logo
Linda McMahon's answer on Holocaust denialism should scare us

Linda McMahon's answer on Holocaust denialism should scare us

The Hill4 days ago
Questioner: 'Madam Secretary, does refusing to hire a Holocaust denier as a member of Harvard's history department faculty count as an 'ideological litmus test?''
Witness: ' I believe that there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses.'
Had I just heard that correctly? Had Education Secretary Linda McMahon really just said Holocaust denialism was just a diverse view point?
I was shocked. But just recently, this exchange really happened.
I sat across the dais from McMahon in the House Education and Workforce Committee room. On the desk before me was the April 11 letter sent to Harvard by the Trump administration, laying out their outrageous demands of the university in order to retain their federal funding.
Contained in that letter is the phrase which has become a rallying cry for the Trump administration in their crusade against Harvard: 'viewpoint diversity.' This is the one diversity program that the administration has deemed not only important, but imperative to future of higher education. But although McMahon has been beating the drum loudly on the lack of 'diverse viewpoints' on colleges campuses, she's been vague on what that means and whether the administration has the authority to enforce viewpoint diversity on campus.
In her hearing before the Senate the previous day, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) pressed the secretary on this very question. Beyond saying that college faculties need more conservative voices, she wasn't able to clearly articulate the powers that the federal government has in that realm, nor was she able to clearly define what viewpoint diversity means, nor the limits that should be recognized.
So I asked.
I asked if, under the demands listed in the letter, the Harvard government department would be compelled to hire faculty that believe the 2020 election was stolen.
I asked if Harvard Medical School would be required to hire immunologists that adhere to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's view on vaccine efficacy.
McMahon's response was to bluster about free speech and multiple viewpoints on college campuses. She obfuscated and I pressed.
It was at this point I asked, 'Madam Secretary, does refusing to hire a Holocaust denier as a member of Harvard's history department faculty count as an 'ideological litmus test?''
She responded: 'I believe that there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses.'
There are a number of deeply disturbing aspects to that answer. I could write at length about the implications that widely discredited and — in the case of the third example, deeply offensive and dangerously ignorant — conspiracy theories should have a place in academic institutions that are at the global forefront of research. There is also much to be said about that fact that an administration which claims to be fighting against antisemitism does not immediately condemn Holocaust denial and insist that it does not have a place or a platform in higher education.
But the pressing issue at stake here is that the administration cannot identify a limit to such viewpoint diversity. If a candidate for a position in the government department has a sincere political belief that the 2020 election was stolen, should they be hired in the interest of 'viewpoint diversity' although they would not meet the academic standards required 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 for current faculty who disagree with the administration? 'Ideological vetting' is already happening to the school's prospective international students; it is not a stretch to imagine that that vetting might extend to faculty and domestic students too.
Freedom of speech and freedom of dissent are among the most sacred and fundamental tenets of our democracy, enshrined in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights. Universities are the arenas where those freedoms are exercised; places where ideas are tested and debated and critical thought is encouraged. History teaches us that government interference in and crackdown on colleges and universities is a tactic used by authoritarian governments to quash dissent.
That is not to say that there aren't problems on college campuses today, and there should always be an unwavering commitment to student safety and wellbeing. But political dissent is not a crime. Dissent is a function of a healthy and vibrant democracy, and higher education is there to teach students how to think, not what to think.
No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, all Americans must understand what is at stake in the administration's battle with Harvard. We should all be concerned about the federal government's attempt to force compliance from an independent institution, particularly one tasked with educating our young people and producing the world's preeminent research. If you love what makes this country great — freedom of speech, the right to dissent, the defense of civil rights — then you must know: we have a lot to lose if we do not fight for it.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's visit to Scotland is in ‘public interest', says Chancellor
Trump's visit to Scotland is in ‘public interest', says Chancellor

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's visit to Scotland is in ‘public interest', says Chancellor

The visit of US President Donald Trump to Scotland is in the 'public interest', Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said. Mr Trump is due to touch down in Scotland on Friday evening ahead of a four-day visit, during which he will meet Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and First Minister John Swinney. His meeting with Sir Keir is seen as a chance to refine the UK-US trade deal which came into force last month. Speaking to journalists during a visit to the Rolls-Royce factory near Glasgow Airport on Friday morning, the Chancellor talked up the importance of the visit. 'It's in Britain's national interest to have strong relations with the US administration and as a result of both that long-term special relationship, but actually more importantly, the work that our Prime Minister Keir Starmer has done in building that relationship with President Trump has meant that we were the first country in the world to secure a trade deal,' she said. 'That has a tangible benefit for people here in Scotland, whether it is people working in the Scotch whisky industry or people working in the defence sector like here at Rolls-Royce, that trade deal means lower tariffs than any country in the world on things that we send to the US.' Ms Reeves dodged a question relating to senior ministers – including Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Scottish Secretary Ian Murray – supporting a motion when in opposition in 2019 calling for the president's first state visit to be cancelled and accusing him of 'misogyny, racism and xenophobia'. Mr Trump is expected to visit both of his golf clubs in Scotland – in South Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire – during the visit, which has been described as 'private' by the White House, before leaving on Tuesday. His presence is likely to spark protests across the country, with Police Scotland being forced to request aid from other forces to help increase manpower for the trip. In a carefully worded statement ahead of the visit, Mr Swinney said the focus it will bring to Scotland will allow people to have their voice heard on issues including 'war and peace, justice and democracy'. Speaking to the PA news agency on Friday, the First Minister said his meeting with Mr Trump would present an opportunity to 'essentially speak out for Scotland' on issues like trade and the increase of business from the United States in Scotland. 'But there are clearly also significant international issues upon which the people of Scotland have a view and want to have that view expressed by their First Minister,' he said. 'That relates to the awfulness of the situation in Gaza and the unbearable human suffering that is going on in Gaza. 'I want to make sure that those concerns and those views are expressed to the President of the United States. 'We have that opportunity, and I intend to take that opportunity to make sure that Scotland's voice is heard.' Mr Swinney also urged all of those set to protest against the President's visit to do so 'peacefully and to do so within the law'.

July 2025 is when the Trump era started to end
July 2025 is when the Trump era started to end

The Hill

time20 minutes ago

  • The Hill

July 2025 is when the Trump era started to end

It took six months into President Trump's second term to get here, but something shifted in Trump World this month. The administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case — including its assertion that a 'client list' doesn't exist — sent tremors through the MAGA ecosystem, creating a permission structure for key players on the right to start treating Trump like a lame duck. This was a significant development, even though there are obvious reasons to view Trump this way. Constitutional limits prevent him from running again after 2024. That alone creates an expiration date on his relevance that even the most obsequious loyalists can't ignore forever. Then there's the Epstein connection, which didn't just put a fresh stink on an already scandal-soaked politician. It found him on the wrong side of a definitive MAGA narrative. It's one thing to be indicted multiple times; it's quite another to be entangled in the biggest conspiracy theory of our era. But there's something else in the air: Trump looks old. We may have grown accustomed to his ALL CAPS rants, but the physical symptoms are harder to normalize — the swollen ankles. The makeup caked awkwardly on his hands. Taken together — the reality of Trump's lame-duck status, being out of touch with much of his base and now the physical deterioration — we are left with a picture of a man whose once iron-clad grip on his party is finally beginning to loosen. The base might not say it outright. MAGA influencers certainly won't admit it — but they absolutely see it. And more importantly, they're starting to act on it. The jostling has begun. For this reason, it's no longer absurdly premature to start talking about succession. And, for my money, there are three leading contenders. Vice President JD Vance — seemingly the obvious successor — is clearly positioning himself as heir apparent to Trumpism 2.0: similar themes, better vocabulary, a little more polish and (crucially) a future. Tucker Carlson now also seems to be testing out what it would look like to actually run for office. And Donald Trump Jr. is lurking around the perimeter; the assumption is that his name will carry him somewhere, though it's not clear where (or even if) anyone would follow him. For those hoping the MAGA spell would break post-Trump, the prospects are strikingly bleak. These three men all occupy somewhat similar turf — a figure like Nikki Haley will not be not on this list. Trumpism will survive, albeit without Trump. But winning the internecine battle to lead this movement might be a Pyrrhic victory. Trump's coalition cannot be inherited any more than his celebrity status or charisma can. The coalition wasn't built to outlive 2024. It is an unruly jumble of people with wildly incompatible worldviews, glued together by little more than shared grievance and a cult of personality. It includes paleoconservative nationalists and neoconservative interventionists, Christian fundamentalists and manosphere libertines, fans of McDonald's and crunchy health nuts. And it worked, somehow, in 2024 — but only for Trump. This has always been the dirty secret of Trumpism: It's not transferrable. You could see it in the 2018 midterms, when Republicans took a beating without Trump on the ballot. You saw it again in 2022, when a rogues' gallery of Trump-endorsed candidates flopped spectacularly. The Trump base doesn't show up for the brand — it shows up for the man. So what happens when the man is gone? We're about to find out. For the first time in nearly a decade, the right is confronting a future without a clear standard-bearer. And every would-be successor faces the same paradox: To win Trump's base, you have to sound like Trump. But the more you sound like Trump, the more you remind people you're not him. It's difficult to imagine that any of the frontrunners could maintain the same patchwork coalition. Vance might be able to pick off the nationalist-intellectual set, but he lacks Trump's charisma, and gives off oily politician vibes. Tucker might dominate the culture-war lane. Don Jr. might do okay with the too-online meme crowd. But no one can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Because the thing they're all trying to inherit — Trumpism— isn't an ideology. It's a person. This is the tragedy and farce of the post-Trump GOP: It bet everything on a single man, and now it has no idea how to function without him. Trump hollowed out the party, scorched the institutions and rewired the voter base. And he will likely leave behind a political husk that still bears his name but contains little of his animating style. Of course, Trump isn't gone yet. Republicans — thanks, perhaps, to their plans to gerrymander Texas — could still hold on to Congress in November. Maybe Trump can ultimately find a way to outrun the Epstein controversy and set the terms for the next four years. And, regardless, he could also play a vital role in picking (or sabotaging) whoever inherits his mantle. But that doesn't change the fact that his era is already ending. The spell is finally starting to wear off. And somewhere, just beneath the surface, it feels like the scramble for 2028 has already begun. The question isn't whether someone can pick up the torch. It's whether that person can prevent the flame from being extinguished entirely.

Carville rips Columbia over Trump settlement: ‘I've never seen such cowards in my life'
Carville rips Columbia over Trump settlement: ‘I've never seen such cowards in my life'

The Hill

time20 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Carville rips Columbia over Trump settlement: ‘I've never seen such cowards in my life'

Democratic strategist James Carville ripped Columbia University for agreeing to pay $221 million to President Trump's administration to restore the school's federal funding. 'You were talking about Paramount and how they collapsed. The biggest cavers in the world is Columbia University,' Carville said during a Thursday night appearance on Fox News' 'Jesse Waters Primetime.' 'I've never seen such cowards in my life. My hat is off to Harvard. At least they have guts,' Carville added. Columbia University announced on Wednesday that it had agreed to a $200 million settlement with the federal government, which will be paid out over the next three years, and $21 million to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 'This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty,' acting Columbia University President Claire Shipman said. 'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track,' Shipman added. Columbia lost $400 million in federal funding earlier this year after the administration cut it off over a probe into antisemitism on the Ivy League's campus. The school argues the deal will allow the institution to keep its academic independence. President Trump lauded the deal. 'It's a great honor to have been involved, and I want to thank and congratulate Secretary Linda McMahon, and all those who worked with us on this important deal. I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right,' Trump wrote on social media. 'I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!' Columbia's deal was criticized by some Democrats in Congress, including school alum Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.). '[M]y alma mater has allowed a once highly-respected institution to succumb to the Trump Administration's coercive and exploitative tactics,' the New York Democrat said. 'Columbia has effectively waived the white flag of surrender in its battle at the heart of the Trump Administration's war on higher education and academic freedom.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store