At this year’s AERA annual meeting, Julian Vasquez Heilig was struck by one particular word.
One of the moments that resonated with me most was Janelle Scott’s 2025 AERA Presidential Address. Among many thought-provoking insights, she introduced the concept of kakistocracy — a word that feels especially urgent in today’s educational and political landscape.
Kakistocracy — from the Greek kakistos, meaning “worst,” and kratos, meaning “rule” — refers to government by the least qualified, or the most unscrupulous, or the most self-serving. It’s a system where those likely least suited to lead are nonetheless at the helm, steering institutions not toward justice, equity, or excellence, but toward decay, division, or personal gain.
As Scott argued, and as many of us are seeing with increasing alarm, kakistocracy is no longer an abstract idea. It has materialized in education leadership, policy, and governance — with devastating consequences.
In the current moment, we are witnessing appointments of leaders in education — from US Secretary of Education to university presidencies — who are actively hostile to the very missions they are supposed to uphold. Instead of expertise, integrity, and a commitment to equity, we see:
- Leaders selected for political loyalty rather than educational excellence.
- Superintendents and commissioners beholden to ideological agendas instead of evidence-based practices.
- University presidents more concerned with appeasing political forces than defending academic freedom, racial equity, or truth itself.
It is a kakistocracy when educational institutions that should nurture critical thinking and social mobility instead become tools for retrenchment, censorship, and systemic inequity.