The questioner: “Madam secretary who refused to hire a denial of the Holocaust’s denial as the Faculty of Harvard’s Department of History, is considered an” ideological Litmus test? ‘
Witness: “I think there should be diversity of approaches related to training and opinions on towns.”
Did I just hear that right? Was Linda McMahon, a secretary of education, really just stated that denial of the Holocaust was just a diverse approach?
I was shocked. But more recently, these exchanges have actually happened.
I sat through the Dais from the McMahon Home Education and Labor Committee in the room. On me before me was April 11th. A letter to Harvard sent by Trump’s administration to Harvard, submitting their outraged university requirements to maintain its federal funding.
That letter contains a phrase that has become the cry of the Trump’s administration in their Crusade against Harvard: “Variety of the image point.” It is one program of diversity that the administration considered not only important but also necessary for the future of higher education. However, although McMahon loudly beat the drum because of the “different approaches” in colleges’ towns, it was unclear about what it means and whether the administration has the authority to fulfill the diversity of the university town.
At his meeting against the Senate, the elder Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) Last day pressed the issue. In addition to the fact that the college faculties need more conservative voices, it could not clearly arrange the power that the federal government has in the field, and it could not clearly define what the variety of attitudes means and the boundaries that should be recognized.
So I asked.
I asked if the Harvard Government Department would be forced to hire a faculty, which believes that 2020 The election was stolen.
I asked if the Harvard Medical School would have to hire immunologists who follow the health and human services secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s approach to the effectiveness of the vaccine.
McMahon’s answer was to blow the talk about free language and many approaches to college cities. She masked and I pressed.
It was at the moment that I asked, “Mrs. Secretary, who refused to hire a denying Holocaust, as a member of the Faculty of Harvard’s Department of History, is considered a” ideological Litmus test? ” ‘
She replied, “I think there should be different approaches to training and opinions about the cities of the university.”
That answer contains some very worrying aspects. I could write a long time about the effects that are widely discredited, and – the conspiracy theories of the third example, deeply offensive and dangerously unknown, should have a place in academic institutions that are at the forefront of research. There is also a lot to say that the administration, which claims to fight anti -Semitism, does not immediately condemn the denying Holocaust and demands that it has no place or a higher education platform.
However, the question arises, however, that the administration cannot set the limits of such a variety of attitudes. If the candidate in the Government Department is a sincere political belief that The elections were stolen if they were hired to “diversity”, although they would not meet the academic standards needed for a serious candidate in political science? If they are not hired by the school, does the federal government have the power to punish the university? What does this mean to the current faculty who disagrees with the administration? “Ideological Checking” is already ongoing with future international students of the school; There is no idea that checking may include faculty and local students.
Freedom of expression and freedom of disagreement are one of the most holy and basic principles of our democracy established in the very first amendment to the draft law. Universities are arenas that use those freedoms; Places that try ideas and debate and are encouraged by critical thought. History teaches us that the interference of the Government in colleges and universities and coping with them is a tactic used by authoritarian government to abolish disagreements.
This does not mean that there is no problem today in college towns, and there should always be an unreasonable commitment to student safety and well -being. However, political disagreement is not a crime. Disagreement is a function of healthy and lively democracy, and higher education is to teach students how to think, not what to think about.
No matter where you get to the political spectrum, all Americans need to understand who risks the administration battle with Harvard. We should all be concerned about the federal government’s attempt to comply with the independent authority, especially the one who is tasked with educating our young people and conducting the most important research in the world. If you like what makes this country great – freedom of speech, the right to disagree, defend civic rights – then you need to know: we have to lose a lot if we don’t fight for it.
Mark Takan, Democrat, represents the Congress 39 of California and is a member of the Education and Labor Committee of the Home.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights are protected. This material cannot be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
To get the latest news, air, sports and broadcast videos, go uphill.