Author: Sherry Sylvester

It is more than a little ironic that in the middle of the celebration of 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, one of the nation’s oldest historical organizations, the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), voted down an effort to ban men who say they are women from membership. If men live in a state that allows the gender-confused to change their birth certificates — and if they can prove they are descended from an American patriot — they are in.

Texas doesn’t allow individuals to change sex on birth certificates, so the DAR rule doesn’t apply here, but the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution’s refusal to ban men at their annual Continental Congress in June has crippled an organization that should be helping Americans understand and remember who they are — particularly now.

My great, great, great, great grandfather, Richard Sylvester, left his farm in Western Massachusetts and marched over 100 miles to Saratoga, New York to fight what turned out to be two critical battles in the American Revolutionary War. He was part of the Massachusetts Militia that defeated the British forces there, providing what some historians argue may have been the first realization among the British military leadership that the numbers, firearm proficiency and mobility of farmers and tradesmen who made up the colonial militias would ultimately make the Americans impossible to defeat.

To join DAR, I had to provide the receipts to prove I am descended from the Richard Sylvester who fought at Saratoga. Every woman who is a member of DAR has a story like mine, and the purpose of the organization is to make sure nobody forgets them. At least, that was the purpose until recently, when the organization was driven off-track from its mission by an ugly bylaws fight ending with an irregular and contested voting process and a final tally of 1,481 over 984 — in favor of admitting men who think they are women into the organization.

What is particularly appalling about this baffling move is that over the last several decades, DAR has been broadening America’s understanding of our nation’s founding by recognizing the wide swath of people who were in the fight for American independence. The early involvement of the people of Texas, for example, is reflected in the DAR membership of increasing numbers of Hispanic women whose ancestors were residents of what was then Spanish Texas, where they played an important role in providing food and money to the Continental Army.

That said, there is no denying that the DAR’s history with African Americans is inexcusable. It includes a “whites only” performance policy at DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. that excluded famous opera singer Marian Anderson in the 1930s. That outrage moved First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt to resign in protest, but even that would-be wake-up call didn’t make a difference. It wasn’t until the 1980s, when the organization was threatened with the loss of its tax-exempt status, that the DAR backed down and began to actively recruit the descendants of African-American and Native American patriots.

The threat of legal repercussions appears to be what fueled DAR members to vote against excluding male members this summer after they received a sketchy legal opinion from a former Biden attorney who warned that the DAR could be sued for discrimination. Apparently, what he did not clarify is that the DAR might be in violation of the District of Columbia’s local civil rights ordinance, which includes gender confusion. There doesn’t appear to be much likelihood of federal discrimination liability. There is also a Sons of the American Revolution, so it is not as if men have no alternative. Although admitting men to DAR has nothing to do with gay rights, the LGBTQ+ movement is cheering the DAR vote as a giant step forward for gender-confused men.

But it is at least three steps backward for DAR. At a time when expanded access to DNA has created an unprecedented interest among American’s in their ancestry, it is particularly perplexing that the DAR has allowed itself to become a beachhead in a gender identity war that men are rightfully losing. While most Americans believe every individual should be treated with dignity, a majority of Americans also believe biological men should not be allowed in women’s restrooms, half support restrictions on health procedures that help men look more like women and almost 80% support restrictions on men in women’s sports. Gallup found last year that over half of Americans also believe changing gender is “morally wrong.”

The Supreme Court has upheld states that have to reined in efforts by gender-confused men to gain access to women’s locker rooms and restrooms, which is one more reason it is so puzzling that men are being successful in pushing their way into DAR now. The momentum is clearly moving the other way.

U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., has introduced legislation — the “Daughters of the American Revolution Membership Integrity Act,” — that will amend the DAR federal charter to reinforce the biological reality that the Daughters of the American Revolution is only for women. Identical legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House.

Woman have a long track record of preserving America’s history. In 1872, when Boston city fathers slated the Old South Meeting House — the old church where over 5,000 people gathered to plan the Boston Tea Party — for demolition, the legendary “20 Women of Boston” raised over $400,000 to buy the land and save the building. In Texas, in 1902, Texas icons Clara Driscoll and Adina De Zavala saved both the Alamo Church and the Long Barrack to ensure the Shine of Texas Liberty would be preserved.

We have always been able to count on women to ensure the stories of our past are not lost. Unfortunately, right now, we can no longer count on the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

Winners & Losers is on the air all summer on Talk 1370, the Cardle & Woolley show, every Friday morning at 8:30 AM. Here’s the listen live link.

On July 4, I stood at the site of the Boston Massacre, in front of the Old Massachusetts State House, and heard the Declaration of Independence read from the same balcony where it was first read 250 years ago. Standing on the streets where it all started, I pondered the miracle of those first patriots of Boston who planted the idea of independence in the minds of the people and then saw it realized.

For those of us who are fighting for our history today, it is beyond inspiring—but it is also a cautionary tale, reminding us that the battle over what America would become actually began in a university classroom.

Most American historians say our revolution could not have happened without Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty, and that’s not just in hindsight. Thomas Jefferson called Adams “the earliest, most active and persevering man of the Revolution,” and John Adams, the former president and Samuel’s cousin, said bluntly, “the American Revolution can never be written without the character of Samuel Adams.”

American colonists were angry that the British Parliament failed to uphold their rights as Englishmen, but very few considered the answer was severing ties from the mother country. That thought was not in anyone’s head—until Samuel Adams put it there.

In 1740, Adams graduated from Harvard after defending his thesis, entitled “Whether It Be Lawful to Resist the Supreme Magistrate if the Commonwealth Cannot Otherwise Be Preserved.” Most people at the time would have considered it ludicrous to challenge the King of England, but Adams had launched his ideas at Harvard, the most respected university in the country, and his thinking was not viewed as ludicrous there.

In the 33 years between Adams’ thesis coming to fruition in Philadelphia, with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Harvard continued to provide Adams with the intellectual leadership and ideas that bolstered his credibility and the work of the Sons of Liberty.

Building on his master’s thesis and collaborating with other Harvard thinkers, Adams wrote and published constantly, creating a new narrative that changed how American colonists thought about themselves and England. He and the Sons of Liberty also created an intricate information network that spread his ideas to the other colonies.

Adams was playing the long game, writing for decades and embedding the principles of his Harvard thesis into a feasible path toward independence. His Harvard allies fortified his work at every step.

James Otis, the first lawyer to challenge the British in court for the practice of unimpeded search and seizure in colonists’ homes, and later the quartering of soldiers, was a Harvard graduate. So was Samuel’s cousin John Adams, as were John Hancock, Joseph Warren and seven other signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Changing the worldview of British colonists in a single generation and rallying them behind the principle of independence was essential to the creation of the United States. The intellectual clarity and selfless commitment of Adams and the Sons of Liberty places them in the pantheon of patriots for all time, but the impact of Harvard University also can’t be understated.

We should not forget that one single academic institution was a critical force in the founding of our country. Samuel Adams knew how a powerful university could expand worldviews and open minds and he used that power for good.

Harvard still understands that power, but the ideas have changed. Now, 250 years later, American universities have been used for a darker purpose: closing minds, stifling individual achievement and creating hatred and divisions specifically designed to destroy the country that Adams and the founding patriots created.

It is a cruel irony that leftist academics chose an acronym that sometimes seems to echo the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence. “Diversity, equity and inclusion,” sounds like something early American patriots would support—until they learned the details about what is known as DEI.

“Diversity” means proclaiming that some people must be given preferential treatment because of their race, gender or even their sexual preference. “Equity” means everyone must achieve the same outcome, regardless of merit or effort. “Inclusion” actually means excluding anyone who disagrees.

We are still trying to determine both the depth and breadth of the Marxist-based Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs that have nearly destroyed free thought and open inquiry at American universities, but it is likely much broader than the 200 academic institutions that admit to being members of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, where the stated mission is to incorporate “alternative narratives” about America “focused on the history of racism, colonization, and conquest.”

It is worth noting that many Americans first saw the massive impact of DEI on higher education when several presidents of elite universities, including Harvard’s Claudine Gay, were forced to testify before Congress where they refused to condemn students at Harvard and elsewhere who were calling for the genocide of Jews. Gay, in sharp contrast to Samuel Adams, apparently had also plagiarized much of her thesis.

Gay still teaches at Harvard and she, like all advocates of DEI, is also playing a long game, resisting higher education reform efforts and clinging to curriculum control, litmus tests in hiring, vast administrative expansion and a K-12 pipeline of DEI indoctrinated teachers that has produced a generation of Americans who have been taught to revile their country, the founders and ultimately themselves.

At President Donald Trump’s direction, the White House Office of Domestic Policy recently released a report that reveals that DEI-driven leadership at the National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., an academic adjacent institution, has eliminated exhibits of the Founding Fathers—no Samuel Adams or John Hancock. According to the report, only references to Benjamin Franklin and George Washington remain among the early founders, and that’s apparently because they both were slaveholders. The fact that Franklin changed his views and became a leader in the abolitionist movement is not mentioned.

It should be no surprise that new polling released by Gallup just before July 4 found that people who say they are proud to be Americans is at an all-time low, driven by Gen Z, where only 41% view the country positively. Other polling found that half of Gen Z believe America is a “racist country,” and almost 60% believe that capitalism should be replaced with either socialism or communism.

By hijacking the curriculum and dramatically expanding administrative programs, leftist DEI forces in academic institutions have created a new normal—a generation that believes the truth that is self-evident is that America is a colonizing, racist and patriarchal country built on systemic oppression.

Listening to the reading of the Declaration on that sacred ground in Boston, I was grateful Samuel Adams understood that universities are one of the primary forces that shape civilizations. Sadly, he could never have imagined his beloved Harvard would one day focus on dividing Americans between oppressed and oppressors, while teaching students to question whether America even deserves to exist.

Texas has been fighting back against DEI for several years, banning DEI offices at state universities and reforming university governance across the board. Texas will no longer allow universities to abuse their power.

Every state should follow Texas’ lead, not only to ensure that academic institutions are places of open inquiry and free thought, but also that there is another glorious Fourth of July celebration in 50 years—and 100 years after that—in America, and even at Harvard. Our lives, our liberty and our freedom to pursue happiness depend on it.

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

Winners & Losers is on the air all summer on Talk 1370, the Cardle & Woolley show, every Friday morning at 8:30 AM. Here’s the listen live link

Why Can’t We Get Rid of Drag Queen Story Hour?

June is here and Pride Month is back—but it’s not all rainbows and parades like it used to be.

For years, Americans were told that so-called Pride events were all about tolerance and equal treatment, something we should celebrate like the Fourth of July. Ultimately it didn’t sell. Pride celebrations have become inextricably linked to the broader LGBTQ+Infinity agenda that extends well beyond gay rights and embraces the idea that gender is fluid, biological sex is irrelevant, and traditional institutions such as marriage, faith, and family are relics of an oppressive past. Pride parades usually feature lots of drag queens and nearly naked men, more than a few of whom are dressed in anti-religious costumes (scantily dressed men in nun outfits are common). They are no place for children.

Americans have pushed back. Many, even on the left, believe that a big factor in President Donald Trump’s re-election is because he is for “us,” and his opponent, Kamala Harris, was for “they/them.”

Polling consistently shows that most Americans oppose allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports and support maintaining sex-specific spaces, such as locker rooms and restrooms for women.

Pride celebrations in many cities can’t find sponsors anymore as corporations reconsider whether it’s worth alienating customers to add their brand to a “pride” event.

Americans delivered a resounding “no thanks” to Bud Light after it featured Dylan Mulvaney, a man pretending to be a woman, in its advertising. Customers also turned their back on Target after it marketed a line of cross-dressing clothing.

So why has there been so little progress in eliminating drag shows for children, most commonly manifested in what has become known as Drag Queen Story Hours?

Texas has spent several legislative sessions attempting ban drag shows that target kids. Senate Bill 12, which passed in 2023, prohibited sexually oriented performances in the presence of minors and on public property. Texas has gotten leave to enforce the law, but court challenges continue.

Some educational leaders, including Texas public school librarians, believe it is important that children see drag shows. They insist drag queen performances are part of the mainstream, so they belong in public schools.

It is interesting to note that, as late as the 1950s, educators allowed and even advocated for black face shows to be performed in public schools, not just across the south but across the nation.

A couple years ago, I wrote an article titled “Drag Shows are Blackface,” to show that the message and intent behind drag shows and black face are not just similar, they are virtually identical.

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture describes blackface this way:

“Minstrelsy, comedic performances of ‘blackness’ by whites in exaggerated costumes and make-up, cannot be separated fully from the racial derision and stereotyping at its core. By distorting the features and culture of African Americans—including their looks, language, dance, deportment, and character—white Americans were able to codify whiteness across class and geopolitical lines as its antithesis.”

Replace “blackness” with “womanhood” and the comparison is impossible to ignore. Drag performances typically portray women through exaggerated makeup, costumes with oversized breasts and hips, mannerisms, voices, stereotypes including, catty, bitchy and stupid, alongside highly sexualized behavior. Like blackface before it, drag turns a human identity into a theatrical caricature.

Most Americans recognize that blackface is rooted in racist stereotypes and perpetrates heinous indignities toward black people. Blackface is not illegal – all Americans have freedom of speech – but few adults would consider attending a blackface show today.

Why isn’t it the same for Drag Queen Story Hours? We can’t even get Drag Queen Story Hours outlawed in front of children. Scantily dressed men across the country routinely invade public schools and public libraries where they read gender identity-infused stories to kids. Boston is hosting nearly two dozen “story hours” for children as young as 3 during the month of June.

According to its perpetrators, the goals of the Drag Queen Story Hour movement are to teach “imagination, self-expression, and the fluidity of gender at every age. Through glamorous, playful, and proudly queer role models, it creates joyful spaces that reflect the diversity of the world we live in.”

That’s one way to look at it. Another is to recognize that drag carries the same hate-filled message contained in blackface, except it is directed at women. If we really want to celebrate Pride Month, let’s get rid of Drag Queen Story Hours.

Here’s my previous article, “Drag Shows are Black Face.”

Have a great weekend!

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the former Senior Advisor to Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.

Winners & Losers is on the air all summer on Talk 1370, the Cardle & Woolley show, every Friday morning at 8:30 AM. Here’s the listen live link.

Democrats and the progressive left continue to lambast the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais to strike down the Bayou State’s second majority-Black congressional district as a racial gerrymander. Democrat leaders have used vicious and ugly attacks to pronounce the decision as racist and insist that it guts the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In a heinous allegation, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said “the ghosts of the Confederacy have afflicted the United States Supreme Court majority and are invading and haunting the nation right now,” while Alabama State Rep. Juandalyn Givan called Justice Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom, saying “his ancestors had to be the ones that sold us out in Africa.”

But packing congressional districts by race was not an explicit part of the Voting Rights Act President Lyndon Johnson signed in 1965. The practice of racial engineering emerged through later judicial interpretation, particularly in the Thornburg v Gingles ruling in 1986, and it is clear now that, whatever the segregated districts were supposed to achieve, it didn’t work.

Majority-minority districts have distorted the promise of the Voting Rights Act from eliminating heinous Jim Crow laws and ensuring everyone has equal access to the polls to demanding that Congressional districts be established with deliberate race consciousness to ensure that African Americans and Hispanics would be elected.

That has resulted in the creation of political ghettos over the past several decades, that segregate black and Hispanic candidates and limit both coalition building and broader electoral competition. Racially gerrymandered districts stifle minority voices instead of expanding them.

Currently 55 of the 59 African American members of Congress represent majority-minority districts. They are elected in districts that have been set aside for them so they don’t have to compete for the votes of others in the community who are not black.  Conversely, other candidates can ignore black voters because they only vote in segregated Congressional districts.

As Supreme Court Justice Thomas noted in his opinion, getting rid of racially gerrymandered districts is critical to reduce polarization and force political candidates of all races and ethnicities to compete for voters with colorblind platforms and policies.

America’s democracy was not designed to thrive with set-aside representation and closed systems. It is structured for openness and debate – certainly not the “racial sorting” that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito described in his majority opinion.

Even in a majority-minority state like Texas, African American and Hispanic leaders who represent racially gerrymandered districts have not been able to expand their base beyond those districts.

The truth about racially gerrymandered districts was pointed out to me when I was a reporter decades ago by the late Charlie Rangel, the flashy New York City Congressman, who explained, off the record, that New York’s Democrat machine would never back him for a statewide run because he had no track record getting white votes.

Rangel represented Harlem, a court-ordered majority-minority district, and by the year 2000, he’d already served 30 years in Congress. He was the first African American to Chair the House Ways and Means Committee and was a force in D.C. But when a U.S. Senate seat opened up, Rangel was essentially told to stay in his place and Empire State Democrats rallied behind Hillary Clinton, who didn’t even live in New York.

The push for racially gerrymandered districts by the left is not unlike their demand for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs that erased the principle of equality and replaced it with equity – insisting all outcomes must be the same.

Both are condescending to African Americans and other minorities – insisting they cannot compete – and both have failed to bring about significant positive improvements for Blacks and Hispanics in electoral politics. In the 40 years since they have been in place, there is no clear indication they have meaningfully increased minority voter participation.

Increases in the number of Black and Hispanic congressional representatives have come almost exclusively from increasing the number of racially gerrymandered districts.  There are some exceptions in Texas where U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt was elected from a white majority district and Tony Gonzales was elected in a district where voters were mixed Hispanic, Black and white.

America elected Barack Obama president twice almost 20 years ago. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who ran for Vice President in 2024, was elected to serve in the U.S. Senate from the largest state in the country. Neither of them ever were elected from a majority-minority district.

A political system that sorts voters by race in order to guarantee outcomes is not making progress – it is a retreating to the days of segregation. The Supreme Court has finally made it clear that racially gerrymandered districts should never have been allowed. Democrats – and all Americans – should take the win and celebrate this decision.

Sherry Sylvester is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the former Senior Advisor to Texas. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.