Kayla Aliese Carter was hired as a “Racial Equity Officer” by the City of College Park, Maryland, during the tenure of former Mayor Patrick L. Wojahn (D)—who resigned following child pornography charges. Carter was chosen to spearhead the city’s commitment to eliminating systemic racism across its departments. However, Carter’s past comments and social media posts, which include defending violence and calling for a revolution against the United States, have brought the city’s hiring decisions into question.
Carter, an advocate for “Black liberation,” has made several statements that suggest a radical approach to achieving racial equity. In one instance, she discussed working with activists on planning life after “we burn it all down,” a statement that points to a revolutionary mindset rather than peaceful reform. Her hiring was part of College Park’s legislative response to the racial tensions heightened by George Floyd’s death in 2020, aimed at reviewing and amending city policies for biases and disparities affecting Black communities.
However, Carter’s approach and public statements starkly contrast with what many would expect from someone in a role designed to foster unity and equitable solutions. Her social media presence is filled with contentious remarks about race, policing, and the American societal structure at large. She labels police as “White supremacists” and frequently uses racial terms to describe her interactions and frustrations with colleagues and societal norms.
One of Carter’s most controversial positions is her defense of violence as a legitimate means of combating oppression. She questions why Black people must rationalize their anger and violence, suggesting that oppressed groups are shamed from using violence because it threatens the oppressor’s monopoly over it. This perspective raises significant concerns about the implications of having someone with such views leading racial equity initiatives in a public office.
Moreover, Carter’s commentary extends beyond racial issues to critique the broader American societal and economic systems. She expresses disdain for capitalism and a desire to live a life unburdened by work, a sentiment that seems at odds with her role as a public servant tasked with implementing significant changes in the community.
Carter’s statements advocating for radical measures and her expressed desire for a life of leisure, far removed from the demands of her current job, suggest that her termination could be a mutually beneficial solution. Allowing Carter the freedom to pursue the life of leisure she seeks, away from the confines of a role that seemingly conflicts with her personal ideology, would not only align with her own wishes but also potentially serve the community more effectively by opening the position to someone whose focus and commitment are unwaveringly tied to the job’s demands and objectives.
