Classrooms should be places where students are not pressured or guided to support one side of current political disputes, but teachers’ unions have long struggled to maintain clear discipline in upholding this standard.
A recent email circulated by the Wayzata Education Association illustrates the troubling trend of union infrastructure within school culture to take political stances.
Greetings colleagues,
You may have heard that some local organizations have called for a January 23rd “ICE Out Day.” The action is meant to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity and to call for ICE to leave Minnesota, and it includes a request for people to stop work, school, and spending for the day.
We want to acknowledge that current situations may bring up concern, fear, or uncertainty for some staff members, students and families in our community. We want to offer support in any way that we are able to. Please don’t hesitate to reach out.Whether it’s for yourself, a colleague, or help connecting families with resources.
We also share the concern that ICE should not be present in or around schools, and we recognize the impact immigration enforcement has had on members of our community and may have had on students and staff. We support policies that help keep schools safe and welcoming for all students, staff and families. We also understand that many staff are wanting to know how they can help or show care or solidarity during this time.
There have been questions about whether public school educators or unions can participate in the January 23rd ICE Out Solidarity Strike. Because we are under contract, Minnesota State Statute does make it illegal for us as state employees to participate in a one day solidarity strike (Statute 179A.18,179A.19).
If you are wanting to participate in the ICE Out Day activities, you would need to use a personal day on Friday, January 23rd. Employees do still have First Amendment rights to free speech and political expression on their own time.
You may have heard that the St. Paul Federation of Educators (SPFE) Local 28 plans to participate in the January 23rd action. We don’t have details about their legal or contractual situation, and their circumstances may be different from the WEA.
Education Minnesota has encouraged locals to show solidarity in other lawful ways. One option is wearing blue on Friday, January 23rd, as a visible sign of empathy and support for keeping ICE away from public schools. The WEA encourages teachers to wear blue this Friday, January 23rd, as a way to show support, empathy, and solidarity.
Thank you for everything you do for our students, families, and each other. Please reach out if you have questions or need support.
The message is a political call to action surrounding a so-called “ICE Out Day,” a protest aimed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities, whose enforcement actions are generally not conducted inside schools. While the union stops short of explicitly endorsing an illegal work stoppage — acknowledging that Minnesota law prohibits solidarity strikes by public employees — it nonetheless encourages political participation and symbolic protest under the banner of the school community.
That should concern parents, taxpayers, and educators alike.
First, the email blurs the line between education and partisan activism. Immigration enforcement is a contentious national political issue, governed by federal law and debated vigorously in Congress and the electorate.
Yet the union presents opposition to ICE not as one viewpoint among many, but as a shared moral stance. There is no acknowledgment that reasonable people — including parents of students in their district and educators they represent within their bargaining unit — may disagree. When a union speaks this way, it implicitly claims to represent a consensus that simply does not exist.
Second, the union’s message leverages the authority and trust of educators to advance a political narrative. Teachers occupy a unique and respected role in society. Families entrust them with their children not to advocate political causes, but to educate. When unions encourage symbolic acts like coordinated clothing colors to signal “solidarity” on a political issue, it risks turning schools into arenas of political signaling rather than neutral places of learning. Students should not be placed in an environment where one political viewpoint is modeled as the morally approved position by authority figures.
Third, the email highlights a deeper contradiction. On the one hand, the union admits that participating in a strike would be illegal under state law. On the other, it goes out of its way to promote alternative forms of protest, including wearing specific colors to make a political statement during the school day.
Public schools are funded by taxpayers of all political beliefs. That funding comes with an obligation for classrooms to maintain political neutrality. Educators, like all citizens, absolutely retain their First Amendment rights on their own time, but should exercise restraint in promoting partisan or ideological causes in their classrooms.
Finally, there is an uncomfortable reality the email avoids: Immigration enforcement exists because laws exist. One can argue for changes to those laws through the democratic process, but encouraging public employees to symbolically oppose lawful federal agencies sends the wrong message to students.
Educators can demonstrate care for students without aligning with partisan campaigns and without using their classrooms as platforms for political activism. Schools should be places where students learn how to think, not what to think. When unions forget that distinction, it’s not just inappropriate, it’s irresponsible.
