Disclaimer: This essay contains two parts. In the first, I allow myself more latitude in terms of emotional expression. The second is strictly objective in its analysis so as not to muddy the water by engaging in the very behavior which it reveals. Anyone interested solely in the analysis of the recent Executive Order that targets K-12 education should skip to the latter.

* * *

Last night, my son and I went to see the movie Wicked.

Early on, there is a song with the lyrics, "The wicked cry alone."

I felt a welling of sadness... deep empathy for the wicked, and a burning sense of injustice. The ymage that it elicited in me was of a child consigned to a lifetime in the corner by abusers of power.

The simple, literal, textual meaning (or denotation) is that those who harm others for personal gain (i.e., the "wicked" in the perception of the singers who define themselves as 'victimized') will face the consequence of being ostracized (i.e., "alone") when the time comes for them to experience the pain of retribution exacted by those self-proclaimed victims (i.e., the crying). In short, “We confine you to solitary misery because you hurt us.”

Yes, sometimes life is like that; from an objective standpoint, sometimes there are clear abusers and victims. There are a zillion examples, such as that no sympathy should be forthcoming for an adult who abuses a child. We could dig down deep and understand that the abuser was in all likelihood a victim as a child (which is not an excuse, of course), and we could offer them help; however, we side wholly with the child. Given limited resources, we dedicate our belongingness to the child, and the abuser is left alone to suffer the consequences of their punishment.

But life is often not like that, especially when abusers make false claims of victimhood; that is to say, they lie.

So the more complex, figurative, contextual meaning (or connotation) is that a dominant paradigm composed of xenophobes will justify their ostracizing of a “different” individual based solely on an irrational, fear-based association of difference with inherent evil. This punishment is waged without regard to the fact that no actual harm will ever be inflicted upon them. They know that they are being cruel, and in fact the whole point of their actions is the denial of belonging, and the attendant cruelty of making someone cry alone.

For example…

The current federal administration is targeting children for harm in order to secure power, the most recent manifestation of which is the publication of the Executive Order designated, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.”

We knew long ago that this was coming, as the “Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership” is demonstrably the direct precursor for these sorts of Executive Orders. (Yes, I can objectively support that contention as well. I will put the discussion at the end of the following analysis.) Back in December, in apprehension of that eventuality, I wrote the lyrics to an anthem called “Danger Voice.” I will warn you that some of the vocabulary is explicit, and the sentiment entirely so.

And now for the drier part of our program…

* * *

Analysis of Inflammatory Strategies

Early yesterday (2025-01-01), I notified my employer (Lane ESD) that I would not  be complying with the executive order that targets K-12 education. Leadership needs to make policy, and those decisions should be informed, including knowing what they can count on from their employees. Because the expression of opinions is a privilege, not a right (i.e., expecting that they be accorded the same weight as substantiated contentions), I told them that at need I could provide proof to support the various claims upon which I had made my own ethical decisions; therefore, I also wrote up a list (in case it is needed later) of the most prominent instances of inflammatory strategies that appear in The Order. Again, this is just a brief set of examples that were so obvious as to be easily compiled in well under an hour (until I dug into Strategic Omissions, which added time), where an entire volume could be written about the manipulative tricks displayed in The Order.

Keep in mind that then following strategies are layered.

Loaded Language and Emotional Triggers

• “indoctrinate” and “radical, anti-American ideologies” in Section 1 frames education practices as malicious (rather than using neutral terms)
• “innocent children” creates an emotional appeal suggesting vulnerability and victimization
• “mutilation” instead of objective, scientific, medical terminology when referring to gender-affirming care
• “usurps” suggests violent or illegitimate seizure of authority
• “echo chamber” implies manipulation and lack of independent thought
• legal terminology (“hereby ordered,” “pursuant to”) interwoven with emotionally charged language (“innocent,” “mutilation”), creating a contrast whose starkness lends inflated authority to the emotional claims

Polarizing Dichotomies

The employer for whom I work (Lane ESD) explicitly taught us (at an All-Staff in-service training) that such dichotomies are largely Western conceptual constructs, representing social and communication circumscription that we would not force on others (where, in contravention, The Order does deliberately rely on such force):

• Sets up stark contrasts between “patriotic” vs “subversive”
• “victims or oppressors” framing
• “preferred or disfavored groups”

Emotionally Charged Characterizations

• “deliberately blocking parental oversight”
• “sow division, confusion, and distrust”
• “sexually exploiting minors”

Definitional Framing

• In general, there’s a pattern of pairing positive loaded terms with their negative counterparts: “patriotic admiration” vs “anti-American ideologies”
• In specific, Section 2 is particularly notable for its asymmetric definitions. “Discriminatory equity ideology" gets an extensive negative definition with eight subsections (to falsely imply illegality and inequity), while "patriotic education" receives a shorter, purely positive definition. At the word level, the definition of “patriotic education” uses loaded positive terms like “noble,” “admirable,” “inspiring,” and “ennobling”; in contrast, the phrase “equity ideology" is identified with “discriminatory” as a negative characterization. 
• The definition of "social transition" is notably detailed and includes examples designed to trigger emotional responses, while carefully excluding medical aspects to avoid certain legal complications.
• Strategic omission (cf. below): explicitly defines certain terms, leaves others undefined to maintain ambiguity where useful
• Strategic omission (cf. below): references existing laws without fully contextualizing their actual scope and limitations

Complex Structural Manipulation

• The Order uses nested hierarchical numbering (Sections → subsections → items → subitems) to create an appearance of logical progression while actually building emotional intensity.
• There is a pattern of starting sections with broader, less controversial statements before moving to more specific and charged content.

Rhetorical Techniques

• Appeals to parental authority and rights (as if they had been abused, when they have not)
• Uses legal terminology to portray a false mantle of authority in regards to the actual legal weight of The Order
• Employs the repetition of structures in definitions to reinforce points beyond a reasonable need required just for argumentation; therefore, the actual purpose must be something else, where the statistically likely candidate would be intensified entrenchment (which is an abuse both of argumentation and of power)
• Uses “shall” and formal legislative language to project authority in a context where actual legal authority is reported to have been superseded

Accusation in a Mirror

“Accusation in a Mirror” is a domain-specific term for a particular kind of rhetorical strategy in which an aggressor projects their own strategies onto the actions and intentions of the targets of that aggression. The purpose is multifarious in the following sense (and insidious in regards to the distributed graduation of harm that is supposed to be subtle): 1) it is a preemptive defense against accurate accusations by denigrating them as “No, you!” responses; 2) it pretends that there is moral justification for restrictive actions by falsely claiming that they are a necessary defensive reaction; and 3) it is an obfuscation designed to make determining the truth more difficult.

• The Order claims to protect “critical thinking” while mandating specific interpretations; to be specific, The Order claims that schools are forcing unquestioning acceptance of ideology (“students are forced to accept these ideologies without question or critical examination”) while simultaneously mandating what it calls “patriotic education,” which notably requires teaching (without question or critical examination) that “celebration of America's greatness and history is proper” and that “commitment to America's aspirations is beneficial and justified” all in the context of whitewashing the demonstrable history of systemic oppression in America (which is revealed during actual questioning and critical examination of The Order). This is a clear example of accusing others of enforcing dogmatic acceptance while codifying exactly that type of enforcement, that is to say, while actively wielding the very abuses of power (analyzed herein) of which the schools stand accused by The Order.
• References to “discrimination” while codifying discriminatory practices
• Uses “unlawfully practicing medicine” as an accusation while effectively prescribing specific medical/psychological approaches

Temporal Manipulation

• Creates a false historical narrative contrasting an idealized past (“foundational principles”) with a corrupted present (“in recent years”), where the false narrative is protected by the demand for unquestioned “patriotic education”
• Uses the upcoming 250^th anniversary of American independence as a rhetorical device to reinforce this narrative
• This all disguises the document’s reactionary approaches as if they were revolutionary.

Strategic Omissions

• The Order frequently references laws without fully explaining their scope or context; for instance, when it cites “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” it presents this as if it clearly supports The Order's positions; however, it omits the fact that Title IX has been interpreted differently by various courts and administrations, particularly regarding gender identity protections. This selective citation creates an impression of clear legal backing while omitting the complex legal landscape.
• Another significant omission appears in the definition of “social transition.” The Order defines this term extensively but omits defining what constitutes “psychological or psychiatric counseling.” This vagueness could encompass anything from a casual supportive conversation to formal therapy sessions to compulsory conversion camps. The ambiguity here creates uncertainty about what actions might violate the order.
• The Order also notably omits defining what makes an ideology “anti-American.” While it uses this term repeatedly and builds significant policy around preventing “anti-American ideologies,” it never explicitly states what qualifies as anti-American. This omission allows for broad interpretation and potential application to any teaching that challenges The Order's prescribed “patriotic education.”
• In Section 3(c), when discussing coordination with state attorneys general, The Order omits specifying what constitutes “sexually exploiting minors” or “unlawfully practicing medicine.” These terms carry serious legal implications, but the lack of definition leaves room for broad interpretation that could potentially encompass standard counseling or supportive practices. The intent in context suggests that even support for an individual’s preferred pronouns could be a sexual exploitation or an accomplice activity in the unlawful practice of medicine.
• The section on the 1776 Commission omits specific criteria for what constitutes “relevant experience or subject-matter expertise” for commission members. This vagueness allows for appointments based on ideological alignment rather than academic or professional qualifications.
• Perhaps most notably, while The Order extensively defines “discriminatory equity ideology,” it omits defining many of the key terms within that definition, such as what constitutes “adverse treatment” or how “moral character” is determined. These omissions create flexibility in how The Order could be enforced while maintaining an appearance of precision.

Derivation from Project 2025

The rhetorical framing in the Project 2025 document is a direct precursor to The Order’s language and structure; for instance, where it refers to “gender ideology” as “noxious tenets,” The Order develops this into formal policy language about “gender ideology extremism.”

The text introduces multiple conceptual frameworks that The Order later formalizes:

• The characterization of gender-affirming care as “child abuse” appears in both documents, though The Order transforms this into more bureaucratic language about “surgical and chemical mutilation.”
• The document's assertion that “Schools serve parents, not the other way around” becomes codified in The Order’s extensive sections on parental rights and oversight (where in fact the rhetoric assigns ultimate parental authority to the Office of the President, erasing the very rights that it portends to protect).
• Project 2025’s call to delete terms like “sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI)” from federal documents informs Section 2 of The Order, particularly in how it carefully constructs definitions that avoid or reframe these terms.

The Order’s structure around parental notification is directly derived from Project 2025’s framing of parental authority as “non-negotiable”; however, where Project 2025 is more openly argumentative, The Order adopts a more legalistic tone while maintaining similar underlying positions.

There is a direct through-line from Project 2025’s stance that gender-affirming care “must end” to The Order’s provisions about preventing federal funds from supporting “social transition.” The Order notably takes this general position and develops it into specific administrative mechanisms.