Should educational institutions engage young people in political causes? Whilst this seemingly unique phenomenon may be revolutionary to this generation, its roots are deep within the pages of history. From Stalinist Russia to contemporary American classrooms, we’re pulling back the veil of deceit to help Americans see that everything isn’t as it would seem.

 

The Communist Playbook

 

In 1932, 13-year-old Pavlik Morozov became the face of Soviet loyalty when he reportedly turned in his own father to authorities for aiding wealthy peasants during Stalin’s brutal collectivization campaign. As the myth would have it, the boy was allegedly murdered shortly after by relatives, but Soviet propagandist Maxim Gorky transformed him into a national hero, proof that allegiance to the state trumped family bonds.

 

Morozov’s story was no isolated incident. The Soviet Union’s Young Pioneers program, established in 1922, enrolled millions of children aged 9–14 in what was effectively mandatory political training. Through oaths, activities, and relentless ideological education, the program aimed to create the “New Soviet Man,” a citizen whose first loyalty was to the Communist Party, not parents or tradition.

 

Decades later, Mao Zedong would take youth mobilization to devastating extremes. During China’s Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), he unleashed millions of students as Red Guards to attack the “Four Olds:” old customs, culture, habits, and ideas. Armed with Little Red Books and revolutionary fervor, these young people destroyed priceless cultural artifacts, publicly humiliated teachers and intellectuals, and turned on their own parents in the name of ideological purity.

 

From Tiananmen Square to Town Halls

 

Fast-forward to today’s America, and there’s a different (yet similar) kind of youth mobilization raising the eyebrows of students of history.

Thousands of students across California, Washington, and other states have been walked out of classes to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policies, chanting “No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here” whilst carrying handmade signs. High schools in the Bay Area, San Jose, and San Mateo have seen coordinated demonstrations, often timed with national action days.

 

Meanwhile, Pride Month observances, LGBTQ+ curriculum content, and assemblies featuring LGBTQ+ “family” structures have become flashpoints in school board meetings nationwide. Some schools display Pride flags, host readings about same-sex parents, or facilitate student participation in advocacy activities, moves that supporters call “inclusive education” whilst critics label ideological indoctrination.

A Necessary Question…

 

The correlation between what has been and what is today is startling: modern day schools are repeating historical patterns by positioning children as foot soldiers for political causes.

 

We aren’t at the place where they were in China or in Soviet Russia (yet) but the beginning mechanisms are here… American students haven’t explicitly been told to denounce their parents to secret police or to ransack museums, however, the promotion by teachers and professors for students to take part in walkouts and Pride events is a key indicator of where we are headed.

 

And thus, the underlying question persists: What role should educational institutions play in shaping students’ views on political issues like immigration policy, gender identity, and social justice? At what age is political activism appropriate? And who decides which causes are educational versus ideological?

 

The simple, truthful answer? Educational institutions have no place shaping student’s political views.

 

Competing Visions

 

The correct place for institutions to give of their talents in this regard is in the teaching of history and in the explaining of governmental functions for this is what creates the basis of a well informed citizen capable of democratic participation. Anything beyond this breaks a pre-existing sacred social contract.

 

Exposing children to varying perspectives isn’t the job of the government by way of the school system, but the duty of the family unit.

 

Schools have clearly crossed the line from education into activism and are actively using children to advance specific political agendas on immigration, sexuality, and identity. Parents, not institutions, should guide their children’s values formation, especially on contested moral and political questions.

 

History’s Shadow

 

Both communist regimes and modern democracies have recognized a fundamental truth: whoever shapes the young shapes the future. The difference, however, lies in methods, consent, and consequences.

 

Soviet and Maoist systems used compulsion, violence, and state terror to mold children into ideological instruments. And whilst Western schools operate within frameworks where parents can still object, opt out, or vote for different school boards, even these mechanisms are being targeted in America.

 

We need to seriously be asking ourselves, “Why?” and “Who would benefit from the government/teachers unions having full control over what our children are learning?” and “Why place limitations on parents instead of institutions?”

 

Culture wars will continue to intensify over the various issues young children are being used to advocate for, and America’s classrooms will be contested ground only if parents and American citizens refuse to engage in the ongoing battle.

 

The lessons of history issue warnings, and we would do well to heed them.

Thank you for your support.

If you appreciate the work we do to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, please consider giving a gift to help us continue this work. Maranatha!