The Case for Censure of Lincoln City Council Member Holly Andreatta I am writing to address the issues that arose from Council Member Andreatta's presentation to Turning Point USA's Club America chapter at Twelve Bridges High School on December 11, 2025.
There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the establishment of Club America in a Lincoln high school. It is well documented that Club America chapters have given rise to divisive rhetoric and political polarization, creating a hostile environment on high school campuses across the country. What is of most importance for the Council at this juncture is Ms. Andreatta's conduct at that meeting, the impact it has had on the students, the faculty and the community as a whole, and her subsequent conduct misrepresenting what she actually said and blaming others for the harm that was caused by the words she spoke.
We have a thoroughly accurate record of what Ms. Andreatta said in the Club America meeting because there was an unedited audio recording of her remarks. Although she claims that the audio recording was altered, there is no evidence supporting her contention - quite the contrary, as many attendees of the meeting verified the audio recording as complete and authentic. Ms. Andreatta in her public statement accused the student who released an abbreviated video of the session of distorting her remarks, claiming that her comments were taken out of context, or that she never made some of the statements she actually made. Such claims are soundly refuted by the unedited audio recording.
Background
Council Member Andreatta was invited by WUSD school board member Marjorie Proffitt to address the inaugural meeting of Club America and was asked to discuss Turning Point USA's funder Charlie Kirk's faith and what impact it has on student members of the club.
Invitations to the Club America meeting identified Ms. Andreatta as Lincoln's mayor, and even though her tenure as mayor had expired by the time she spoke at the meeting, in her own words "once a mayor, always a mayor." She was an elected official speaking at a public school in a session that was open to all students so her claims that she was speaking as a private citizen with an expectation of privacy for her remarks are specious. Specious, which is defined as superficially plausible, but actually wrong, is a description that can be applied to many of the statements made by Ms. Andreatta at the Club America meeting.
Ms. Andreatta went on to encourage students to show courage, not to be afraid to speak the truth. She described herself as someone who is not afraid to shine a light on injustice and that when a person is in a position of leadership and does something wrong, they should be told it's not ok, and when there are consequences for their behavior, they shouldn't blame the person who held them to account for their actions.
Ms. Andreatta should heed her own words. I, for one, admire the courage of the students who recorded her remarks and made them public and the courage of the students and other members of the community who have come forward to express the real harm they have experienced as a result of her statements in that meeting.
Ms. Andreatta's remarks and responses to questions were couched in terms of restating things that Charlie Kirk or others have said, that they didn't reflect her own views. What I found interesting is that she clearly stated when she didn't agree with Charlie Kirk, such as when he claimed that college is a scam, but she did not make a distinction between her own personal views and his, or disavow his views, when it came to what was said about Martin Luther King or Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs.
The issue here is we can only judge what transpired in that meeting by what Ms.
Andreatta actually said and the impact it had on her audience - not what she meant, not what she thought she was saying, and not what she wants you to think she said even though we can hear her words with our own ears.
The Separation of Church and State
Ms. Andreatta said, and I quote "The separation of church and state is a myth. It is not in the constitution. Where it came from was President Jefferson wrote a letter in response to one received by a group of Baptists and said the wall of separation between church and state." She went on to offer her interpretation of what that meant, which is the government should not prevent people from expressing their faith in public, but that our world has tried to flip that to say there is no place in public life for religion.
She said that is not what Jefferson meant. She then reiterated that "people say the separation of church and state is in the constitution. It's not." If what Ms. Andreatta meant was that semantically speaking, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the constitution, she could have said that. She didn't - her words clearly implied that the principle of the separation of church and state is a myth, it is not in the constitution.
She could have gone on to clearly identify what is in the constitution, but she didn't.
The principle of church-state separation is firmly grounded in the constitution through the First Amendment's Establishment Clause which prohibits the government from establishing a religion, and the Free Exercise Clause which protects the right to practice one freely. Together these clauses have long been interpreted by the courts as creating a separation between church and state, a concept articulated by both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams amongst others of our founding fathers.
Although she alluded to this, she missed the most important aspect of our rights. The separation of church and state is not just freedom of religion, it is freedom from religion, shielding citizens from government-imposed religious rules. As an educator, Ms.
Andreatta should know this background and the constitutional purpose of these protections.
Racial Tropes
Several times in her remarks, Ms. Andreatta promoted racial tropes that are the mainstay of Turning Point USA. Her characterizations of DEl programs in general and the airline industry initiative specifically were completely misrepresented.
Ms. Andreatta defined DEl policies as "hiring someone solely based on the color of their skin, not on qualifications." With that statement, she just stigmatized every person of color hired by a company with a DEl policy and implanted this perspective in the minds of the students attending the meeting.
The actual purpose of DEl programs is to create fair, welcoming environments where people from all backgrounds feel valued, respected and have equal access to opportunities, addressing historical disadvantages and fostering better overall performance, innovation, and belonging within organizations. They aim to correct discrimination, improve recruitment and retention, and drive better business outcomes by leveraging diverse perspectives, ideas and experiences. Study after study has shown, from boards of directors to folks on assembly lines, diversity is good for the bottom line and for corporate culture.
Ms. Andreatta then went on to quote Charlie Kirk on the issue of the airline industry's pilot hiring program. She stated when the industry adopted a DEI policy, all of a sudden they had to have 50% black pilots, and in order to accomplish this they had to lower standards which would put people in danger. First of all, the policy in question is that of United Airlines. Their policy did not state that they had to have 50% black pilots all of a sudden, it stated that they set a goal to increase the inclusion of black candidates in their pilot training programs which they would achieve over time. Second of all, those black candidates would have to meet training and certification standards just like any other candidate before being permitted to fly commercial aircraft. There is no lowering of standards in this scenario. It was a complete mischaracterization of United's policy.
And, unlike in other cases where she stated she didn't necessarily agree with Charlie Kirk, in this case she made no such qualification.
As an educator and public official, she should have verified the facts before repeating them to students. Similarly, she could have researched the criteria used in DEl hiring and the actual impact of DEl programs on corporate performance.
Another example of promoting a racist trope is when she responded to the question about the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. She was asked what she thought about him, and what Charlie Kirk thought about him. She never took the opportunity to state anything positive about one of the most successful civil rights leaders in history.
Nothing was said of his use of civil disobedience rather than violence to effect changes and create opportunities for black people to enjoy the same rights as whites in American society. Instead, she immediately said "according to her research," and what Charlie Kirk and other black people have said, that "Martin Luther King was a Marxist, was for socialism, and a lot of civil rights things he advocated for were not really helpful." She later stated she never said Martin Luther King was a Marxist, but the audio recording is very clear that she said exactly that, with no qualification that she didn't share Charlie Kirk's belief on this issue.
If Ms. Andreatta had done just the minimum of research before repeating this trope, she would have learned that a fundamental tenet of Marxism is authoritarianism, which Reverend King disavowed at every opportunity. Secondly, the basic tenet of socialism is government ownership of the means of production, something else that Reverend King disavowed.
She went on to call another non-white leader, New York mayor Zorhan Mamdani, a socialist. Ms. Andreatta conflates socialism with democratic socialism, which is about economic justice, "the most good for the most people." It's about billionaires and corporations paying their fair share of taxes for the public resources they use to generate wealth and using those taxes to improve the quality of life for all. Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that creates equity and stability in society. It has been successful in countries across Europe, parts of Asia, and even in some countries in Latin America.
When asked about Christian principles relating to the poor in our communities, she said "the bible says care for widows, care for orphans, but it also says those who won't work don't eat. It's not right to take people's hard-earned money from them forcibly and give it to people who want to sit on the couch and play video games." The message here is two-fold: taxes are being forcibly imposed on the populace; and, if you receive food assistance from the government you are a lazy slob.
Once again, just a minor amount of research would have revealed that most of the people receiving SNAP benefits work - some of them two and three jobs - but still can't make ends meet. The rest may have some kind of disability or other impediment to working. There is very little evidence to back up her statement that SNAP benefit recipients are lazy.
What I find striking about this statement is that when I visit high school government classes and take questions from students, I've been asked why they should pay taxes so lazy people can sit around and take money from the government. It's no wonder they think this when their civic leaders are making these claims to impressionable students without evidentiary support.
Homophobic Tropes
Despite Ms. Andreatta's vehement denials, audio and video recordings clearly show her stating, "my daughter experienced trauma as a child, something no child should ever have to experience, AND AS A RESULT she is a lesbian, she is gay." She did not specify that trauma, which we must assume refers to some form of sexual assault, is not the cause of homosexuality in all cases. This lack of qualification allowed students to support here ordi tuch stafpie the stigmatize Get indivyas as haling dece "damaged."
Ms. Andreatta then shifted blame to the student who released the video of her statement, claiming that this person caused harm to her, her daughter, and her family, rather than taking responsibility for the hurt her own words caused in a public forum.
Freedom of Speech
Ms. Andreatta and many of her supporters argue that she has the right to repeat racist and homophobic tropes, misrepresent constitutional protections related to the separation of church and state, and make dubious claims about whether she was speaking as a private citizen or as a representative of the City of Lincoln due to the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections.
However, there are exceptions to the right of free speech, especially concerning hate speech, which is defined as any expression intended to vilify, humiliate, belittle, or incite hatred, discrimination, or violence against groups based on race, religion, gender, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. Hate speech is NOT protected by the First Amendment if it incites threats of violence or harassment. Clearly, Ms. Andreatta's remarks have led to harassment of students on both sides of the issues discussed on December 11th, as well as threats of violence directed at both students and Ms.
Andreatta's family.
White Christian Nationalism
I have faced criticism for labeling Ms. Andreatta's behavior as promoting White Christian Nationalism, with some suggesting that using this term aims to silence her. To clarify, I have no objection to being white, to Christianity, or to national pride, but when these elements coalesce, they can form a political ideology rooted in white supremacy. When one quotes figures espousing this ideology without explicitly opposing those beliefs, they inadvertently promote them.
Scholars, including those from Georgetown University, define White Christian Nationalism as a blend of white supremacy, Christianity, and American nationalism, positing that the U.S. was founded as a divinely favored Christian nation that must remain white and Christian. This ideology is considered a significant threat to democracy in America and a major impediment to pluralism.
Furthermore, the White Christian Nationalist movement is linked to racial animus and a hierarchical social structure that privileges conservative white Christians. It expresses sentiments that are anti-Black, anti-gay, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant, and seeks to eliminate the separation of church and state by embedding specific Christian beliefs into law and policy. Policy goals associated with this ideology often include opposing social welfare initiatives and restricting access to abortion.
The responsibility for these elements, which are evident in Ms. Andreatta's remarks to the students at Twelve Bridges High School, lies entirely with her. I merely had the courage to call her out on it.
It is essential to note that Ms. Andreatta made these statements as a representative of the City of Lincoln, whose non-white population exceeds 30% and whose student demographic is nearly 50% non-white.
The Danger to the Community
On October 2, 2025, the International Association of Chiefs of Police released a report stating: "There has been a disturbing rise in rhetoric from political and community leaders that has contributed to acts of violence against law enforcement officers, elected officials, and members of the public. The IACP urges political and community leaders to exercise restraint, responsibility, and thoughtfulness in their public statements, recognizing the influence their words have on public behavior and safety." The Association called for the prosecution of individuals-including elected officials and public figures-who incite violence or foster an environment conducive to targeted attacks. Their concern is that the increasing number of threats diverts resources from standard community policing.
They urge community leaders to recognize that some individuals are vulnerable, easily manipulated, and dangerously impressionable, and that when elected officials or other influential figures propagate hate, their words can become weapons.
The Association does not suggest restricting political speech, recognizing it as a cornerstone of our democracy. Instead, they call for an acknowledgment that the resources allocated to threat investigations and protective operations detract from community policing and safety efforts. They seek leadership that discourages speech that radicalizes individuals and incites action.
While I hope Lincoln has not reached such a threat level, failure to assert that divisive and dangerous rhetoric has no place in our community may lead to further escalation.
The Council has the opportunity to prevent this by holding Ms. Andreatta accountable for her behavior.
Code of Conduct for Sitting Elected Officials
Ms. Andreatta has violated the Lincoln Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials, which stipulates that officials must serve as models of leadership and act in a manner that upholds public trust. Specifically:
• Breach of Privacy and Professional Decorum: By disclosing sensitive and private information regarding a family member's childhood trauma and sexual orientation-an act she later termed a "betrayal of confidence"-she failed to uphold the dignity of her office.
• Impact on Community Welfare: Her remarks have caused documented "deep hurt" among the student population, leading to campus-wide discord and negative coverage in regional media. The Code of Ethics mandates that officials foster inclusivity and demonstrate respect for all individuals. • Loss of Public Confidence: As an elected representative, her role at a school function carries significant weight. Linking personal trauma to sexual orientation perpetuates a scientifically discredited and harmful narrative that undermines Lincoln's reputation as an inclusive community.
Conclusion
I acknowledge that Ms. Andreatta has made positive contributions to our community in the past, and I do not question her character. However, she exploited a student platform, Club America, within a public school to perpetuate racial and homophobic tropes, misinforming students about constitutional protections regarding the separation of church and state. Her misguided and divisive statements have led to threats of violence, created unease in the community, and tarnished Lincoln's reputation. She has violated her oath to both the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution, in addition to breaching the Code of Ethics and Conduct for the City of Lincoln. Her actions have not only undermined the public's trust in the City, but in Twelve Bridges administration as well, as the principal was present during the Club America meeting and did not take action to correct Ms. Andreatta when misinforming students.
Censure is the appropriate formal mechanism for the Council to dissociate itself from behavior that contravenes its ethical standards.
Failure to censure Ms. Andreatta conveys that our City Council endorses her behavior, risks normalizing her divisive and dangerous rhetoric, and increases the likelihood of violence within our community.
In reference to the use of dangerous rhetoric as a means to silence critics, Ms.
Andreatta stated, "Fear God, not people. That's the tactic that the other side uses.....those that are being used by the devil use that tactic to instill fear." No one is trying to instill fear to silence Ms. Andreatta, we just want a safe community that is respectful of our diversity.
She also remarked, "Courage is contagious," quoting Billy Graham: "When a brave man or woman takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened." Courage is indeed contagious. Many community members have expressed their concerns and fears in writing; numerous voices have been raised here tonight. We urge all Council Members to embody that courage and hold Ms. Andreatta accountable for the damage she has inflicted on this community so that we can begin to heal.
I respectfully request that the matter of censure for Ms. Andreatta's actions be included on the agenda for the next City Council meeting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ruth Cox
Lincoln, CA