Another Texan has been “canceled” in the name of political purity, and the state is worse off for it.
Until last week, Kate Rogers was the president and CEO of the Alamo Trust, the organization overseeing the famous site. But she resigned under pressure from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick over statements she made in her 2023 doctoral dissertation.
Rogers’ dissertation does express sentiments at odds with the state’s GOP leadership and that could be read as left-leaning. But nothing in her academic writing justifies firing her. Rogers’ work at the Alamo Trust has been excellent, and her tenure was marked by impressive progress toward restoring a sense of reverence and history to the site.
But we live in a state now where those who don’t show perfect ideological fidelity must lose their jobs and have their reputations dragged through the public square. Isn’t this exactly what worries us about left-leaning institutions?
The Alamo redevelopment project has aimed to tell the shrine’s story in a more complete way, including the site’s indigenous roots, its history as a mission and, of course, the famous Battle of the Alamo that led to Texas independence. There’s also a planned gallery dedicated to the site’s role in the national Civil Rights Movement.
That’s been one of the best parts of the project. So much has happened on this hallowed ground. There should be space for every Texan to appreciate each part.
Patrick’s difference with Rogers is partly about the focus. He wants the Alamo story heavily focused on the 13-day battle that is at the center of Texas’ origin story.
“Of course the entire story of the Alamo will be told, but the overriding emphasis must be on the ‘13 Days of Glory,’ as nearly 200 men gave their lives to defend liberty and freedom for Texas,” he said in a letter posted to X.
Yes, that battle is the most famous event in Texas history. But it has also been romanticized and simplified. Hopefully, Patrick’s insistence that it remain front and center doesn’t turn this project into an ahistorical rehash of John Wayne’s 1960 film The Alamo.
Patrick argued in an op-ed published in the San Antonio Express-News that Rogers’ writings expose that “she wanted to use the Alamo to send a political message, creating, as she wrote in her thesis, a ‘beacon for historical reconciliation.’”
Rogers references a definition of “historical reconciliation” as the “process and practice of recognizing and addressing histories of racism and its effects.”
We can celebrate Texas independence while acknowledging the historical reality of slavery and bigotry that is also at the root of the American story.
Intolerance for competing and uncomfortable ideas and events in history has been a hallmark of the academic left. Those who wanted to have nuanced discussions about sensitive topics like race, abortion or religion were shunted to the margins and shamed for failing to bend the knee to progressive ideologies.
Enough Americans became fed up with all that, and, across the country, the right came into political power. Instead of seeking balance and serious scholarship, leaders like Patrick are just repeating the power play from the other side of the aisle.
Conservatives have a word for folks who can’t tolerate ideas they disagree with: snowflakes. Who’s melting down now?