decisions about religion and its place in a society as a whole.”

The Ohio General Assembly said that, because it focuses on the historical aspects of religious impact, the bill does comply with the First Amendment. 

But there are obvious concerns. The bill doesn’t say anything about teaching the negative impacts Christianity has had on American history, such as the genocide of Indigenous people in the name of Manifest Destiny. Can teachers teach that, too? 

Also, about half of Columbus is some form of Christian, with 39 percent unaffiliated; but seven percent participates in other religions. The Muslim population in particular has grown in recent years. If teachers specifically have to teach the “positive impact” of Christianity, does that infringe on Muslim students’ First Amendment freedom of religion? 

Teachers are a bit worried about that, too. But mainly, they’re annoyed, because schools already have policies and regulations in place about religion.

“Religion in the classroom is supposed to be dealt with from a historical perspective,” Cropper said. “That’s why we say this is a bill that is not needed. There’s nothing wrong with stating that a certain document had Christian influence. … The problem with this bill is that it goes beyond the historical context. It’s actually asking teachers, in our opinion, to promote one religion over another.”

When asked about how CCS might handle this bill if it were fully passed, board member Dr. Tina Pierce pointed to the fact that CCS already has an explicit policy for how to handle religion in the classroom. 

Board Policy 2270 states: “Based on the First Amendment protection against the establishment of religion in the schools, no Board employee will promote religion in the classroom or in the District’s curriculum, or compel or pressure any student to participate in devotional exercises. … Instructional activities shall not be permitted to advance or inhibit any particular religion or religion generally.” 

“CCS is a highly diverse district with students, families, and staff representing and practicing a wide range of religious backgrounds and belief systems,” Pierce said. “We value and embrace the rich diversity of our district as well as that of our state and the broader world, and we are committed to fostering and learning environments that are respectful and inclusive of all.” 

So, it seems like nobody in education is particularly supportive of this bill – or seems to understand why it’s worth advancing it at this time, when there are much more pressing problems to worry about. Then why is the Assembly doing it? 

Katzenmeyer noted that politics is all about image. “Telling schools to highlight the ‘positive influence’ of Christianity is the government endorsing a belief system, which goes directly against the First Amendment of the Constitution,” he said. “They know this, and this is just another case of GOP legislators being performative for their base.”