Color Revolution

By Brent Regan

Did we have a Color Revolution right here?

A Color Revolution is a term used to describe a sometimes violent political movement aimed at challenging or overthrowing an existing government or power structure, typically incorporating protests, civil disobedience, and grassroots mobilization. These movements are often characterized by their use of a specific theme or color to unify supporters, create a recognizable brand, and rally public support. The term originated from a series of political uprisings in the early 2000s, primarily in post-Soviet states, such as the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan.

Color revolutions primarily rely on peaceful methods like protests, sit-ins, strikes, and public demonstrations, though minor clashes may occur and the threat of violence is usually present if unspoken. The emphasis on non-violence helps gain broader public support. They frequently involve a coalition of diverse groups—students, civil society organizations, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens—united by shared grievances against the ruling authority and responding to perceived corruption, electoral fraud, economic mismanagement, or authoritarianism, channeling public frustration into organized action.

These grievances can be relatively minor or even manufactured. As Saul Alinsky put it in ‘Rules for Radicals, protestors must “rub raw the sores of discontent.” Often the problems are manufactured by those protesting. They create chaos or unrest and then blame the target for the problem. They take Alinsky’s advice and accuse others of the crimes they are committing.

Effective use of media, including local newspapers, radio, and lately social media platforms like X, Facebook, Instagram, etc., amplifies the movement’s message and counters official narratives. Once people have accepted the revolutionary narrative it becomes very difficult to change their view, even when presented with obvious facts.

One is struck by the parallels found when examining the North Idaho College (NIC) revolution triggered when the conservative board took steps to eliminate Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs at NIC. The theme of the revolution was “Accreditation” but accreditation typically involves below standard academic performance or looming loss of financial solvency of the institution. No such negative circumstances existed.

The threat was manufactured by the protestors themselves in the form of a complaint to the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) that DEI policies were at risk of being eliminated. This risk was taken very seriously by NWCCU because over one third of their annual budget comes from grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation specifically for NWCCU to promote DEI at their member institutions.

The Washington based NWCCU controls accreditation for over 100 institutions in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska so they wield tremendous power. They have a monopoly in Idaho, granted by the legislature, so their power is absolute. Nice accreditation you have there. It would be a shame if you lost it….

Should one college go rogue and reject DEI then others may follow and NWCCU’s Gates Foundation grants would be at risk. Having one third of your annual funding put at risk by NIC was significant motivation to bring NIC into political alignment.

Once the theme of “Accreditation” was established the protests, propaganda and political action began. Propaganda efforts in articles, editorials and social media were launched. Students, teachers, administrators and citizens were organized under the “Save NIC” banner while bringing chaos to NIC Trustee meetings and even physical violence against a trustee. The action demanded was the resignation of the trustees, although how the Board of Trustees would function without members was never discussed. The “solution” was to tear it down. Not once did the protestors offer to help fix the problem, because they needed the problem. It was the reason for the protests’ existence.

Lawfare was used to intimidate one trustee into resigning and the two remaining DEI supporting trustees resigned, reducing the number of trustees remaining to below a quorum which allowed the State Board of Education to appoint three DEI supporting trustees. The battle continued for years but ultimately the color revolution was successful and the accreditation issue quickly evaporated, as one would expect.

The great irony is that the Trump administration has outlawed the intrinsically racist policies of DEI and halted funding to institutions that refuse to abandon DEI practices. NWCCU may have won the battle but they lost the war. However, it will take years for the DEI touchstone of the radical left to be excised. In the meantime, we need legislation that will eliminate the accreditation monopoly so that our Idaho colleges and universities are free of the specter of loss of accreditation due to a political policy. Perhaps a stopgap would be to implement an accreditation appeal process with an independent agency. Our legislators should have our support in these efforts.

It’s just common sense.