Supporters of Donald Trump have a reputation for being crazy. Of course some are, but the reputation is strong mainly because supporters of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris run most news organizations and the U.S. Justice Department and have made sure that Trump crazies are well-publicized.

Now maybe the country is starting to see that political craziness is bipartisan. Deranged supporters of Harris' failed campaign for president are broadcasting their mental breakdowns in videos on social media — screaming, cursing, weeping, gesticulating and forecasting a Nazi nightmare for America. Some women among them are pledging to withhold sex from their husbands and boyfriends to punish them for voting for Trump, as if Trump didn't also win the votes of tens of millions of women and as if most demographic groups didn't increase their support for Trump since the 2020 presidential election.

Last week news organizations in Connecticut noticed that a special-education teacher in Cheshire posted on social media a video in which she acted deranged and threatened violence against any Trump supporters she might encounter.

Complaints to the Cheshire school administration prompted her suspension with pay, as some townspeople who supported Trump didn't want their children near her. A few days later the teacher resigned.

Since the teacher's freakout occurred off the job and since her threats were not specific enough to be criminal, the school administration might have had much trouble disciplining her if she hadn't left voluntarily. Because of state law and union contracts, firing teachers is almost impossible in Connecticut.

The state Education Department can revoke teaching licenses for professional unfitness and "other due and sufficient cause." But most people who might have had a role in judging the Cheshire teacher's case — from the town's school board to the Education Department to the state Board of Mediation and Arbitration — probably would have sympathized with her politically. Indeed, don't be surprised if another school system surreptitiously hires her or even if she wins Cheshire's next award for "teacher of the year."

What is ‘on track?’

Since it didn't involve hysteria and threatening, a report the other day in the Connecticut Examiner about the state's high school graduation rates won't get as much attention as the Cheshire case, but it should.

The Examiner said the percentage of high school freshmen considered "on track" to graduate — that is, having earned the number of class credits appropriate for their grade — remains 3.5% lower than in the 2018-19 school year just before the virus epidemic, when schools were largely closed. That is, since 2018 the percentage of freshmen "on track" has fallen from 88% to 84.5% though the epidemic is long over.

The declines in "on track" students in the state's cities are disastrous, like 64% to 59% in New Britain, 85% to 70% in Danbury, and 80.7% to 66.4% in New London.

The "on track" rates are even worse than they seem, for they signify mere attendance, not actual learning. In Connecticut no student has to learn anything to be "on track." Since the state's only academic policy is social promotion, everybody advances each year and gets a high school diploma no matter what. Then educators and legislators dishonestly equate a high school diploma with education and assure the public that all is well, though Hartford notoriously just graduated a girl who is illiterate.

In any case the cities have excuses — high illegal immigration and worsening poverty and student transiency. New London Superintendent Cynthia Ritchie says more than half the city's ninth-grade students last year had only recently enrolled in the school system, many after the school year had already begun, and many were not fluent in English, needed special education and lacked transcripts from previous schooling.

These children will be a huge burden on New London's schools, which were already overwhelmed by disadvantaged kids.

Who in the federal government — besides all Democrats, of course — thought that New London and other cities were prepared for such a burden when the borders were opened? And who in state government has any idea for spreading the burden beyond the cities?

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. He can be reached at CPowell@cox.net.