Trump Answers News Media Boycott by Launching His Own Alternative, 'Trump TV'

Breaking: Fox News Joins Mainstream Media Networks in White House Boycott

Watch: Dana Bash 'At a Loss for Words' Over CNN Ban at WH, But Then Video of CNN Suggesting WH Ban Fox News Surfaces

Deer Hunter Arrested and Charged with Manslaughter After Fatal Mistake

'How the Left Will Ban Homeschooling': City Blocks Applicant from Firefighter Job Because He Was Homeschooled

Watch: Seb Gorka Takes Over Interview, Turns Politico Reporter Into Fumbling Mess Trying (And Failing) to Defend Her 'Gutter Press' Org

Watch: Seb Gorka Takes Over Interview, Turns Politico Reporter Into Fumbling Mess Trying (And Failing) to Defend Her 'Gutter Press' Org

1619 Project Creator Said America Destroys Black Children, Now Her Child Says Mom's the One Who Destroyed Part of Her Life

Nikole Hannah-Jones is perhaps one of the best-known columnists for The New York Times. If not prolific (she’s only published three pieces in the paper this calendar year, including the one we’re going to talk about), she’s profoundly influential, particularly in the development of what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez now playfully calls “Woke 1.”

Her “1619 Project” — in which she basically retcons American history to start when slaves were brought over to the English colonies and revises it from there — is part of the reason why people like AOC are laughingly declaring that “Woke 1 was crazy.”

It still isn’t crazy to Hannah-Jones, who was busy defending the legacy radical Black Panther cop-killer Assata Shakur shortly after she lamented those who mourned for Charlie Kirk in her 2025 columns –which came only slightly more frequently than her 2026 work has. Apparently, dying in Cuba on the run from the law for a murder you almost certainly committed and were convicted of makes you more of a martyr than a guy who died simply because he had opinions that some guy with a trans furry homosexual lover didn’t like, according to prosecutors.

Moreover, Hannah-Jones continues to defend the “1619 Project” — even though, at this juncture, everyone with sense knows that it’s riddled with errors in both fact and logical judgment. She can do all of this because all these things are theoretical to her. She hasn’t met any of the relatives of the cop Assata Shakur was convicted of killing, nor Charlie Kirk’s children. She refuses to seriously intellectually engage with anyone who has pointed out the numerous failings of her “1619 Project.” Those things are all abstractions to her. They will remain abstractions, because we now know how she deals with the concrete, inescapable facts of life, the kind of things that punditry does not prepare you for.

As you may perhaps have heard, Hannah-Jones is going bad viral because she ran a decade-long experiment on her kid in which she and her husband subjected their daughter to their abstract ideas. Sure, they had enough money to send her to a good school, public or private. But to fight what she called the “segregated city” of New York, they were going to send their daughter to a school that had an underperforming reputation — even though she had better options.

“I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel pulled in the way other parents with options feel pulled. I had moments when I couldn’t ignore the nagging fear that in my quest for fairness, I was being unfair to my own daughter. I worried — I worry still — about whether I made the right decision for our little girl. But I knew I made the just one,” she wrote in 2016.

And, indeed, justice was at the top of her mind. Why should her child get a better education than a poorer child did? Because that was at the heart of all the problems in the New York City public school system, to hear her tell it. That 2016 article mentioned “segregation” 35 times, “segregated” 34 times, and “segregate” once, for a grand even total of 70 mentions of words that begin with that pernicious root. Hannah-Jones clearly believed that this was the root of all educational outcomes, and by sending her child into a school that had a history of less-than-stellar outcomes, she would be a beacon of light, a ray that would break through the wall of what she saw as 21st century Jim Crow.

I know you won’t believe this, but this worked out exactly how you might think, given that she wrote about it a decade later in a Sunday article headlined thusly: “In Fighting for Every Black Child, Did I Betray My Own?”

Spoiler alert: In defiance of Betteridge’s law of headlines, yes, she did! Quite badly, in fact!

The lede, which, to be fair to Hannah-Jones, is far more honest than anything I’ve seen her........

© Western Journalism