The Teachers’ Unions’ Long March

Nikole Hannah-Jones got the education hornets buzzing again, but the problems she highlighted have been around for a long time.

Marcus Ebenhack | October 8, 2026

The recent Nikole Hannah-Jones New York Times article questioning her choice to enroll her daughter in public schools has generated much attention.  This Wall Street Journal editorial highlights the response to Ms. Hannah-Jones’s piece from Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. 

“I was so saddened,” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, commented on the Bluesky social-media site. “Public schools must be places parents want to send their kids; where educators want to teach & where kids thrive. That is our North Star. We must learn what went wrong & address it so all students have what they deserve.”

“I was so saddened,” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, commented on the Bluesky social-media site. “Public schools must be places parents want to send their kids; where educators want to teach & where kids thrive. That is our North Star. We must learn what went wrong & address it so all students have what they deserve.”

A couple points to make before diving in too deep here.

1) Given the fact that the majority of Democrat politicians and teachers’ union honchos would, as one wag put it, crawl on their hands and knees through miles of broken glass before they would send their own children to a public school, I have to give Hannah-Jones a measure of credit for defying this convention — not only talking the talk, but also walking the walk and exercising the courage of her convictions.  Though, as a lifelong liberal/progressive academic/activist, best known for spearheading The 1619 Project, it could certainly be argued that her own contributions to the conditions she encountered in NYC’s public schools were substantial.

2) I suppose, owing to some measure of naïveté, hubris, or both, Ms. Hannah-Jones seemed to think that, being both an affluent and high-profile parent, she would be on the vanguard of a movement for other similarly situated parents to follow suit and improve educational outcomes in favor of not only their own children, but all the others as well.  This movement never materialized.  As noted, a noble goal, worthy of credit, but ultimately futile.  The more hubristic element of Hannah-Jones’s thinking was that she alone, given her elevated liberal/progressive status, through her sole interactions with teachers and school administrators, could achieve more positive outcomes for her daughter and the........

© American Thinker