The Independent Women’s Forum and The Independent Women’s Voice:
Not Independent, Not Neutral on Public Education

The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) says it’s a “non-partisan research and education
institution.” The Independent Women’s Voice (IWV) claims to represent the views of
independent women voters and to “ensure that mainstream women’s voices are heard.”
But these organizations are most definitely not independent, mainstream, or non-neutral.
IWF and IWV are deeply imbedded in the right-wing political infrastructure, have long
connections to the Koch Brothers, and promote right-wing, often anti-women, policies, and
politicians.
“Independent” branding is calculated and misleading
Passing themselves as “independent” and “neutral” has allowed IWF and IWV to garner media
opportunities to promote right-wing causes and candidates without scrutiny of their true agenda
or allegiances.
“Being branded as neutral, but actually having people who know know that you’re actually
conservative puts us in a unique position,” Heather Richardson Higgins, IWV President and IWF
Board Chair has admitted.
The IWF and IWV have taken advantage of their “neutral brand” and free pass from the media
to speak out against equal pay, paid family leave, the “Violence Against Women Act,” Title IX,
the Republican “War on Women,” rape on campus, regulated childcare, and provide false
equivalence on other women’s economic and social issues. They are also frequently asked to
weigh-in on a wide variety of public issues from guns to gay marriage, from education to the
environment.
Here is a snapshot of positions taken and quotes from IWF and IWV’s issue “experts” on
Public Education issues:
•

When IWF became more closely linked to the Koch brothers in 2001, the organization
began advocating the privatization of many if not all forms of public education.
Advocating for such extreme policies is characteristic of Koch-affiliated political
enterprises. In 1960s, Charles Koch was a financial supporter, executive and trustee of
the Freedom School, a libertarian training center that advocated for the elimination of all
public services, including public schools. In 1980, David Koch ran for vice president on
the libertarian ticket–that year, the party’s platform included calls for “the complete
separation of education and State” and called for the immediate repeal of “compulsory
education laws.”

•

IWF advocates for educational savings accounts policies that siphon public resources for
private school providers. In justifying these policies IWF relies heavily on the philosophy
of Milton Friedman. IWF’s admiration of Friedman for his education policy is not
uncharacteristic–the organization released a policy focus celebrating the economist’s

 vision for education, stating “more work needs to be done to fulfill Friedman’s promise,”
and that “our country should have a free market in education.”
As noted by CMD, Milton Friedman held a radical view of public education–explicitly, that
it shouldn’t exist. Speaking at an American Legislative Exchange Council conference in
2006, Friedman stated: "How do we get from where we are to where we want to be? Of
course, the ideal way would be to abolish the public school system and eliminate all the
taxes that pay for it. Then parents would have enough money to pay for private schools,
but you're not gonna do that [emphasis added]."
•

IWF has explicitly advocated for for-profit institutions in K-12 education, writing a policy
brief on the subject which states, “For-profit entities should be among those providers
competing for education dollars.”

•

IWF was also a frequent commentator on the Friedrichs v. California Teachers
Association case, and encouraged its membership to rally against unions and “for
workplace freedom” at the Supreme Court during oral argument.

•

IWF’s Charlotte Hayes has claimed, “[T]he charter school movement seems to offer
hope and a way for kids, especially low-income kids whose parents can't afford private
schools, to get a good education… Currying favor with the powerful teachers' union
matters more to progressive politicians than educating children [emphasis added].”

•

IWF’s Charlotte Hays has written that Hillary Clinton’s education plan is “Obamacare for
Education,” stating, “Clinton aims to give some families a free ride to college, public
colleges a whopper injection of funds, and taxpayers a massive bill.”

•

In a post discussing parent trigger law in California, Hayes wrote, “Looks to me that both
sides have the same goal: improving public schools. Essential to that project, it more
and more appears, is reducing the power of teachers’ unions. As to the notion that
education is too “complex” for parents, this is just the sort of mumbo jumbo a union
would peddle in an attempt to pretend its members have some kind of arcane knowledge
that parents lack.” [emphasis added]