George Orwell’s 2025
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
(George Orwell, 1984)
When Donald Trump was “elected’ president in 2016, two books shot to the top of Amazon sales: 1984 and The Handmaid’s Tail. One book was about 60 years old and the other was about 30. But both of them deal with authoritarian governments. Both of the them deal with the loss of basic rights (for certain sectors of the society). And both of them deal with some of the ways in which governments cover up the truth and hide what they are actually doing. Orwell knew and Atwood knows that words and language can be really effective mechanisms of control.
On January 29, 2025, Donald Trump, signed an Executive Order called “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.” Section One claims that schools have become places of radical indoctrination that compel students to adhere to particular beliefs and practices. It argues that schools reinforce racial divides and encourage students to see themselves as trans. The text of the Order argues that all of this is un-American, and that the schools “indoctrinate” students to turn against their parents and their nation.
Section Two of the Order defines several terms, including 1) “discriminatory equity ideology,” 2) “patriotic education,” and 3) “social transition.” Section Two also includes, by way of reference to an earlier Order, that only two sexes exist.
Term 1 means that no one can be categorized, defined, or referred to as a member of any “preferred or disfavored” groups. Rather, they can only be considered as “individuals.” Under this definition, no one can assert that any race, ethnicity, nationality (etc.) is better in any way than any other. (They may have inadvertently just sown the seeds of anti-white nationalism legislation.) Further, one cannot state that “the United States is fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory.”
Term 2, “patriotic education” means that all education (in primary, secondary, and state schools) must be an “accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization” of the US and its founding principles. Further, one can only argue that we are moving closer and closer to those noble goals.
Term 3 is specifically about sex and gender, and it argues that one’s gender cannot differ from one’s sex. Furthermore, the schools should do nothing to support the idea that the two can be different. Everyone has to stick to their ASAB bathrooms and sports teams.
First, the Order is defining any curriculum or lesson or activity that engages in any of these banned activities (or thoughts) as “indoctrination.” Here, we see the first Orwellian strategy: take a well-known term and redefine in order to produce an ideology. It’s something that Orwell calls “blackwhite.” In other words, party followers will say that “black” is “white” if the party tells them to. In this case, the party says that “education” is “indoctrination,” and the party faithful follow suit. Indeed, the absurdity becomes enforceable law. The strategy is a way to compel party loyalty. It becomes a way to enforce thinking, and it is a way to sort out and punish those who will not conform to the absurdity (see the quote above).
As part and parcel of this strategy, the Musk minions are going through government agencies, including education, to identify and remove any and all “forbidden words.” It truly is a horrifying thought that they are producing a list of “forbidden words.” It’s straight out of dystopian SF.
What is “indoctrination?” The root verb, indoctrinate, has several meanings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, at its most basic, indoctrinate means “to teach” or “to imbue with learning.” In other words, quite a neutral term and nothing wrong with that. Beginning in the 1830s, the term took on a narrower meaning: “to imbue with a doctrine, idea, or opinion,” and, in particular, “to imbue with Communist ideas.” And here is where we see the slippage and the intent of the Trump Order.
In this Order on Indoctrination, the Trump administration clearly intends the second usage. They intend to create the narrative that the current schools are using Communist tactics to turn students against the US (although, ironically, the Communists used to indoctrination to keep citizens loyal to the USSR.) Further, the Order argues that the current curriculum is rooted in and perpetuates an anti-American mentality. The Order builds upon the negative connotation we already hold against the idea of “indoctrination,” and it uses that bias to enforce their own ideology.
The final OED definition of “indoctrinate” means to “inculcate.” It also notes that this usage is “rare.” Nevertheless, it is at the crux of the issue here. To “inculcate” means to force upon. It means to require that the recipient learn. It mandates both content and outcome. It also leaves out the option for disagreement. Within indoctrination, the student cannot question or challenge the powers that be. Within indoctrination, the student cannot see alternative ideas or beliefs. Most importantly, the student cannot arrive at their own conclusion.
(Religious education is frequently better defined as indoctrination. Although some traditions and some churches will allow alternative views, in general, religious education allows one narrative and one conclusion. Both the content and the outcome are predetermined. There is little room for question for dissent.)
And while the Trump Order alleges our current education is “indoctrination,” it is, in fact, exactly what the Trump Order is doing. The Orwellian “blackwhite” in full glory. Call “education” “indoctrination” and redefine “indoctrination” as “education.”
Under the new Order, under the new curriculum, the content is already prescribed. Under the new curriculum, the conclusions are already defined. A teacher or a textbook can only mention certain allowable things. It cannot deviate from that content. It allows for no questioning. It allows for no other conclusions. A teacher or a text can only say that the US is not discriminatory. A teacher or a text can only say that the US is marching steadily toward its noble goals.
On the other hand, an education allows for dissent. It allows for discussion. It allows the student to arrive at their own conclusions. An education will provide certain facts. It will reveal certain conditions. It will provide ways to think about those facts. And an educator will ask students to think about the facts and to arrive at conclusions.
As a more concrete example, and since I am on Long Island, lets look at home ownership and segregated neighborhoods and villages. I am thinking specifically about Levittown and other places like it. It is an undeniable fact that banks and realtors discriminated against people of color (as did the Trump family). It is undeniable that those redlining practices created segregated neighborhoods and that they kept people of color from owning real estate. Real estate is one of the primary ways to build generational wealth. Both of those practices had (and continue to have) profound impacts on communities of color.
So, an education will provide students with these incontrovertible facts. The educator will provide the students with historical context. And the goal will be to have student think through why it happened, what the consequences were, and what the remedies might be. They will have to acknowledge that the practices emerged from a racist history. They will have to see the ways in which the whole banking/real estate complex perpetuated racial inequality and poverty. And it will look for ways to improve. It will, in fact, achieve the Trump Order’s stated objective — find ways to move closer to the noble goals of the founders.
Indoctrinating students with jingoist phrases and false histories will NOT reach the noble goals of the Constitution. Under the Trump order, how would we even be able to know about — let alone do anything about — such facts of our collective past?
Instead, an education will ask students to think about race and discuss it. What it is? Why does it exist? What are the historical and political consequences of how we define and deploy race? What does it mean for our society? What does it mean for our vaunted noble goals? Similarly, an education would ask students to think about and consider the consequences of why we have tried — quite against nature — to define sex as binary.
Please resist the Trump administration’s assault on education. Trump’s Order will only assure that our children are indoctrinated as “goodthinkers.” In Orwell’s 1984, and in Trump’s 2025, the “goodthinker” is someone who strongly adheres to the principles of the Party.
That’s not an education.
Ritch Calvin is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. He is the author of Queering SF: Readings (Aqueduct), Feminist Epistemology and Feminist Science Fiction (Palgrave McMillan) and edited a collection of essays on Gilmore Girls (McFarland). His most recent book is Queering SF Comics: Readings (2024, Aqueduct Press).
