Questionnaire: “Go. Secretary, does it refuse to hire a denying Holocaust as a member of the faculty of Harvard History Division, they consider” an ideological lacus test? “
Witness: “I believe there should be a variety of perspectives on the teachings and opinions about campuses.”
Have I just heard this correctly? Was Education Minister Linda McMahon really just said that the denial of the Holocaust is just a diverse point of view?
I was shocked. But just recently, this exchange really happened.
I was sitting through the McMahon daisy in the room of the Home Education Committee and Workpiece. The desk before me was the letter on April 11, sent to Harvard by the Trump administration, presenting their outrageous demands to the university to preserve their federal funding.
It is contained in this letter is the phrase that has become a rally for a cry for the Trump administration in their crusade against Harvard: “Diversity in terms”. This is the only program of diversity that the administration considers not only an important but also imperative for the future of higher education. But although McMahon is strongly beating the drum on the lack of “diverse views” in colleges, it was unclear what it means and whether the administration has the power to impose the diversity of the campus point of view.
In his hearing in front of the Senate, the previous day Senator Chris Murphy (D-Con.) Pressed the secretary on this issue. In addition to saying that the Faculty of Collegers needed more conservative votes, it was not able to clearly formulate the powers that the federal government has in this kingdom, nor did it clearly determine what the diversity of the point of view, nor the restrictions that must be recognized.
So I asked.
I asked if, according to the requests listed in the letter, the Harvard government department would be forced to hire teachers who believe the 2020 election had been stolen.
I asked if a Harvard medical school would be required to hire immunologists to adhere to the secretary of health and human services Robert F. Kennedy for the efficacy of the vaccine.
McMahon’s response was to get away for freedom of speech and many perspectives on colleges in campuses. She went wrong and I pressed.
It was at this point that I asked, “Mrs. Secretary, does he refuse to hire a denying Holocaust as a member of the Harvard Harvard Faculty is considered a” ideological lacquus test? “
She replied, “I believe there should be a variety of perspectives on the teachings and opinions about campuses.”
There are a number of deeply disturbing aspects of this answer. I could write in thoroughly about the consequences that were widely discredited and – in the case of the third example, deeply offensive and dangerous ignorant – conspiracy theories should have a place in academic institutions that are globally in the field of research. There is also a lot to say that an administration, which claims to fight anti -Semitism, does not immediately condemn the denial of the Holocaust and insists that it has no place or platform in higher education.
But the urgent question here is that the administration cannot determine a restriction on such diversity in terms. If a candidate for a position in the government department has a sincere political conviction that the 2020 elections were stolen, should they be hired in the interest of the “diversity of the point of view”, although they will not meet the academic standards needed for a serious candidate in the political sciences? 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 check is already happening with future international students of the school; It is not a stretch to imagine that this check can also extend to teachers and home students.
Freedom of speech and freedom of disagreement are among the most sacred and basic principles of our democracy, enshrined in the first repair of BIP for rights. Universities are the arenas where these freedoms are exercised; The places where ideas are tested and discussed and critical is encouraged. History teaches us that government intervention in colleges and universities is a tactic used by authoritarian governments to cancel disagreement.
This does not mean that today there are no problems in colleges in colleges and there must always be an unwavering commitment to the safety and well -being of the students. But political disagreement is not a crime. Disagreement is a function of healthy and vital democracy, and higher education is there to teach students how to think, not what to think.
No matter where you come across the political spectrum, all Americans need to understand what is embedded in the battle of the Harvard administration. We all need to be concerned about the Federal Government’s experience to force an independent institution, especially a person who is charged with teaching our young people and producing leading research in the world. If you love what this country is great – freedom of expression, the right to disagree, the protection of civil rights – then you need to know: we have something to lose if we do not fight for it.
Mark Takano, Democrat, represents the 39th Congress District of California and is a member of the Committee on Education and Workplace in the Chamber.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material cannot be published, emitted, rewritten or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports and streaming video, focus on the hill.