Listen now (10 mins) | Ian Rowe, education leader and founder of Vertex Partnership Academies, explains why reverence for the Constitution matters. He shows how teaching students to recite the Preamble daily builds civic co
I attended Believe In Our City on September 4th, 2025. I believe that it’s important to attend this event because it’s planned and hosted by the primary decision makers in our city. We go where they want to go, so it’s important to stay abreast of the discussion and the ramifications. I had been led to believe that these conferences were a time for education and honest, even difficult, debate about how best to “love the city into greatness.” But then, on Wednesday, September 17th (Constitution Day), I received an Op-Ed written by one of the speakers, Ian Rowe, from the Believe! Substack entitled, “My Students Recite the Constitution’s Preamble Daily To Help Preserve Its Promise.” As I read the piece I was taken aback by its blatant partisanship. The piece seemed less about the author’s students and more a warning about how the Constitution is “losing its revered status” due to the work of progressives and “especially among liberals.” In the spirit of honest, and even difficult, debate I wanted to offer a rebuttal.
Let me begin by affirming our agreement. First, it is compelling to imagine that America is always in the process of becoming a more perfect union. Second, I agree that there have always been Americans constantly at work to fully live up to the document’s promise encapsulated in the Constitution’s preamble. Finally, I agree that we should not actively undermine confidence in a document that forms the foundation of our democracy. Having said that, critiquing, challenging, and calling for Constitutional reform is not the same as undermining. Part of the overt partisanship of Mr. Rowe’s opinion is the way that he conflates these terms and embellishes the progressive approach to the Constitution.
Mr. Rowe quotes Erwin Chemerinsky who sees an “American government that is increasingly dysfunctional and that has lost the confidence of the people.” Opinion polls would suggest that Americans on both sides of the aisle would agree with that statement. It’s hardly a threat. Neither is Chemerinsky’s solution for change as stated in a Guardian article: "mostly by Democrats winning majorities in statehouses and Congress and working to sway public opinion." You might not align with the values of a Democrat majority, but winning majorities and swaying public opinion is hardly radical. In fact, it’s called democracy.
Mr. Rowe will go on to sound the alarm about a liberal dissatisfaction following recent political decisions. It's this dissatisfaction, he says, that has led to the so-called progressive attack on the Constitution. But, the examples are weak. In a comment about Roe v. Wade, he condescends about an attempt to change the Supreme Court when, actually, the Constitution says nothing at all about the structure and term of the court except that Congress has the authority to change them as they see fit (which it has done more than once). Or, following a rhetorical question about race-based college admissions, Mr. Rowe implies that changing the filibuster would also qualify as an attack on the Constitution. But the filibuster is a Senate rule and has no mention in the Constitution. These examples betray Mr. Rowe’s real intention which is not to protect the Constitution, but to promote a conservative ideology. If it were the former, there are plenty of conservative critiques and challenges to the Constitution coming from the right (e.g. Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, Claremont Institute's American Caesar, Convention Of States Action, etc.), but those go unmentioned.
Mr. Rowe wants us to believe that America’s greatness is being threatened by a progressive agenda that ignores the fact that “we already have the tools of self-renewal and self-betterment embedded within our system.” He quotes Alexis de Tocqueville’s insight about American democracy’s “ability to repair her faults.” I’ve read enough of Democracy In America to know that Mr. Rowe misappropriates the quote from Tocqueville who is an admirer of American democracy, but hardly confident in its future. In fact, that ability to repair is not at all due to a special genius but due to the unique characteristic of frequent elections. So, American democracy is hindered because “the individuals who conduct it are frequently unskillful and sometimes contemptible” but “the mal-administration of a democratic magistrate is a mere isolated fact, which only occurs during the short period for which he is elected.”
It might surprise Mr. Rowe to know that Tocqueville held the Constitution in no special esteem writing, “I do not regard the American Constitution as the best, or as the only one, which a democratic people may establish.” Some of our founders might agree. Benjamin Franklin is noted to have said at the Constitutional Convention, “I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve.” Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1789 letter to James Madison, “it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law… Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, & not of right.” Would Mr. Rowe dismiss these men as especially liberal as well? If not, then Mr. Chemerinsky is not challenging the legitimacy of the Constitution, but stands in line with those who want it to serve the rights of the people who are currently alive and want to be well.
If Tocqueville offers helpful insights into what makes American democracy work, then Mr. Rowe would heed his warnings about the American’s individual pursuit of fortune by which “they lose sight of the close connection which exists between the private fortune of each of them and the prosperity of all.” And, he would be concerned about how “the discharge of political duties appears to them to be a troublesome annoyance, which diverts them from their occupations and business” and, therefore, how "it often assents to the clamor of a [charlatan] who knows the secret of stimulating its tastes.” Mr. Rowe would worry less about the tyranny of the majority and more about what Tocqueville calls “the most galling tyranny”; how “a great people may be oppressed by a small faction, or by a single individual, with impunity.”
For Tocqueville, the greatest advantage of American democracy is found as the government “brings the notion of political rights to the level of the humblest citizens, just as the dissemination of wealth brings the notion of property within the reach of all the members of the community.” Therefore, Tocqueville would warn of the “aristocracy which is growing up under our eyes” and would suggest that “the friends of democracy should keep their eyes anxiously fixed in this direction.” So, we must ask, is it progressives who are now concentrating wealth in the hands of a few through steep tax cuts? Is it especially among liberals where the right to vote is being taken away? In fact, it’s the opposite and always has been.
After Constitutional amendments secured the right to vote for Black citizens, it was conservatives who resorted to literacy tests, poll taxes and separate ballot boxes. In the push for a voting rights act, it was conservatives who turned to violence against voters and activists alike. Today, it’s conservatives who lob unfounded accusations of wide-spread voting fraud in order to restrict voting. It’s conservatives who push to close polling places, increase barriers to voting, and want to limit the methods of voting people can use. And, it’s conservatives who stand in the way of the John Lewis voting rights advancement act. Without this act, conservative states are redrawing their district lines without accountability and at the expense of people of color in their state. Not to mention, conservative Christian influencer, Doug Wilson, wants to repeal the 19th Amendment, eliminating a woman’s right to vote. It won't be surprising if conservative leaders send ICE agents to intimidate and detain voters at the polls during upcoming elections. Sadly, the list could go on, but from my perspective this is the greatest threat to the Constitution.
I’ll conclude with another note of agreement. Mr. Rowe invites his students to recite the preamble to “to remind them that they also have the tools of self-renewal and self-betterment within themselves.” I agree with Mr. Rowe that each of his students are made in God’s image and are called to share their creative gifts for the good of the world. I also agree that students need a strong sense of personal agency in order to break the cycle of disadvantage. And, I affirm his desire for the students in his schools to believe that the truth of the American dream is real. But, the reality is that tools only have value in as much as there is an opportunity to use them.
Tocqueville’s insights about universal suffrage and an adequate distribution of wealth, as advocated for by today’s progressives, and especially among liberals, create that opportunity. These legal and material realities affirm what Mr. Rowe and I want his students to believe is within them. It gives them a method and a means to work out their personal interests and make use of their inherent capacities. That is, ensuring that Mr. Rowe’s students have easy access to the right to vote sends the message that society sees their inherent ability and values their liberty. Ensuring that those same students can easily afford a home in which to generate wealth and raise a family tells them we trust their inherent dignity and assure them equality. The best way to encourage reverence for the Constitution is to ensure that no one in America is deprived of life, liberty, or property.
I attended Believe In Our City on September 4th, 2025. I believe that it’s important to attend this event because it’s planned and hosted by the primary decision makers in our city. We go where they want to go, so it’s important to stay abreast of the discussion and the ramifications. I had been led to believe that these conferences were a time for education and honest, even difficult, debate about how best to “love the city into greatness.” But then, on Wednesday, September 17th (Constitution Day), I received an Op-Ed written by one of the speakers, Ian Rowe, from the Believe! Substack entitled, “My Students Recite the Constitution’s Preamble Daily To Help Preserve Its Promise.” As I read the piece I was taken aback by its blatant partisanship. The piece seemed less about the author’s students and more a warning about how the Constitution is “losing its revered status” due to the work of progressives and “especially among liberals.” In the spirit of honest, and even difficult, debate I wanted to offer a rebuttal.
Let me begin by affirming our agreement. First, it is compelling to imagine that America is always in the process of becoming a more perfect union. Second, I agree that there have always been Americans constantly at work to fully live up to the document’s promise encapsulated in the Constitution’s preamble. Finally, I agree that we should not actively undermine confidence in a document that forms the foundation of our democracy. Having said that, critiquing, challenging, and calling for Constitutional reform is not the same as undermining. Part of the overt partisanship of Mr. Rowe’s opinion is the way that he conflates these terms and embellishes the progressive approach to the Constitution.
Mr. Rowe quotes Erwin Chemerinsky who sees an “American government that is increasingly dysfunctional and that has lost the confidence of the people.” Opinion polls would suggest that Americans on both sides of the aisle would agree with that statement. It’s hardly a threat. Neither is Chemerinsky’s solution for change as stated in a Guardian article: "mostly by Democrats winning majorities in statehouses and Congress and working to sway public opinion." You might not align with the values of a Democrat majority, but winning majorities and swaying public opinion is hardly radical. In fact, it’s called democracy.
Mr. Rowe will go on to sound the alarm about a liberal dissatisfaction following recent political decisions. It's this dissatisfaction, he says, that has led to the so-called progressive attack on the Constitution. But, the examples are weak. In a comment about Roe v. Wade, he condescends about an attempt to change the Supreme Court when, actually, the Constitution says nothing at all about the structure and term of the court except that Congress has the authority to change them as they see fit (which it has done more than once). Or, following a rhetorical question about race-based college admissions, Mr. Rowe implies that changing the filibuster would also qualify as an attack on the Constitution. But the filibuster is a Senate rule and has no mention in the Constitution. These examples betray Mr. Rowe’s real intention which is not to protect the Constitution, but to promote a conservative ideology. If it were the former, there are plenty of conservative critiques and challenges to the Constitution coming from the right (e.g. Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, Claremont Institute's American Caesar, Convention Of States Action, etc.), but those go unmentioned.
Mr. Rowe wants us to believe that America’s greatness is being threatened by a progressive agenda that ignores the fact that “we already have the tools of self-renewal and self-betterment embedded within our system.” He quotes Alexis de Tocqueville’s insight about American democracy’s “ability to repair her faults.” I’ve read enough of Democracy In America to know that Mr. Rowe misappropriates the quote from Tocqueville who is an admirer of American democracy, but hardly confident in its future. In fact, that ability to repair is not at all due to a special genius but due to the unique characteristic of frequent elections. So, American democracy is hindered because “the individuals who conduct it are frequently unskillful and sometimes contemptible” but “the mal-administration of a democratic magistrate is a mere isolated fact, which only occurs during the short period for which he is elected.”
It might surprise Mr. Rowe to know that Tocqueville held the Constitution in no special esteem writing, “I do not regard the American Constitution as the best, or as the only one, which a democratic people may establish.” Some of our founders might agree. Benjamin Franklin is noted to have said at the Constitutional Convention, “I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve.” Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1789 letter to James Madison, “it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law… Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, & not of right.” Would Mr. Rowe dismiss these men as especially liberal as well? If not, then Mr. Chemerinsky is not challenging the legitimacy of the Constitution, but stands in line with those who want it to serve the rights of the people who are currently alive and want to be well.
If Tocqueville offers helpful insights into what makes American democracy work, then Mr. Rowe would heed his warnings about the American’s individual pursuit of fortune by which “they lose sight of the close connection which exists between the private fortune of each of them and the prosperity of all.” And, he would be concerned about how “the discharge of political duties appears to them to be a troublesome annoyance, which diverts them from their occupations and business” and, therefore, how "it often assents to the clamor of a [charlatan] who knows the secret of stimulating its tastes.” Mr. Rowe would worry less about the tyranny of the majority and more about what Tocqueville calls “the most galling tyranny”; how “a great people may be oppressed by a small faction, or by a single individual, with impunity.”
For Tocqueville, the greatest advantage of American democracy is found as the government “brings the notion of political rights to the level of the humblest citizens, just as the dissemination of wealth brings the notion of property within the reach of all the members of the community.” Therefore, Tocqueville would warn of the “aristocracy which is growing up under our eyes” and would suggest that “the friends of democracy should keep their eyes anxiously fixed in this direction.” So, we must ask, is it progressives who are now concentrating wealth in the hands of a few through steep tax cuts? Is it especially among liberals where the right to vote is being taken away? In fact, it’s the opposite and always has been.
After Constitutional amendments secured the right to vote for Black citizens, it was conservatives who resorted to literacy tests, poll taxes and separate ballot boxes. In the push for a voting rights act, it was conservatives who turned to violence against voters and activists alike. Today, it’s conservatives who lob unfounded accusations of wide-spread voting fraud in order to restrict voting. It’s conservatives who push to close polling places, increase barriers to voting, and want to limit the methods of voting people can use. And, it’s conservatives who stand in the way of the John Lewis voting rights advancement act. Without this act, conservative states are redrawing their district lines without accountability and at the expense of people of color in their state. Not to mention, conservative Christian influencer, Doug Wilson, wants to repeal the 19th Amendment, eliminating a woman’s right to vote. It won't be surprising if conservative leaders send ICE agents to intimidate and detain voters at the polls during upcoming elections. Sadly, the list could go on, but from my perspective this is the greatest threat to the Constitution.
I’ll conclude with another note of agreement. Mr. Rowe invites his students to recite the preamble to “to remind them that they also have the tools of self-renewal and self-betterment within themselves.” I agree with Mr. Rowe that each of his students are made in God’s image and are called to share their creative gifts for the good of the world. I also agree that students need a strong sense of personal agency in order to break the cycle of disadvantage. And, I affirm his desire for the students in his schools to believe that the truth of the American dream is real. But, the reality is that tools only have value in as much as there is an opportunity to use them.
Tocqueville’s insights about universal suffrage and an adequate distribution of wealth, as advocated for by today’s progressives, and especially among liberals, create that opportunity. These legal and material realities affirm what Mr. Rowe and I want his students to believe is within them. It gives them a method and a means to work out their personal interests and make use of their inherent capacities. That is, ensuring that Mr. Rowe’s students have easy access to the right to vote sends the message that society sees their inherent ability and values their liberty. Ensuring that those same students can easily afford a home in which to generate wealth and raise a family tells them we trust their inherent dignity and assure them equality. The best way to encourage reverence for the Constitution is to ensure that no one in America is deprived of life, liberty, or property.