Linda McMahon's answer on Holocaust denialism should scare us

The Hill

a day 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.