An Invitation to Radical Thought and Meaningful Action

What are the boundaries of what you’ve been taught to believe is possible? How might you learn to recognize these boundaries and expand what you can know?

I fundamentally believe that theory holds radical potential when it is practically applied. Exposure to new ideas invites us to engage in new practices as we labor to achieve new outcomes, and this process is cyclical, never-ending. The very real outcomes of our efforts can then be analyzed through the same or different theoretical frameworks, inspiring additional changes to our practices and new opportunities to analyze outcomes – before doing it all over again and again. In education, this process is called PRAXIS. Theory, as such, is an invitation to critical thinking. It offers strategies through which to shift perceptions, interpret reality through multiple lenses and then strategize resistance to the systems of domination that shape our lives via shifts in thought and conscious action.

In response to what I perceive to be one of many political crises of our time, I want to talk about radical politics and free speech.

What does it mean for something to be radical?
What makes a theory, an action or a person radical?
What are radical politics?

I want to suggest that words still very much matter. Words have meaning.

We may have a president with a very simple vocabulary who thinks that the word “groceries” is old-fashioned and that he invented the word “equalize,” but like Mark Carney recently said at Davos, living in truth requires that we name reality.

The words we use to describe reality shape our worlds, and careful attention to naming as a method of communication enables people to become conscious of reality in ways that foster critical thinking and critical engagement with the world. Paulo Freire calls this “an existential necessity, as it is through dialogue that we name the world, and it is through naming the world that we recognize our humanity. “Human existence cannot be silent, nor can it be nourished by false words, but only by true words with which men and women transform the world. To exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it.”

The sentiment is that words have meaning, common usage, history and etymology that cannot simply be erased by ignorance and repetition. Of course, meanings can change over time, but the words we use to establish shared spaces, government structures, policies, directives, even the boundaries of our intimate relationships – are based on common, shared understandings.

Let’s talk about the word RADICAL

The president likes to use his limited vocabulary to insult his political opponents by referring to us broadly as radical leftists. Rather than accept the ire of his intention and allow him to simplify its meaning, as someone who understands what the word radical means, I take it as a compliment.

Radical has been used since the late 1300s. It comes from the Latin word “radix,” which means root. Its English usage originally referred to something that originates from the root or foundation. It was used in botany before becoming a more general reference to the need for drastic, fundamental change or reform, which has been its political usage since the late 1700s.

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), educational theorist Paulo Freire states that his work is for radicals. For him, what this means is that – to believe that liberation is possible requires an optimistic, hopeful orientation toward the future and its possibilities. To believe that we can experience ourselves as more fully human and bring that humanization into our practices and institutions is radical. Put simply, to be radical is to be hopeful that things can be otherwise.

“The more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better, he or she can better transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into dialogue with them.”

Another reference for radical comes from the history of consciousness scholar, Angela Davis, who defines radical as simply “grasping things at the root.” For Davis, to engage in radical thought is to try to understand the origin point, the root of oppression and systems of domination. To engage in radical action is to work to overcome the sources of these social ills – at its root.

To be a radical person is to believe that it is possible to understand the problems at the root of our social ills and then imagine and implement new ideas and practices that prioritize human freedom and experiences of human wholeness for everyone.

**Do you consider yourself a radical? What radicalized you? Tell me in the comments.**

For me, it was:

Traveling outside the US and being exposed to contradictions in US policy & rhetoric
Having children, viscerally understanding that we are all someone’s child and not understanding why US politics does not prioritize the care & well-being of its citizens
Growing up as a woman in a culture that didn’t align with my values, being sexualized at a young age and being told that it was my fault because my flesh is a sinful temptation
The police killing of Michael Brown in St. Louis in 2014
Coming of age shortly after 9/11 and living through the corresponding suppression of civil liberties and dramatic increase in surveillance and military technologies

We have now established answers to the questions I asked at the beginning of this section.

The word radical means to grasp something at its root, at its foundation.
Radical theories attempt to understand the root causes of social ills, and radical actions seek to transform these root causes and implement new practices, new systems, new institutions, new policies and new promises for humanity. Radical people believe that this type of social change is possible.
Radical politics aim this action at systems of power, seeking more than pragmatic, incremental change.

So radical theory is a powerful rebuke of political, social and familial systems as they currently exist insofar as they are dehumanizing and oppressive, the very embodiment of the rot of institutional power, and radical theory offers analyses of why we find ourselves in this position while also suggesting practices through which to change it, not incrementally, not pragmatically – radically.

Radical politics is for those of us who believe in love, who believe in humanity, who believe that our hard work can establish governing structures that acknowledge and honor the inherent value of our human lives. It’s for those who see our government abuse its power and still believe that we can come together to create something better. To be called a radical leftist is a compliment really.

Juxtaposing Radical Politics with the Suppression of Political Speech

Now I want to juxtapose radical defined in this way with current government attempts to suppress political speech and criminalize radical politics, including the radical theory meant to help us analyze the roots of our shared problems.

I think this is important because I want to encourage critical thinking. I want to encourage people to question what they’re being told to think. And I want to encourage disobedience to mainstream assumptions in favor of agency and the collective critical thinking practices that should be at the root of a democratic society.

On September 22, 2025, the President signed an Executive Order Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization. Three days later, on September 25, 2025, he issued a Presidential Memoranda titled Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence, NSPM-7, which has been interpreted by civil rights groups as an attempt to silence those of us who are not in ideological alignment with the many horrors of his administration. He has labeled activists and nonprofits who work to identify and transform the roots of our political ills as “enemies within.” Similarly, he has named as his political opponents scientists, academics, public health professionals and the legal profession – but I want to focus here on the attempt to stifle POLITICAL FREE SPEECH.

The president does not want those of with radical politics to exercise our right to political free speech for fear of being criminalized, of being labeled domestic terrorists. He wants us to be afraid to speak against our government, to protest our government, to demand that its policies and practices align with the will of the majority – or at least a plurality – of we, the people.

Just as he wants to control the meaning of what it is to be radical, he wants to control the narrative of who is committing political violence.

These “official” government documents, the executive order and the presidential memoranda, contain many, many misstatements of fact, and they attempt to draw new boundaries around what counts as “lawful” political speech and “lawful” political activity. Just as every accusation is an admission with this administration, “Antifa” is accused of being an “organized campaign of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society.” And therein lies their goals.

Further, NSPM-7 expands upon the executive order defining anti-fascism as domestic terrorism by including as anti-American any advocacy against capitalism, Christianity, law enforcement, so-called extremism on migration, race and gender, and “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion and morality.”

This administration is conflating what it means to be “American” with WASP culture. It is criminalizing, labeling as organized domestic terrorism, viewpoints that exist in opposition to those currently in power. This administration is erasing pluralism, diversity, multiculturalism, even given the reality that white Americans themselves are comprised of various immigrant backgrounds. And they are authorizing enhanced surveillance of their political opponents.

This administration is engaging in targeted intimidation, escalating threats and violence against brown folks and immigrants no matter their status, killing in the streets those who dare to stand up for their neighbors – all in an attempt to enforce obedience through fear and violence – the literal definition of terrorism. We are living through a dramatic wave of state terrorism. This administration wants to silence opposing voices, criminalize the political activities of their opponents and literally end democracy in favor of authoritarian control.

In Defiance of Political Suppression

All of my public school indoctrination regarding the principles of this nation’s founding scream out in opposition to this current reality. I’m supposed to accept that I no longer have freedom of political speech because I don’t agree with my president?

Nothing has ever motivated me as much as telling me that I can’t do something. And now you’re telling me that I spent more than a decade studying critical thought across disciplines in order to now exist in a country that has labeled the discussion of radical thought as domestic terrorism?

To this, I very defiantly say no. And I return to the power of writing, art, speech and other creative practices in an effort to put into the ether radical thought, radical theory, suggestions for radical action, the idea that we can be radical, hopeful beings who help to bring about the transformation of our society in ways that make sense to us and our communities. We can work together to collectively shape what comes next, even as we live through the chaos, violence and destruction that is this current moment.

The recent rulings of Judge William G. Young in the USDC of Massachusetts have inspired me on this topic of free speech. Appointed by Reagan in 1985, Judge Young has overseen a recent case titled, American Association of University Professors v. Rubio. For my legal nerds, it’s case no. 25-10685. It’s essentially a case challenging the Trump administration’s policy of ideological deportation, or deporting academics here legally because the Trump administration does not like the content of their political speech.

Before going after those who would dare to challenge his power with radical ideas and radical politics like what he thinks “Antifa” is, this administration attempted to cultivate a climate of repression and fear on university campuses. This is a pattern. His fragile ego is very afraid of what we think of him, and he seeks to control the consciousness of everyone who might give in to silence out of fear, and everyone who might accept the partial and distorted reality that his niche media outlets and social media sites parrot.

As we’ve seen, his extreme racism and white nationalist efforts have caused him to go after noncitizens of various sorts. It is insane to me that his supporters are still so insulated that they think only “illegals” and “criminals” are being targeted. This case is an example of his attempt to silence noncitizen academics from contributing to public debate. It is a perfect example for those naysayers.

On June 19, 2025, Judge Young issued his Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law in this case. And while I don’t usually spend my Friday nights reading district court orders, this one captivated me. It captivated me because it reminded me that freedom of political speech is not just a constitutional right for American citizens. It is a constitutional right for everyone existing on the stolen land that is currently the United States.

“This case … squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in [the] United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally, ‘yes, they do.’ … No one’s free speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.”

On January 22 of this year, 2026, Judge Young issued an order formally declaring that the Trump administration’s policy of arresting, detaining and threatening to deport noncitizen students and faculty for their political speech violates the First Amendment. When you click the link below, I highly recommend scrolling on down to page 148 for the section titled “Justice in the Trump Era.”

No doubt Trump’s more recent attempts to suppress political free speech (that he intentionally mischaracterizes) is also in violation of the First Amendment. May this be a reminder, as the orange asshole expands his attempts to chill constitutionally protected political free speech, of the true constitutional breadth of this right to free speech on US soil. Now is the time for each of us to stand up, to speak, to seek out ideas we’re taught to fear and to engage in meaningful action based on our genuine assessment of the present and our hopes for the future.

In this moment, the world needs your radical thought and meaningful action.

An Invitation to Radical Thought and Meaningful Action

Let’s talk about the word RADICAL

Juxtaposing Radical Politics with the Suppression of Political Speech

In Defiance of Political Suppression

Leave a Reply Cancel reply