search icon
Gabrielle Clark: My Son Is Not an Oppressor Just Because He Looks White

“You can’t just tell people, ‘Well, you’re a racist because you’re a white,’ or ‘You’re a victim because you’re black.’ That is completely and totally asinine.”

In this episode, we sit down with Gabrielle Clark, a Nevada mom who is suing her son’s school. She says a sociology class forced her biracial son to identify himself with words like “privileged” or “oppressor” and gave him a failing grade after he refused to do so.

Now an advocate with No Left Turn in Education, Clark says her plan is to “do everything legally possible to stop this indoctrination nonsense in every single classroom, in every single school district in America.”

Jan Jekielek: Gabs Clark, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Gabrielle Clark: Thank you so much for having me, Jan.

Mr. Jekielek: I’ve been following your case for a number of months now. You actually have a court case in Nevada that has to do with your son being in school. In the court documents, there’s an image of a sponge with a rainbow,  and the words, “Reverse racism doesn’t exist.” A picture [that] your son had something to say about, and he got some pushback. Tell me a little bit about this.

Ms. Clark: That meme was what really started this for William. When that was brought up in his classroom, he just politely said, “Anybody can be racist.” That was his first time pushing back on anything like this. When that happened, there was heated debate, and discussion about it, at which time the teacher decided to close the chat because they were in distance learning.

First of all, saying something like that in a classroom is completely, and utterly ridiculous. Racism is prejudice based on race, and anybody can be racist. So this whole idea of reverse racism doesn’t exist. I say, “Yeah, you know what? It’s just plain old racist.” We don’t need to keep on creating words, changing words, and trying to deflect attention from the actual definition of words. It’s all racism.

I don’t care who is against [it]. If you’re basing your prejudice on the race of a white person, that’s racist. If you’re basing a prejudice on the race of a black [person], that’s prejudice too. We don’t need to keep this parallel language messaging—that’s what I call it. This parallel language messaging—introduced into our K through 12 schools—where the words don’t mean what they used to mean anymore.

Now racism is supposed to be power plus prejudice. No, racism has always meant prejudice based on race, and we don’t need to keep changing the definitions. William utilizes all the words, and his vocabularies accurately, just like everybody else should. He said, “No, anybody can be racist,” and that is true. I am very proud of him for making that decision to speak out, and not just accept some nonsense.

Mr. Jekielek: In the lawsuit, your son was told that he has to identify himself as an oppressor. Is that right?

Ms. Clark: Yes. He had to list his identities, and then attach signifiers to them—oppressed, oppressor, privileged—that sort of thing. They were derogatory. So my son—as a white male, able-bodied, all of those things—had to attach oppressor or privileged to those identities.

There were no other options. You just had to attach those. [For] all of his identities, and how they intersect, he’s just an oppressor. No, he wasn’t going to do that, and he didn’t. That was before I ever even got involved. He just didn’t fit. He just didn’t complete that assignment.

He said, “No, I’m not doing it.” Because who wants to do that? Even if I had to fill out that assignment, and I had to say, “Well, I’m this, this, and this. I’m X, Y and Z, so I’m oppressed.” I’m not oppressed. I’m an American. I’m doing whatever I want to do. However I feel like I want to live my life, I can do that. I can go as far as I want to in my life in America. That’s why people come here. He wasn’t going to do that, and I’ll stand behind him on that. So did his brothers and his sister.

Mr. Jekielek: In these kinds of situations, the teacher is an authority figure. If [kids] have a different understanding from the home, which he clearly did in this case, they might not be able to feel like they can respond.

Ms. Clark: William was born on Martin Luther King Day of the year of his birth and his middle name is Martin because we decided we wanted to respect the legacy. So my son is going to live up to that lens. Dr. Martin Luther King told all of us not to judge someone by the color of their skin, but [by] the content of their character. My son has been taught to do that his whole life. He was named after that idea, concept, and that legacy—and he’s going to continue to do it until he dies.

Mr. Jekielek: Gabs, very powerful words. But this didn’t actually start with your son. You had seen some other materials through this. It’s a silver lining from COVID with the distance learning that parents began to see what some of their kids are learning. You first saw some of this type of messaging with your daughter.

Ms. Clark: I was getting concerned about my children like all of us were because of the pandemic, and distance learning. It was a very scary time not knowing anything about what was going on with the pandemic. Over the summer, all of these terrible things, everyone in the world watching what happened to George Floyd, which was unbelievably horrific. I don’t care who you are, that was not acceptable.

Once school started again, I started overhearing what was going on in my daughter’s classrooms, and overhearing some things that I wasn’t super excited about. I didn’t think that it was appropriate to promote things like Black Lives Matter. Black lives matter, they do. All lives matter, they do. But the organization itself, that was something that I did not think was appropriate to be teaching to my middle schooler.

All of this graffiti all over the country was being introduced to my middle school [inaudible 00:08:19]. Graffiti is a crime. Why are we trying to teach middle schoolers that this is an acceptable way to express yourself, to go, and spray up cars. That’s not acceptable.

I don’t like to introduce any kind of crime to my middle schooler. They’re not ready to take in that information, and look at it objectively. They’re just children. All they see [is] that it is cool to go spray paint somebody’s car. No, that’s not something that I’m ready to teach my middle-schooler. That was the kind of thing I was seeing in her classrooms.

So I started actively listening, and I can’t even remember what it was that was said. But I heard something that was 100% a no-go. I told her to leave that class, and I found her a new school that very day. And I went to William, and asked him if anything like that had been introduced in his course material. He said, no, not really—knowing that what was going on in her class, and what was going on in his class were actually connected. But that’s why this is so crazy.

These kids don’t even know that they’re being indoctrinated. They think that the teachers, the administrators, and their schools are to be trusted, and that they’re getting a proper education. Whenever I asked to see what was in his class, some of the coursework he left blank, and didn’t complete. I knew, and I said to him, “There’s a reason why you didn’t feel comfortable, because this is wrong.”

Mr. Jekielek: What are the kinds of things that you’ve seen that are wrong in your mind?

Ms. Clark: First and foremost, the compelled speech aspect of this is unbelievably wrong. School is compelled speech in a lot of ways. They tell you you have to tell us what you know, prove to us you know this. That’s where you expect for your child to perform.

But when they’re asking things like tell us your race, religion, your gender, sexual identities, and your disabilities, that is crossing an unbelievably visible line. At no point has it ever been okay for any government entity to ask those kinds of questions for any reason in school, or for a job as a requirement for a position or a graduation. Those are the kinds of things that we [as] Americans, we have the right to say no to.

Mr. Jekielek: It’s incredible. A lot of kids might just not be ready to take a stand like that when that’s what the expectation is from the teacher.

Ms. Clark: I can tell you this, that is why No Left Turn is empowering, and educating their parents. So their parents can go to their communities, and eradicate this nonsense. You tell your children, “No, I’m not going to fill out this form telling you all of my business in my home, that goes on in my home.” Or “No, I’m not going to fill out this form that has me labeling myself as oppressed or labeling myself as privileged.”

When William had to do that assignment, I had been in a wheelchair for several years, and we were living in a motel. William was sleeping on a mat on the floor. His father died when he was one year old. He does not have a single memory. So no, he wasn’t going to just say, “I’m an oppressor.” I taught him that. We raised him that way.

Mr. Jekielek: So, in your family, you’ve been discussing all these issues. How does that play out for you?

Ms. Clark: With my children or with my extended family?

Mr. Jekielek: That’s a great question. I was thinking about with your children, but do tell about your extended family as well, please.

Ms. Clark: I’m in Houston now. This is my hometown. I’ve spent the majority of my time here with my mom’s sisters. One is a Muslim, and one who is a conservative Christian. The consensus is all of this is nonsense all the way around because you can disagree on ideas, and you can disagree on lots of things.

But the one thing that should be agreed upon is that everybody deserves respect, and everything that’s in the Constitution—every single right that is available to every single person in America, including my children. Our family dynamic is very unique. Which I think is the exact reason why these types of ideas—critical race theory, and other critical theories of this nature—do not work in our family, and therefore don’t work in America. We are the exception that proves the rule.

My mother was black, and my father was white. My first husband was black, and my second husband was white. Some of my children are three-quarters black, and some of my children are three-quarters white. When you just look at them, they look like black people, and white people. They don’t look like they are brothers and sisters. They don’t look like they belong in the same family. Unless of course if you look at our features, then maybe you can see that we do look a lot alike.

When my son was presented with the idea [that] only people of color cannot be racist, power plus privilege equals racism, and him being white and his siblings being black, that was not going to work in our family. When we discussed it as a family, his siblings agreed, and they all stood behind him as did I.

Mr. Jekielek: The issue that you seem to be getting at is that these kids are being told that they’re inherently one way or another, and being forcibly categorized. Kids are being expected to accept those categories without question.

Ms. Clark: Yes, and that is just completely ridiculous. You can’t just tell people, “Well, you’re a racist because you’re white.” Or “You’re a victim because you’re black.” That is just completely and totally asinine. The poorest person in my family is white, by far, okay? I’ve got hundreds of people on both sides of my family.

As black people, you can’t tell an entire race that they’re being victimized by another race in a country where we have been able to excel, and succeed from the very lowest point a human being can be. So, my grandmother—her father was illiterate. She has a daughter who has a PhD in education.

When we were going through all of those things, all of the history—photo albums and whatnot—there was the signature card for my great-grandfather, Joshua. Because he was illiterate where he signed, it was just scratches. There was no actual signature.

When my aunt saw that, my aunt with a PhD in education, she cried. I didn’t understand why. I asked her, “Aunt Dr. Ham,” that’s what we called her, “What are you crying for?” She [said], “Grandpa Joshua was illiterate,” and she just sobbed. In three generations from illiterate to PhD, you can only do that in America.

Mr. Jekielek: I’m getting pins and needles as you speak. My family are immigrants. I work with a lot of immigrants, people that came to this country with nothing, and were able to make something of themselves. I think the scenario you’re describing manifests many times over for all sorts of people.

I was looking at a Pew research poll recently that was looking [at], mostly in western countries, how tolerant are people of other races. America and Canada, which is my home country, both were very much at the top. Again, [curious] in the current scenario where we’re being told that there’s systemic racism, sexism, and every other ‘ism’.

Ms. Clark: Don’t get me wrong. There are definitely things that need to be fixed, and there is definitely room for improvement. You can’t over-correct, and take the attitude that the only way to move forward is to oppress this type of idea or to break away from everything that we’ve known, and create something wholly different.

When my house needs something, I get out some paint, and paint the walls. Pull out some carpenter tools, and fix it. You don’t go set the house on fire. This is what we’re looking at right now. All of these people want to burn it all down. You can’t disassemble the master’s house with a master’s tool. That is nonsense.

You can fix systems. You can fix things. You can utilize the tools that are already in place. That’s one of the wonderful things about America. That’s why everybody wants to come here. We have to turn people away all the time. My grandfather worked for immigration. I used to hear about it all the time.

We don’t have to completely destroy all of the systems, and all of the wonderful things about this country in order to fix the things that are wrong with this country. But at some point, we’re all going to have to look at what we’re doing, and say, “This is not right and this isn’t right either.” I think that most Americans are in that middle place. But we don’t get a say because we’ve been represented by a whole bunch of knuckleheads on both sides.

So that’s the reason why we had this huge emergence of people just speaking out, flooding school boards, and protesting. Because at the end of the day, I don’t care who you are. Most regular, everyday average people are like, “Wait a minute. We don’t want that. But we don’t want that either.” The politicians, all of our ruling class, and celebrities, they’re just going to have to just get used to the fact that we have our own minds, and we’re going to do what we need to do.

Mr. Jekielek: So you’re involved with the No Left Turn in Education. Presumably you’re interacting with a lot of the folks that you’re describing here. Tell me a little bit about this organization. There’s a number of these organizations that are springing up, Parents Defending Education is another one. I’ve spoken with Azra and Amani not too long ago. Tell me about what your organization does.

Ms. Clark: No Left Turn in Education is fighting indoctrination in K through 12 education. All of us are just a bunch of parents, and we’ve seen this kind of change in our families. We’ve seen these changes in our children that we didn’t recognize.

When it started to get to a point where we were able to see exactly what was happening in our children’s classrooms because of the distance learning, a lot of us—before there were ever any organizations to fight any of this—we were already looking at the video of all of these indoctrination ideas, and thinking to ourselves, “What is going on?”

Once it started to get public, we all started speaking with each other, and started comparing our notes. That is how No Left Turn in Education was born. Our founder, Dr. Elana Fishbein just had a bunch of people in the community start a movement in her living room, [as] she likes to say.

I saw her on Tucker Carlson. After having all of these problems, not knowing what to do with them. After asking for relief from our school, not getting it, and not getting any real reasons as to why we shouldn’t get it. And not getting any real remedy for a real problem that they were ignoring, and treating [it] like it wasn’t a problem.

Going up the chain of command to all of the people that you need to speak with or people you need to inform if you have a problem in the school system, and getting nowhere. Getting the run around, and getting sent back to the very first rung on this list. That was just devastating.

When I saw Dr. Fishbein on Tucker Carlson, I was like, “I need that lady. I need to talk to her.” I reached out to her. She asked me what do I want to do?  I said, “I don’t think we have any other choice. We need to take legal action.” That is exactly what No Left Turn in Education does.

We try to educate, and empower parents to eradicate this nonsense from their schools. We do that through Facebook. We do that through our own website noleftturn.us. I talk to parents all the time, and a lot of the times the stories are just heartbreaking.

One of our parents that I spoke with a few days ago, I think their daughter attempted suicide several times. This is not a game, and you can’t go around treating our children, and abusing our children in this way.

Pornography in our classroom, in our libraries, come on. At what point do you say [to] yourself, “This is not for kids.” I don’t know what these people are thinking, and I don’t know why they think that parents are just going to sit by, and watch that happen. Well, we have thousands of members now, and we will do everything legally possible to stop this indoctrination nonsense in every single classroom, in every single school district in America.

Mr. Jekielek: This changing of definitions is very interesting. As I’ve been learning from people a lot smarter than I am, this is a central element of how these critical theories work. They change language, with a lot of the people in society not fully realizing that the language has been changed.

Tell me a little more about that. What have you encountered where some of these definitions have been changed, and people think they’re talking about the same thing but they’re not necessarily.

Ms. Clark: There’ve been so many times where a parent has been asked, “Well, what’s happening? Or can you explain to us what you’re talking about?” There had just been no way to explain that in an all-inclusive way, and explain what was happening under this umbrella of all of this weirdness that was going on. I had to read a bunch of stuff, and watch a bunch [of] stuff from people who are way smarter than me. The way they explain it, it’s great but it’s also very complicated.

It’s not something that’s easily understood. I started thinking about all of this, and I [said], “I’m relatively smart. Let me see if I can condense all of this.” I started looking into how to explain, and how to break it down for parents so that they can then break it down for their school boards, their schools, and to other parents.

What I came up with is that one of the fundamental problems is that this changing of definitions, words, skewed theoretical viewpoints, and all of those things that I’ve noticed, come under [the] umbrella of linguistics, and language. This is some sort of parallel language that they’re creating.

We need to start utilizing the language as it is supposed to be, as the definitions are supposed to be, and [to] not adopt this parallel language messaging. It covers everything—all of the redefining of words, and all of the made-up phrases that are nonsensical, grammatically. When I discussed it with some of the other people in No Left Turn, that is one of the things that we’re going to start working on.

How to explain to parents what parallel language messaging looks like, and what it is. So that they can have the vocabulary, and the language to be able to explain how or why this particular idea doesn’t work. What it should be, and what it is trying to replace. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what I have started in No Left Turn—trying to figure out how to relay this to the layperson.

Mr. Jekielek: What would be an example of a term? We talked about the term racism. What would be another example of a term that’s misused like this?

Ms. Clark: I’ve had this discussion for several years. [I] didn’t have anything to explain it [with] properly. But one of the phrases that I have an issue with is the phrase “serial monogamy.” Serial monogamy is an oxymoron. That is ridiculous. That is not a thing. All of these scholars get all hot because they’re trying to explain [it] to me, but you know what it is? It’s parallel language messaging because monogamy means mate for life. One mate throughout your entire life.

But this idea that one mate throughout your entire life, when you break it all down, that’s white supremacy, Jan. No, no. We’re not doing that. Mate for life, that’s mate for life. That can span any culture, any race, any religion. But we don’t need to try to redefine both of those words by combining them to create a new, completely and wholly different concept.

That is what I’m referring to as parallel language messaging. There is no such thing as serial monogamy. You can have serial relationships, but there is no such thing as serial monogamy. That’s the kind of stuff I’m talking about.

Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating. One place I’m sure you’re familiar with, and this is for the benefit of our audience too, is the New Discourses website, James Lindsay’s website. Although, as you said, some of it may need to be broken down to be a little more colloquial. I agree.

Ms. Clark: James and Helen, they’re geniuses. I am not. I think most parents, especially after having your brain slipped out of your head by having children to begin with, you don’t have the patience or the grey matter to interpret all of this. Then [to] vocalize it, and have the language to explain, and be able to intelligently speak about it.

I had to read a lot of that stuff. Even speaking with Helen, I felt I had to straighten up, and try [to smarten up]. Those are the kinds of interactions with people that you don’t feel you can really understand or absorb because they’re very smart, and they utilize $5 words, things that most of us don’t know.

We have to look that up. I’m like, “Wait a minute, let me break that down. What does that mean?” I can’t tell you how many times I had to go to a Latin translation, because a lot of this stuff is Latin words. I’m like, “I finished with school. I don’t want to do this.”

We have to be able to make it palatable for the general public, for the goober heads like me. I need to understand things in a layperson’s terms. Luckily for me, I have a team of people that I can bounce these ideas off of so that they can help me see what direction to take this. But I’ve always had a problem with the way that language had been changed. I didn’t have the vocabulary to articulate it, and now we do.

Mr. Jekielek: It’s interesting what you’re saying. The critical social justice material, and the redefinition of language—often these ideas don’t make a ton of sense. It’s a lot better to not have to think about all this stuff in these kinds of … The common sense is perfectly fine, thank you very much.

Ms. Clark: Yes, you don’t need to hire some aeronautics engineer to fix a lamp. That’s not necessary. When we send our children to college, they have all of these theoretical discussions, and they get excited about them.

Then they want to bring it to the masses, right? They take this theoretical discussion, and try to apply it to everyday living. The everyday regular people are going, “No, no, that doesn’t make sense to me.” Well, that’s because it’s a theoretical discussion in a classroom in a controlled setting, with open discussion.

We don’t need to be trying to teach that sort of thing to our 13-year-olds and our 15-year-olds. We don’t lay fresh cadavers out on the table in science class, give them a scalpel, and tell them to go to work. We don’t do that.

So why in the world would we take these complicated concepts, and try to introduce them to these young children who are not ready for it? This is the sort of thing that needs to be discussed, and debated in the proper form, and setting. That needs to happen. That place is not in my ninth graders’ math class. We’re making sure that those kinds of discussions stay out of K through 12 because they’re not appropriate, and they’re causing a problem.

Mr. Jekielek: You talked about how families are being impacted, for example, where there’s a black and a white mother and father. I’ve been hearing this whole ideology is having an impact on families, and I’m curious if you’ve been hearing anything about this from the parents that you’re speaking with.

Ms. Clark: Oh yes. What’s so crazy is that this kind of thing is not being opposed by the people that you would typically think are opposing it. This stuff is being opposed by parents that are Democrats, Republicans, black, white, Latino, gay, straight. It doesn’t matter. Everybody hates this nonsense. Regular, everyday American parents do not want this in their schools for their children.

And no, we are not co-parenting with the government. We are the parents, you are the educators. We want our children to be educated with a classical liberal education. That’s reading, writing, science, math, history. Not social justice nonsense, not active citizenship, not global whatever. We want this.

If they choose to, they can ascend to the college level, and learn some of these more complicated concepts. All of this stuff that they’re talking about, and that they’re spending all of this money on for social justice, is taking away from actual, practical education that is going to create the ability for all of these children to provide for themselves when they grow up.

One of the great equalizers in society is education, the ability to make money, and to support yourself. You’re going to take money away from actual education, teaching literacy, and all of those things, so you can teach about social justice. Thereby making everybody not be able to take care of themselves when they grow up. What kind of sense does that make? Who decided that? Who thought better? It wasn’t parents. So we’re rejecting that.

Mr. Jekielek: Tell me a little bit about this pornography in the classrooms. We’ve been hearing a bit about that over [the] past weeks. There have been parents that have been going to school board meetings, reading from books, and showing photos. What are you talking about exactly?

Ms. Clark: We have a list of books that we think are inappropriate for education. When you talk about stuff like age-appropriate content. Yes, of course, some things for high schoolers are going to be more appropriate [than] for elementary school kids.

But there’s nowhere in education where illustrations of blow jobs, and whatever, [are] ever appropriate for school. I don’t care how mature your 12th grader is, that is not appropriate for a school. You need to be learning some reading, writing and math. So you can function in society, and then you can do all that extra later.

Mr. Jekielek: You told me offline [that] one of your big concerns is that this material—whether it’s of the racial or sexual nature—is actually very divisive for not just the students, but for society in general. Tell me about that.

Ms. Clark: I hear these stories all the time. Married couples who can no longer stay married because one of them is black, and one of them is white. And in some crazy world where we’ve decided that if you’re married to a white person or to a white man, more specifically, then he’s somehow oppressing you.

What happened to love is love? We got to a place where we were accepting. This is one of my issues with the far right not being accepting of certain kinds of relationships. We had gotten to a place where we were saying love is love. Does that now not apply to the biracial people? Is there some insane thing happening in people’s minds where they just feel like you can’t do this anymore?

What happened to the loving family? What happened to that? I put up a picture of my parents holding me in the ’70s on Twitter, and it has gotten thousands of likes and retweets and messages. I can’t even keep up with them all.

Well, this is America, and you can have those kinds of relationships, and you can have those kinds of friendships. Even if you don’t understand each other all the way, that’s what you do over time. That’s how minds change, not separating them. The minds change when there’s a convergence of ideas. My family members, they get together, and they discuss these ideas.

They’re able to say, “You know what? I never thought about it like that.” If we all have to separate now, we can’t be together anymore. We can’t blend our families, and mix our races anymore. We can’t be with the same sex partner. If we can’t do that anymore, well, how do we understand each other, and live in this harmony?

It was getting better. Why do we want it to go back to being bad? This is the kind of ideas that this new cultural shift is promoting—division. I say no, all of us are saying no.

Mr. Jekielek: Recently, Merrick Garland issued a memo to [Department of Justice] agencies to study potential threats from parents against school boards. What do you make of all this?

Ms. Clark: There definitely are some school board members who are getting some very inappropriate things sent to them, threats, and so forth. It’s not just school board members who are in support of this stuff, but it’s also school board members who are in opposition to all of this stuff. School board members on both sides of this debate have been getting some really threatening, and scary pushback.

However, when you go to a school board meeting, parents are angry, and are speaking out. [If]  you don’t like what they have to say, and you don’t like how they say it to you because your little feelings are getting hurt, that’s too bad. I’m not a domestic terrorist just because I say what my first amendment rights affords me in a school board meeting. That does not make me a domestic terrorist.

Yes, absolutely, all threats of violence should be investigated by local law enforcement. [But] we’re not talking about organized crime or anything like that. We’re not talking about something that the federal government should even be involved with. This is stuff that local law enforcement needs to be enforcing.

They need to be taking care of any, and all threats to any school board member on either side of this debate. But labeling me as a domestic terrorist because you don’t like what I have to say? [That] is 100% going against the Constitution, which is how we got here in the first place.

We’re not going to be deterred by this latest attempt to discredit parents as radicals or as terrorists. We’re not, we’re parents. We do not co-parent with the government. We’re going to tell you how we feel about what you’re teaching our children, especially if we don’t like it.

Mr. Jekielek: This is a really interesting point. As a parent, you’re not co-parenting with the government. But there [are] different viewpoints on this. There [are] people, especially in education, who think that parents are the ones who shouldn’t have a say.

Ms. Clark: Well, they can get over themselves. Because I got the stretch marks, and the cellulite to prove that these children are mine. I get to say how they’re raised, not you. You get compensated for your efforts, poorly I might add. But you do get it, and you chose that profession.

I chose to be a parent. I take on all the responsibility of the children that I parent. And no, you do not get a say on how I parent that child. You do not get a say on the moral, and ethical raising of that child.

Mr. Jekielek: What’s next for you, and for No Left Turn in Education?

Ms. Clark: No Left Turn in Education works nonstop. I think I start getting messages at 3:00 AM, and they don’t stop until midnight because we work practically around the clock, trying to help parents with some of the problems that they’ve been facing in this environment.

For No Left Turn, we are focusing on making sure that every parent has the language, the resources, and some place to go when they need help. This is how No Left Turn started, and we’re going to continue until we get indoctrination out of K through 12 education.

Mr. Jekielek: Gabs Clark, such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Ms. Clark: Thank you so much for having me on.

[Narration]: The defendants, and Gabrielle Clark’s lawsuit have filed a motion to dismiss. They say that her son was, “Not compelled to express any belief.” Gabrielle says her next stop is an education conference in Acworth, Georgia on Saturday, October 23rd, titled “Defending Freedom in American Education.”

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EpochTVus
Twitter: https://twitter.com/EpochTVus
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/EpochTV
Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/epochtv
Gab: https://gab.com/EpochTV
Telegram: https://t.me/EpochTV
Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/EpochTV

Read More
Popular