Latest news with #RestoringTruthandSanityto
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump says he fired museum director as his budget targets Smithsonian
President Donald Trump announced Friday that he has fired the director of the National Portrait Gallery, Kim Sajet, whom he called 'highly partisan.' The dismissal marks the first action Trump has taken against the Smithsonian Institution since an executive order he signed earlier this year that promised to eliminate 'divisive narratives' and 'anti-American ideology' from the museum and research body, which is partially funded by the federal government. 'Upon the request and recommendation of many people, I am herby terminating the employment of Kim Sajet as Director of the National Portrait Gallery,' Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform Truth Social. 'She is a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI, which is totally inappropriate for her position. Her replacement will be named shortly.' Hours after Trump's post, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III told staff that the White House also sent new details of proposed cuts to the Smithsonian's budget, in an email obtained by The Washington Post. The president's request to Congress proposed a 12 percent reduction of the institution's budget and excluded funding for its Anacostia Community Museum and its forthcoming National Museum of the American Latino, Bunch said. It is unclear if the president has authority to dismiss Sajet. The Smithsonian's programming is not under the purview of the executive branch, and personnel decisions for senior-level Smithsonian museum positions are made by Bunch. Neither the museum, the institution nor the White House immediately responded to a request for comment. Thomas Berry, the director of the Cato Institute's center for constitutional studies, said presidents have the authority to hire and fire top officials in the executive branch who then have the powers to make their own hiring and firing decisions, with the understanding that they could lose their jobs if the president is not satisfied with their decisions. 'The shorthand for this that is often used as a good rule of thumb is that the power to fire goes to whoever has the power to appoint,' Berry said. In the National Portrait Gallery's case, top personnel decisions are made by the Smithsonian's secretary, who is appointed by the board of regents. The National Portrait Gallery, established in 1962 by an act of Congress, houses portraits of distinguished Americans, including every president. Its collection includes more than 26,000 works. An independent institution, the Smithsonian has operated as a public-private partnership since 1846, with the federal government covering about 62 percent of its expenses. On March 27, the president issued an executive order titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' which aims to 'restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness.' A 35-year-old special assistant and senior associate staff secretary, Lindsey Halligan, was among the order's architects — instigated, in part, by her early-2025 visit to the show 'The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture,' an exhibition at the Smithsonian American Art Museum, which shares a building with the Portrait Gallery. The order calls for Halligan and Vice President JD Vance to 'remove improper ideology' from the Smithsonian and 'prohibit expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race.' Trump's unprecedented order was foreshadowed by a Nov. 25 Wall Street Journal opinion piece co-written by the Heritage Foundation's Mike Gonzalez, one of the contributors to Project 2025, which called for the president to 'retake control' of the Smithsonian's museums. The institution, Gonzalez wrote, had 'forsaken their mission of spreading knowledge and instead are trying to 'decolonize' society.' Sajet, who formerly served as president and chief executive of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, was selected to lead the Portrait Gallery in 2013 — becoming the first woman to serve in the role. As director, Sajet has focused on diversifying the gallery's collection and programming by acquiring works that reflected a broader range of artists and subjects and integrating Spanish into the museum's communications strategy. In 2017, she was the first Smithsonian director to name a choreographer-in-residence to create dance performances based on the museum's exhibitions. She also hosted the museum's 'Portraits' podcast series, now in its sixth season, to engage the public with conversations about art, history and identity. Sajet was 'fair minded, and interested in all kinds of projects,' says a former National Portrait Gallery historian who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of professional repercussions. 'I've never thought of her as politically motivated.' Born in Nigeria, Sajet is a citizen of the Netherlands who has worked in the United States for 30 years. 'A big part of my job [at the Historical Society] was being able to talk about American identity and what this amazing country has done,' Sajet told The Washington Post in 2013. 'Americans sometimes forget how much they are observed by other people around the world. I'm looking forward to reminding people of the larger global context. It's something the Smithsonian values.' On Saturday, the Portrait Gallery and Smithsonian American Art Museum plan to host their family Pride festival. Meryl Kornfield contributed reporting to this report.
Time Magazine
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Time Magazine
The Complicated History of Government Influence Over Universities
On March 27, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled, 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' which aims to root out the 'corrosive ideology' that casts American history in a 'negative' light. Critics have denounced this as an attempt to control ideas—part of a broader trend of unprecedented attacks against academic freedom and the independence of institutions of learning. But the truth is that the push to align scholarship with government interests is not new. Throughout the 20th century, the relationship between colleges and the state was a messy one. American universities were vital to advancing the government's power and global influence, especially through Cold War-related research and development. Nonetheless, they were also a threat to the government when scholarship challenged official narratives and agendas. Today, Americans are witnessing a resurgence of such concerns. History shows that they may lead to censorship and curtail critical research—while also proving to be self-defeating. Many of the achievements that Americans most proudly celebrate were inspired by acknowledging the brutal realities of the past. The Cold War exemplified the complicated relationship between universities and the federal government. As the conflict dawned in the late 1940s, the government quickly realized that universities could do more to help than simply provide scientific breakthroughs and defense materials: the humanities and social sciences could be just as valuable in fighting the Soviets. At a time when the nation was engaged in ideological warfare, knowledge was power. Understanding the enemy—historically, politically, socially, psychologically, economically and culturally—was a matter of national security. And the government lacked the expertise necessary to understand foreign cultures and political systems. Officials understood that universities, by contrast, were well situated to provide this knowledge, so they enacted an array of programs to empower academics through grants and research institutes. The goal was to push scholarship toward topics that could inform domestic and foreign policy. As a result, over 20 years, the scale and scope of state influence on scholarly research grew dramatically. The government was instrumental in creating new academic fields, including area studies, and it shaped social science research for strategic purposes. One example was the creation of the Russian Research Center, which was a collaboration between academics and the government. Based at Harvard and directed by Harvard faculty, its board was comprised of professors from various universities. It drew on expertise from different fields, including history, political science, economics, geography, law, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, and other disciplines. Sigmund Diamond—a historian and sociologist who studied and briefly worked at Harvard during this period— chronicled the extent of the alliance. According to Diamond, although the center received a grant from the Carnegie Corporation, it reported directly to the State Department and other intelligence agencies. Its mission was clear: to produce scholarly research and expert analysis useful to the government's ideological warfare against the Soviet Union. This included studies on the attitudes of Russians toward their homeland in relation to the rest of the world—the sources of Russian patriotism, attitudes toward authority, and how Russians felt about the suppression of individual freedom. With this knowledge, the government could exploit discontent, foster instability, and leverage dissent against Soviet policies. The center at Harvard was just one example; there were others at universities across the nation. In the early 1960s, National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy delivered a lecture at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He emphasized the strong connections that 'bind the world of power and the world of learning,' arguing that 'there is gain for both the political world and the academy from an intensified process of engagement and of choosing sides and of engaging in the battle.' The government, in his view, would benefit greatly from historians whose work illuminated a 'deeper sense of the realities of power and its use.' But the government's alliance with the academic community came with risks. If critical scholarship could dissect the enemy and boost American Cold War efforts, it could also be turned inward. Research disciplines that probed into the historical, political, social, and cultural vulnerabilities of other nations could also cast a critical eye on the U.S., raising sobering questions about American history and the nation's unflattering record on civil rights, social unrest, imperialism, and more. That made universities dangerous, and in the anti-communist hysteria of Cold War America, the government viewed them with suspicion. As molders of the nation's youths, educators were under scrutiny lest they indoctrinate students with radical ideas. Government officials stoked this paranoia. 'Countless times,' remarked Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy—perhaps the era's most prominent red baiter—in 1952, 'I have heard parents throughout the country complain that their sons and daughters were sent to college as good Americans and returned four years later as wild-eyed radicals.' Academics who offered critical assessments of the nation's history and policies were suspected of communist sympathies; they caught the eye of the FBI and the government subjected them to surveillance and intimidation. In 1956, a survey of over 2,000 professors showed that 61% had been contacted by the FBI; 40% worried that students might misrepresent their politics; and about a quarter would not express their views for fear of the government. The FBI targeted some historians in particular. The FBI considered them dangerous because of their ability to challenge patriotic myths and undermine the accepted narrative about the nation's past. This was allegedly dangerous not only in the classroom, but also in the public square as it could raise questions about government policy. That risked stirring up public dissent and calls for reform. C. Vann Woodward, the Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize-winning Yale historian, was one scholar who landed under government surveillance for his critical views of America's past. More than any other historian of the 20 th century, Woodward's writing exposed the horrific realities of racial segregation in America. He was also a staunch proponent of free speech and civil rights. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. drew inspiration from his scholarship. When Woodward criticized the House Un-American Activities Committee—which members of Congress used to engage in anti-communist witch-hunts—and signed a petition calling for its elimination, he provoked government scrutiny. The historian would later remark that his profession offered a corrective to the 'complacent and nationalist reading of our past.' But during the Cold War, the U.S. government had no patience for potentially subversive views about the nation's past—even if they were accurate. It wanted scholars to offer penetrating insights into the history and politics of foreign regimes, but not at home. Patriotism became a litmus test, and scholars who applied their expertise to offer critical analyses of America's revered narratives were suspected of harboring a dangerous un-American ideology. Today, government anxieties about historical discourse have resurfaced. Trump's executive order warns of a 'distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.' It condemns what his administration sees as an effort to 'undermine the remarkable achievements' of the nation and 'foster a sense of national shame.' But the truth is that this directive risks undermining the potential for such 'remarkable achievements' in the future. In many cases, including expanding civil (or legal) rights for African Americans and women, progress resulted from the work of scholars like Woodward and the way it empowered Americans to grapple with the less savory chapters in the country's past. Americans acknowledged an un-sanitized version of U.S. history and worked to correct wrongs in order to ensure a brighter future. The lessons from the Cold War's record of state censorship of ideas are clear. Nuanced historical truth cannot thrive or die based on its political usefulness to the current administration. Suppressing the complexity of the nation's past to curate a comforting national story will not lead to truth, sanity, or the sorts of achievements that Trump wants to celebrate. History matters, even if it does not align with the interests of those in power. Trump's attempts to control the narrative of American history is not merely a threat to academic freedom, but also to the nation's ability to confront its past and shape better policies for the future. Perhaps the President is right to worry about institutions of learning. Because knowledge, when un-policed, threatens the status quo. In a free society, that's a virtue, not a threat. Jeffrey Rosario is assistant professor at Loma Linda University in southern California. He is currently writing a book on religious dissent against U.S. imperialism at the turn of the 20th century.
San Francisco Chronicle
10-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Smithsonian to review whether to keep artifacts donated by S.F.'s Rev. Amos Brown
The Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture is going to consider whether to permanently keep two prized artifacts belonging to civil rights icon Amos Brown — which the institution had tried to return to him, sparking a controversy over the Trump Administration's influence over the historical collection. Since opening in 2016, the museum has displayed Brown's bible, which he carried during the Civil Rights movement, and his copy of the History of Negro Race in America by George Washington Williams. On Monday, Brown, pastor of San Francisco's Third Baptist Church, received an email from Erika D. Gault, a director at the museum, confirming that the museum's collections committee will consider permanently keeping the artifacts. 'I have already begun to complete the necessary collections documents and will personally work to ensure that this moves quickly and positively through the necessary steps for donation and permanent accession into the collection,' Gault wrote in the email, which Brown shared with the Chronicle. Brown said he knew little about the committee and who would be on it. 'I asked them (the museum) right up front, who's on it. We ought to be transparent with things like these. Any time people cannot be transparent it says they may be into something that's not in the best interest of the common good.' The exchange between the museum and Brown occurred in the wake of President Donald Trump's March 27 executive order titled, 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.' In it, Trump targeted various Smithsonian institutions, who he said in recent years haves 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology.' He specifically named the National Museum of African American History and Culture and criticized it as proclaiming that ideas like hard work, individualism and the nuclear family were aspects of white culture. On April 10, Brown received an email from Constance S. Beninghove, the museum's exhibitions and loans registrar, who told him his artifacts were being returned. 'I wanted to alert you that the National Museum of African American History and Culture will be returning your Bible and book we borrowed for our exhibition, Segregation,' said Beninghove. 'We are grateful for the loan of these important objects and the ability to share them with the public. In order to preserve them and not display them for too long, we are now returning them to you.' Brown immediately questioned why the museum suddenly wanted to return his items, believing it was connected with Trump's crackdown on diversity initiatives. 'There's a sneaky, sly, sinister movement going on,' Brown told the Chronicle. 'We all know that the present (Trump) administration has tried to wipe out anything that has to do with Blackness, our identity.' Brown said the museum told him it wanted to return the artifacts because the 'light (in the exhibit they're kept) would be damaging.' 'That doesn't make sense,' said Brown. 'They're a museum, they (the museum) they know how to preserve delicate artifacts.' After Brown pushed back on why the artifacts were being returned, he said the museum phoned him. The controversy coincided with fears from the public that other civil rights artifacts, such as Nat Turner's Bible, were being removed from the museum, NBC Washington reported. Media reports also circulated that the museum had removed its Greensboro, NC lunch counter from the Civil Rights Movement. The museum, in a statement last month, called the reports 'inaccurate.' 'Both the Greensboro lunch counter and stools where college students sat in protest during the Civil Rights Movement are and continue to be on display,' said the museum. The museum continued, saying, 'recent claims that objects have been removed for reasons other than adherence to standard loan agreements or museum practices are false.' Media representatives for the museum did not respond to a request for comment on the situation. As the museum faces threat under the Trump administration, Brown said he has ideas to carry the teaching of Black history forward. 'The Black family, the Black church, and our historically Black college,' he said when asked on who could teach Black history. 'We got to learn and teach in spite of. This is not the first time that the empire, the oppressors, have tried to keep us down through such corny messages, even during the days of slavery.' When asked about the future of the museum, Brown said, 'Black folks, our allies, our friends…have got to stand up and make sure that we push back. And say we're going to stand for a diverse, yet unified country. Unity does not mean uniformity.'
