The Trump administration claims that it wants to reduce federal intervention into the nation’s public and private institutions. But it intervenes forcefully in both public and private sectors to punish anyone with different views. It has threatened to withhold federal funding for research from universities unless the targeted universities allow the federal government to supervise its curriculum, its hiring policies, and its admissions policies. And he threatened to stop the funding of any K12 school that continues DEI programs.
The Trump regime has created a nanny state.
From Day 1, Trump made clear that he would ban practices and policies intended to diversity, equity, and inclusion. He threatened to withhold federal funding of schools that ignored his order to eliminate DEI. He has taken complete control of the Kennedy Center, so as to block DEI programming, and he has appointed a woman with no credentials to remove DEI from the Smithsonian museums.
Who knows how the African American Museum will survive Trump’s DEI purge.
ABC News reported that a federal district judge has halted the DEI ban, at least in schools associated with one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, the NEA.
The Trump administration’s attempt to make federal funding to schools conditional on them eliminating any DEI policies erodes the “foundational principles” that separates the United States from totalitarian regimes, a federal judge said on Thursday.
In an 82-page order, U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty partially blocked the Department of Education from enforcing a memo issued earlier this year that directed any institution that receives federal funding to end discrimination on the basis of race or face funding cuts.
“Ours is a nation deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned,” Judge McCafferty wrote, adding the “right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is…one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.”
“In this case, the court reviews action by the executive branch that threatens to erode these foundational principles,” she wrote.
The judge stopped short of issuing the nationwide injunction, instead limiting the relief to any entity that employs or contacts with the groups that filed the lawsuit, including the National Education Association and the Center for Black Educator Development.
It’s long been clear that Trump has relied on evangelical Christians as a significant part of his political base. It’s also long been clear that Trump himself is not religious. He seldom quotes the Bible, which he usually mangles, but he does sell a Trump Bible ($60). He is usually golfing every Sunday, seldom seen in any house of worship. He has had three wives and cheated on them all. He has operated fraudulent businesses (such as Trump University, which cheated war widows, veterans, and the elderly, and was ordered to pay $25 million to victims of his scam).
Despite having broken almost every one of the Ten Commandments, Trump is adored by evangelicals because he delivered what they wanted most: the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Now, following the agenda of Project 2025, he is wiping out the barriers between church and state and satisfying his religious base.
This week, the White House issued an extraordinary statement — a presidential Easter greeting that was more directly evangelistic than those in the past. Trump and the first lady said they were celebrating “the living Son of God who conquered death, freed us from sin, and unlocked the gates of Heaven for all of humanity.” (By contrast, the White House’s much shorter Ramadan statement last month sent “warmest greetings.”)
The White House spent much of this week celebrating, including at a live-streamed Easter prayer service and a dinner attended by the president. Trump told attendees he hoped it would be “one of the great Easters ever.”
Trump has significantly expanded the power and influence of conservative Christians in government, as my colleague Elizabeth Dias and I have been reporting on for years. This week is a visible demonstration of just how powerful people advancing conservative Christian causes have become inside this administration.
The language and rituals of the White House are changing. The first Cabinet meeting opened with prayer “in Jesus’ name.” Prayer sessions and even hymn-singing have broken out in the West Wing, in public and in private.
President George W. Bush established the first White House faith office in the early 2000s, and versions carried on under later administrations, often working to direct some federal money to faith-based groups providing social services. This term, Trump has given the office a higher stature and a broader mandate.
The new faith office is led by Trump’s longtime personal pastor, Paula White-Cain, and by Jennifer Korn, who worked in his first administration. They have promised a more ambitious agenda to end what they see as Christian persecution in America and to challenge the notion that church and state should be separate.
Ruth and her colleague Elizabeth Dias met the White House faith leaders in their much-coveted office in the West Wing.
White-Cain and Korn said they were focused on all forms of anti-religious bias, not just those affecting Christians. But if atheist groups and abortion rights groups have had a voice in government, “why shouldn’t pastors, priests and rabbis?” Korn told us. “We’re telling them the door’s open.”
In the new organizational structure, the faith office is now able to weigh in on any issue it deems appropriate. White-Cain said the office works closely not just with Trump and his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, but also with officials in intelligence, domestic policy and national security.
White-Cain and Korn have also hosted multiple briefings, listening sessions and other events with faith leaders over the last few months. One regular attendee at events hosted by the office, the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, who has visited the White House in previous administrations, said the new structure meant “unprecedented access” for faith leaders. Evangelical Christians are by far the most prominent presence.
These events are also communicating a clear message across the country. Many of the pastors have returned home to their large congregations in states like Colorado and Pennsylvania and shared photos of them with Trump. They’ve also recounted praying with him. Clips of faith leaders singing and praying in the White House have gone viral in conservative Christian circles.
“Even the White House shall be called house of prayer,” a pastor from Alabama wrote online in February, sharing a video clip of Christian leaders singing an impromptu a cappella version of the hymn “How Great Thou Art” in the Roosevelt Room. He added, “Would you join me in praying for President Trump and our United States of America?”
While the influence of conservative Christians is visible in the White House, it’s also emerging in federal policy. Trump has already taken several actions that have delighted his conservative Christian supporters. He has signed executive orders that establish a task force, spearheaded by the Justice Department, to “eradicate anti-Christian bias” and that declare there are “two sexes,” male and female.
I wonder if atheists, Muslims, Universalist Unitarians, and gay rabbis are invited to join the multi-faith meetings?
Anand Giridhadaras is a brilliant thinker and writer. He did all of us a service by seeing a therapist to get advice about how to survive the return of Trump, the Abuser-in-Chief. His blog is called “The Ink,” where this post appeared.
We’ve gotten ourselves into an abusive relationship, and it’s one we can’t escape.
The abuser in question is Donald Trump. And by abuse, we’re not talking about abuse of power, real as that may be. We’re talking about emotional abuse, doled out by a narcissist with an unstoppable need to rebuild the world in his image and to use the most powerful office in human history as a treatment center for his wounded ego.
Whether Trump suffers from a real disorder — malignant or traumatic narcissism has been floated — is a matter of debate among psychiatrists and psychologists. Most professionals have refused to make a diagnosis without a clinical interview (the so-called “Goldwater rule”), though before the 2024 election 225 experts felt Trump presented clear enough signs that they published an open letterwarning of his threat to the nation since, in their estimation, if it quacked like a duck, it was a duck:
Trump exhibits behavior that tracks with the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual’s (DSM V) diagnostic criteria for “narcissistic personality disorder,” “antisocial personality disorder,” and “paranoid personality disorder,” all made worse by his intense sadism, which is a symptom of malignant narcissism. This psychological type was first identified by German psychologist Erich Fromm to explain the psychology of history’s most “evil” dictators.
We’ve talked often in the newsletter about the way autocrats can build support even without offering anything to their supporters by way of real material improvements, playing on the same deep emotional needs exploited by abusers within relationships and families.
Earlier this year we also looked back to Erich Fromm’s work to understand how Trump’s cultlike appeal depended on a bond of mutual emotional dependence between abuser and abused and against a threatening world — a bond Fromm called “group narcissism.”
“Even if one is the most miserable, the poorest, the least respected member of a group, there is compensation for one’s miserable condition in feeling ‘I am a part of the most wonderful group in the world. I, who in reality am a worm, become a giant through belonging to the group,”
The situation today is even more complex — and dire — than most expected early in the campaign, as Trump competes for power and attention with fellow narcissists: the oligarchs. And chief among them is the shadow president, Elon Musk, whose sense of his own omnipotence and importance is even stronger than Trump’s, and his vision of the future far more dystopian, and his disregard for humanity even more total.
To better understand the situation facing Americans (and, to be honest, everyone around the world) our Nastaran Tavakoli-Far talked to therapist Daniel Shaw about how we can use the techniques that have helped people survive cults, abusive relationships, and toxic families to face and process and maybe even transcend the second Trump administration.
As someone who’s done a lot of reporting on topics involving narcissists and cults, something that’s really striking to me is that the advice given to the people suffering is to get out, go “no contact,” or have as little contact as possible. If you need to speak to this problematic individual do it via a lawyer, you know that kind of thing of just staying as emotionless as possible and not getting involved.
Now, what I always wonder is, because I think a lot of people when they look at Trump and MAGA, I mean a lot of people have said to me, “This is similar to what happened in my family.” A lot of these dynamics, if you’ve been exposed to narcissism, it’s actually very relatable to a lot of people.
But this isn’t a situation where you can go “no contact” because these are the people in power. You’re in a situation where you actually have to engage with these people. You can’t just leave the cult and try and heal. So what is your advice in this sort of scenario?
Stay sane, stay humane, and don’t isolate, would be the three phrases I would use.
Going “no contact” is sometimes a very good idea, but not always. And it’s also an idea that’s been turned around by abusive narcissists who isolate victims from their own families. You know, it’s the same thing that happens in Jehovah’s Witnesses. If you criticize the community, you are disfellowshipped and nobody, not your children, your spouse, your parents, or anybody is allowed to ever talk to you.
In terms of going “no contact” in a political situation, well, you don’t have that option. What are you going to do if, for example, the government benefits that you’ve paid into the system are suddenly turned off and there’s no more Social Security? Are you just going to say “Well, I’m not going to have anything to do with that bad president who just did that to me?” Or are you going to get involved in whatever way possible to fight against it?
Going “no contact” in this situation could be enabling the perpetrator, enabling the autocrat and I think that’s important to understand. If we’re enabling the autocrat, we’re complicit in the autocrat’s abuse.
So what can we do right now? If I wanted to ask for some practical advice?
One of the things that I’ve taken to heart about the current situation is the advice of Timothy Snyder, the historian who has studied the rise and fall of democracies and autocracies in Eastern Europe. One of the things he says is to not submit in advance.
Now, in the case of traumatizing narcissists, having managed a successful seduction they will begin to then create more dependence and they do that paradoxically through becoming more belligerent and belittling and more humiliating or shaming. What that does is create a state of constant intimidation at the same time increasing the sense of dependence the victim has on the narcissist.
In the current situation, it’s clear that everyone who is an opponent of the Trump administration is meant to feel horrified, shocked, belittled, and intimidated. That is what I believe is important: not to submit to the intention to terrify, intimidate, and make people feel powerless and small. So not to submit to that means that I don’t allow myself to be paralyzed with fear. I don’t allow myself to be boiling with rage, and I don’t isolate myself. I remember and connect to what I love about being in the world, about being a person, what I love about other people, and to the people who love me. Staying connected, not isolating, and not allowing yourself to drown in fear or rage is not submitting in advance.
So that’s my sense of what’s important right now.
You mentioned staying sane and about keeping connections. This time around it seems a lot of people are either kind of checking out or not checking the news every day. A lot of people are saying “I just want to do something positive in my community or be there for my family.” and things like that. What do you think about that? Why aren’t people protesting?
Right. I think everybody got exhausted, those who voted against Trump were exhausted by the amount of energy and effort spent hoping to elect Harris. I do limit my exposure so that I can keep my sanity for the time being. I don’t think that’s wrong and I encourage people who need to do that to do it.
So staying sane and humane, having those connections, and speaking up, speaking to our political representatives and pushing them.
People who care about these issues, who do not want to enable autocracy in this country or in general, exist at every level of society, and each of us has a certain amount of power.
I speak primarily to other psychotherapists but some of my ideas can be useful in thinking about the political, so I try to speak where possible within my community. Each of us has a community, and if we can be vocal within our communities at least we can hope to make an impact, even on one person.
Groups will form that we may want to lend our support to, either financial support or volunteer support. I’m currently supporting Democracy Docket, for example, where Mark Elias has been conducting so many successful lawsuits against a lot of abuses of government. I am not a millionaire elite, so I make small donations on a regular basis. People can do that.
People can volunteer, they can protest and demonstrate. All of these things are happening. They will happen, I believe, to a greater extent.
We may be under the threat of martial law in Trump’s world. We’re under the threat of having the National Guard tear-gas us if we take to the streets. He’s already demonstrated that he will do that and he’s saying he’ll do it again. But to whatever extent possible we need to speak, whatever our community might be, no matter how small. If you hold beliefs about injustice, it’s worth speaking out.
So what, exactly, is a traumatizing narcissist?
The traumatizing narcissist is a person who — for various reasons, based on their developmental history — has developed what starts out as a fantasy of omnipotence.
Did you ever buy a lottery ticket? That’s a fantasy of omnipotence. We all have them. It was said by Freud that we start out as babies with a sense of omnipotence because everybody adores us. And that we have to grow up and lose that sense of omnipotence so that we don’t become narcissists.
A traumatizing narcissist doesn’t lose that infantile omnipotence. They go through some kind of traumatic humiliation growing up, and that leads them to the fantasy that they can be the most powerful person in the world and nobody can hurt them or humiliate them or make them feel small or weak. As that fantasy becomes a delusion, they start to be absolutely convinced of their superiority, of their infinite entitlement, and of their greatness.
Some traumatizing narcissists focus on an individual or a family. There they can exercise their delusion of omnipotence over a small group of people or over just one person. But their delusion can be so powerful that it invites others to join in. Often the delusion makes them charismatic and persuasive. They can become, in some cases, autocratic politicians. In other cases, they can become gurus, or they can become internet influencers. They have so much conviction in their own delusion of their own omnipotence that they persuade others to join.
Could you briefly describe the kind of people who join in? Who get into these kinds of relationships?
When people speak to me about having been in this kind of a relationship, they’re often full of shame and trying to understand what’s wrong with them. What I’ll say is, “Well, you were being vulnerable, which is very human.”
There is nobody who volunteers to be groomed and the traumatizing narcissist grooms people. We don’t volunteer for that. Some people may be more vulnerable to grooming than others but I’ve seen some very together, high-functioning people who got groomed by traumatizing narcissists, it’s not about being weak or unstable as a person. Look at Bernie Madoff, who convinced some of the most wealthy, creative, high-functioning people in the world that they should give him all their money.
I was very inspired when I left the cult I had been part of when I was younger by Erich Fromm’s book Escape from Freedom. He tried to understand what was happening in Germany which led people to believe that Hitler was a savior.
I think in a similar vein, people believe that Donald Trump is a savior, and part of the problem is that they are only being exposed to the information that Donald Trump wants them to have, which is the propaganda that is funded by millions and millions and millions of dollars by fossil fuel oligarchs and digital oligarchs. There is extraordinary support for Trump as the CEO and them as the board of directors of the new world they think they’re creating. It’s frightening because it is like they read Orwell’s 1984 and decided the hero was Big Brother.
I would call these people malignant narcissists rather than traumatizing narcissists because they’re not just narcissistic, they’re also sociopathic and they believe that there is no law that they should have to obey, that they make the laws.
Sorry, when you say these people, do you mean Trump, or do you mean Trump and the tech bros and fossil fuel bros?
The group of elites who support autocrats. The autocrat and the elites that support the autocrat are people who see themselves as a superior race of people, entitled to rule over everyone else. Their solution for poor people is to create a jail system.
One of the major thinkers in the tech world has proposed that poor people be made into biofuel, that the prison system could become a factory for creating biofuel out of human beings. These things sound unbelievable. But they are being said publicly.
Yes, that’s the person. He’s extremely influential over Vice President JD Vance, and Peter Thiel is a big disciple of his, as are quite a few other billionaires in the tech world.
So we have an elite oligarchy in support of an autocrat. But why do people view Donald Trump as a savior?
There are a lot of reasons. But what Erich Fromm said is that people are afraid of freedom. They are uncertain of how to be free. And when they feel that there is a powerful leader, it’s like that becomes a magical person who they can feel safe and protected by. The allure of somebody promising absolute total protection, who seems very strong and very powerful and very certain, that is a very powerful allure.
To be a free person means that you have to provide yourself with a sense of safety and you have to create safety in your community.
Trump has been waging war against the nation’s top universities, demanding that they accept his orders to stamp out DEI or lose their federal grants. Trump uses the phony claim that he is combatting anti-Semitism, but the reality is that he is silencing academic freedom and free speech. For the record, Trump has accepted the support of American Nazis, so his concern for Jews cannot be taken seriously.
The first campus to receive Trump’s demands was Columbia University. Trump threatened to withhold $400 million if Columbia did not put several departments (Middle Eastern Studies, African American Studies, and South Asian Studies) into receivership. Sadly, Columbia complied.
Harvard was threatened with the loss of $9 billion in research grants. Harvard said NO. Harvard will not bend the knee to Trump as he seeks to trample academic freedom of faculty and students.
Lawyers for Harvard University said Monday the school will not comply with a new list of demands sent by the Trump administration on Friday, as part of the government’s purported crackdown on antisemitism and alleged civil rights violations at elite universities.
The new demands expand on a previous list sent to Harvard’s leaders on April 3, which ordered Harvard to close diversity offices and cooperate with federal immigration authorities, among other directives.
In a message to the campus community Monday, Harvard president Alan Garber vowed that the university will not yield to the government’s pressure campaign.“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Garber said.
Harvard’s stance is the most forceful pushback yet against the Trump administration’s crackdown on elite universities. It is a sharp contrast to the approach taken by Columbia University’s leaders who acquiesced to a list of demands from the Trump administration last month. Columbia promised to change student disciplinary procedures and place a Middle East studies department under new oversight, among other measures.
Then, last Friday, the government sent Harvard a much more detailed explanation of its demands, which Harvard released Monday afternoon. Harvard’s lawyers said the university“is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.”
Petula Dvorak of the Washington Post wrote about the efforts by the Trump administration to rewrite American history. Trump wants “patriotic history,” in which evil things never happened and non-white people and women were seldom noticed. In other words, he wants to control historical memory, sanitize it, and restore history as it was taught when he was in school about 65 years ago (1960), before the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and other actions that changed what historians know and teach.
Dvorak writes:
A section of Arlington National Cemetery’s website highlighting African American military heroes is gone.
The participation of transgender and queer protesters during the LGBTQ+ uprising at New York’s Stonewall Inn was deleted from the National Park Service’s website [nps.gov] about the federal monument.
And the Smithsonian museum in Washington, which attracts millions of visitors who enter free each year, will be instructed by Vice President JD Vance to remove “improper ideology.”
In a series of executive orders, President Donald Trump is reshaping the way America’s history is presented in places that people around the world visit.
In one order, he declared that diversity, equity and inclusion efforts “undermine our national unity,” and more pointedly, that highlighting the country’s most difficult chapters diminishes pride in America and produces “a sense of national shame.”
The president’s orders have left historians scrambling to collect and preserve aspects of the public record, as stories of Black, Brown, female or LGBTQ+ Americans are blanched from some public spaces. In some cases, the historical mentions initially removed have been replaced, but are more difficult to find online.
That rationale has galvanized historians to rebuke the idea that glossing over the nation’s traumas — instead of grappling with them — will foster pride, rather than shame.
Focusing on the shame, they say, misses a key point: Contending with the uglier parts of U.S. history is necessary for an honest and inclusive telling of the American story. Americans can feel pride in the nation’s accomplishments while acknowledging that some of the shameful actions in the past reverberate today.
“The past has no duty to our feelings,” said Chandra Manning, a history professor at Georgetown University.
“History does not exist to sing us lullabies or shower us with accolades. The past has no obligations to us at all,” Manning said. “We, however, do have an obligation to the past, and that is to strive to understand it in all its complexity, as experienced by all who lived through it, not just a select few.”
That is not to say that the uncomfortable weight of difficult truths isn’t a valid emotion.
Postwar Germans were so crushed by the burden of their people’s past, from the horrors of the Nazi regime to the protection of war criminals in the decades after the war, that they have a lengthy word for processing it: vergangenheitsbewältigung, which means the “work of coping with the past.” It has informed huge swaths of German literature and film and has shaped the physical way European cities create memorials and museums.
America’s version of vergangenheitsbewältigung can be found across the cultural landscape. From films to books to classrooms and museums, Americans are learning more details about slavery in the South, the way racism has affected everything from baseball to health care, and how sexism shaped the military.
Trump, however, looks at the U.S. version of vergangenheitsbewältigung differently. “Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth,” said the executive order targeting museums, called “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”
That is what “fosters a sense of national shame,” he says in his order.
Historians take exception to that. “I would argue that it’s actually weird to feel shame about what people in the past did,” Georgetown history professor Katherine Benton-Cohen said. “As I like to tell my students, ‘I’m not talking about you. We will not use ‘we’ when we refer to Americans in the past, because it wasn’t us and we don’t have to feel responsible for their actions. You can divest yourself of this feeling,’” she said.
Germans also have a phrase for enabling a critical look at their nation’s past: die Gnade der spät-geborenen, “the grace of being born too late” to be held responsible for the horror of the Nazi years.
Benton-Cohen said she honed her approach to this during her first teaching job in the Deep South in 2003, when she emphasized the generational gap between her students and the history they were studying.
“They could speak freely of the past — even the recent past, like the 1950s and 1960s, because they weren’t there,” she said. “They were free to make their own conclusions. It was exciting, and it worked. Many told me it was the first time they had learned the history of the 1960s because their high schools — both public and private — had skipped it to avoid controversy. We did fine.”
Trump hasn’t limited his attempt to control how history is presented in museums or memorials. Among the first executive orders he issued was “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.” Another one sought to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion in the nation’s workplaces, classrooms and museums. His version of American history tracks with how it was taught decades ago, before academics began bringing more diverse voices and viewpoints into their scholarship.
Maurice Jackson, a history professor at Georgetown University who specializes in jazz and Black history, said Black Americans have fought hard to tell their full story.
Black history was first published as “The Journal of Negro History” in 1916, in a townhouse in Washington when academic Carter G. Woodson began searching for the full story of his roots. A decade later, he introduced “Negro History Week” to schools across the United States, a history lesson that was widely cheered by White teachers and students alongside Black Americans who finally felt seen.
“Black history is America’s history,” Jackson said. And leaving the specifics of the Black experience out because it makes some people ashamed gives an incomplete picture of our nation, he said.
After Trump issued his executive orders, federal workers scrambled to interpret and obey them, which in some cases led to historical milestones being removed, or covered up and then replaced.
Federal workers removed a commemoration of the Tuskegee Airmen from the Pentagon website, then restored it. They taped butcher paper over the National Cryptologic Museum’s display honoring women and people of color, then uncovered the display.
Mentions of Harriet Tubman in a National Park Service display about the Underground Railroad were removed, then put back. The story of legendary baseball player Jackie Robinson’s military career was deleted from the Department of Defense website, then restored several days later.
Women known as WASPs risked their lives in military service — training and test pilots during World War II for a nation that didn’t allow them to open a bank account — is no longer a prominent part of the Pentagon’s digital story.
George Washington University historian Angela Zimmerman calls all the activity. which happened with a few keystrokes and in a matter of days, the digital equivalent of “Nazi book burnings.”
In response, historians — some professional, some amateur — are scrambling to preserve information before it is erased and forgotten.
The Organization of American Historians created the Records at Risk Data Collection Initiative, which is a callout for content that is in danger of being obliterated
This joins the decades-long work of preserving information by the Internet Archive, a California nonprofit started in 1996 that also runs the Wayback Machine, which stores digital records.
Craig Campbell, a digital map specialist in Seattle, replicated and stored the U.S. Geological Service’s entire historical catalogue. His work was crowdfunded by supporters.
“Historical maps are critical for a huge range of industries ranging from environmental science, conservation, real estate, urban planning, and even oil and gas exploration,” said Campbell, whose mapping company is called Pastmaps. “Losing access to the data and these maps not only destroys our ability to access and learn from history, but limits our ability to build upon it in so many ways as a country.”
After astronomer Rose Ferreira’s profile was scrubbed from, then returned, to NASA’s website, she posted about it on social media. In response, an online reader created a blog, Women in STEM, to preserve stories such as Ferreira’s.
“Programs that memorialize painful truths help ensure past wrongs are never revived to harm again,” Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nevada), said on X, noting that presidents are elected to “run our government — not rewrite our history.”
Authoritarian leaders have long made the whitewashing of history a tool in their regimes. Joseph Stalin expunged rivals from historic photographs. Adolf Hitler purged museums of modernist art and works created by Jewish artists, which he labeled “degenerate.” Museums in Mao Zedong’s China glorified his ideology.
While this may be unfamiliar to Americans, Georgetown University history professor Adam Rothman says that in the scope of human history, “these are precedented times.”
It’s not yet clear what the real-world effect of Trump’s Smithsonian order will be or exactly how it will be carried out. Who will determine what exhibits cause shame and need to be removed? What will the criteria be? Will exhibits that discuss slavery, for instance, be eliminated or altered?
“Our nation is an ongoing experiment,” says Manning, the Georgetown history professor, who has written books about the Civil War. “And what helps us do that now in 2024 compared to 1776 is that we do have a shared past.
“Every single human culture depends upon, grows out of, and is shaped by its past,” she said. “It is the past that has shaped all of us, it is our past that contains the bonds that can really hold us together.”
It’s what makes the study — and threat to — American history unique among nations. Benton-Cohen said that is what she sees happen with her students.
“The American striving to realize the democratic faith and all the difficulties it entailed and challenges overcome should inspire pride, not shame,” she said. “If you feel shame, as the kids would say, that’s a ‘you’ problem. That’s why I still fly the flag at my house; I’m not afraid of the American past, I’m alive with the possibilities — of finding common cause, of fighting for equality, of appreciating our shared humanity, of upholding our freedoms.”
As a Jew, it makes me sick to see the Trump administration use “anti-Semitism” as a reason to vilify anyone, be it a university or an immigrant.
Trump’s minions include numerous openly anti-Semitic allies. He’s gotten support from David Duke, Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes, and Kanye West, all of whom have expressed anti-Semitic views. He should reprimand all the Nazi-loving guys who carry Nazi symbols and chant “The Jews will not replace us.”
And then there’s Elon Musk, who twice gave the Nazi salute at Trump’s inauguration Right hand on heart, then thrust straight out. Elon re-opened Twitter to expressions of anti-Senitism and racism.
I support the First Amendment and oppose efforts to limit free speech.
But I hate hypocrisy. If Trump intends to use anti-Semitism as a reason to scour social media accounts, he should deport his anti-Semitic friends.
Wisconsin Public Radio reported that State Superintendent Jill Underly has announced that the state will not comply with a letter from U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in which she directed states to agree with the Trump administration about stamping out diversity, equity, and inclusion. Trump wants to eliminate DEI, which would involve reversing compliance with existing civil rights law. In addition, although McMahon may not know it, she is violating federal law by attempting to influence curriculum and instruction in the schools.
Thank you, Superintendent Underly!
WPR reported:
Wisconsin school districts won’t comply with a directive from the Trump administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs until districts have more information.
On Wednesday, state Superintendent Jill Underly asked the U.S. Department of Education for clarification on both the intent and legality of an April 3 directive that schools sign a letter acknowledging they’re following the government’s interpretation of civil rights laws.
This school year, Wisconsin received about $216 million in Title I funds. About $82 million of that money went to Milwaukee Public Schools.
Underly said the request from the Department of Education potentially violates required procedural steps, is unnecessarily redundant and appears designed to intimidate school districts by threatening to withhold critical education funding.
“We cannot stand by while the current administration threatens our schools with unnecessary and potentially unlawful mandates based on political beliefs,” Underly said in a statement. “Our responsibility is to ensure Wisconsin students receive the best education possible, and that means allowing schools to make local decisions based on what is best for their kids and their communities.”
On Feb. 14, the U.S. Department of Education sent a “Dear Colleague” letter giving educational institutions 14 days to eliminate diversity initiatives or risk losing federal funding.
At that time, the state DPI issued guidance to school districts encouraging a “measured and thoughtful approach, rather than immediate or reactionary responses to the federal government’s concerns.”
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has not clearly defined what the administration considers a violation of civil rights law. The February letter said institutions must “cease using race preferences and stereotypes as a factor in their admissions, hiring, promotion, scholarship.”
In a related document addressing frequently asked questions about how the administration would interpret Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the agency said: “Many schools have advanced discriminatory policies and practices under the banner of ‘DEI’ initiatives.”
The document went on to say that schools could engage in historical observances like Black History Month, “so long as they do not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination.”
Dr. Azar Nafisi, author of the mega-bestseller Reading Lolita in Tehran, will speak at Wellesley College on April 15 at Wellesley College at 4 p.m. in the Jewett Arts Center. Admission is free.
Please mark the date on your calendar. She is speaking in a lecture series that I endowed several years ago. The lecture will be available eventually on the archive website of the College.
The book, which was a sensation upon its publication for its depiction of life under the mullahs, has recently been made into a film.
This review of the film was published by The Atlantic and written by Arash Azizi. At present, the film can be seen only at film festivals.
He wrote:
The past few years may well be remembered as the nadir of Iranian-Israeli relations, and the first occasion when the two countries attacked each other directly. But they were also a golden period for Iranian-Israeli collaboration in cinema. In 2023, Tatami was the first-ever film to be co-directed by an Israeli (Guy Nattiv) and an Iranian (Zar Amir). And in 2024 came Reading Lolita in Tehran, directed by Eran Riklis, who is Israeli, and adapted from a book by an Iranian author, with an almost entirely Iranian cast. The film premiered at the Rome Film Fest last year and is now starting to tour the United States.
Anyone old enough to remember cultural life at the beginning of this century will know the book. Azar Nafisi’s memoir came out in 2003, spent 36 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list, and quickly developed a cult following. A reviewer for The Nation confessed to missing a dental appointment, a business lunch, and a deadline just because she couldn’t put the book aside.
Literary scholars—Nafisi is an English professor—are not known for their page-turning thrillers. But Nafisi’s story and prose are captivating. She’d gone to Iran shortly after the 1979 revolution in the hope of putting her American education to use by teaching English at a university. Instead, she was hounded out of the classroom by authorities hostile to Western literature. She wound up holding clandestine seminars for young women in her living room, delving into the masterpieces that the Islamic Republic forbade: the Vladimir Nabokov novel that gives the memoir its name, alongside the works of Henry James and Jane Austen, as well as one of Nafisi’s favorites, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. Nafisi brings these classics into dialogue with the real-life stories of young Iranians in the heady decades following the 1979 revolution. Her book isn’t just about reading and teaching literature under a repressive regime, but about how literature in and of itself could serve as an antidote to all that the regime stood for.
Despite its global fame and translation into 32 languages, Reading Lolita in Tehran was never turned into a film before now, mostly because Nafisi didn’t like the proposals she’d received. Then, seven years ago, Riklis came around, as he recounted to a New York audience on January 13, after a special screening of the film. The Israeli director managed to convince Nafisi of his vision—and then to secure the funding, assemble a suitable Iranian cast, and settle on Rome as the shooting location, given that Tehran was not an option.
When the book was initially released in 2003, the American zeitgeist, shaped by 9/11 and the Bush administration’s global War on Terror, was rife with debates about the representations of Muslim women and life in the Middle East. Nafisi’s was one of several popular memoirs by Iranian women published during this period, including Firoozeh Dumas’s Funny in Farsi (2003) and Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis series (2000–03). And perhaps inevitably, given its success, Nafisi’s book became the subject of political scrutiny, much of it bearing little relation to the book’s content. Although Nafisi opposed the Iraq War, some critics lumped her in with neoconservatives because she portrayed the travails of Iranians under an anti-American regime. One scholar even proclaimed that he saw no difference between her and American soldiers convicted of abusing prisoners in Iraq.
More than 20 years later, Riklis’s loyal adaptation has opponents just as the book did, and even more so because of the nationality of its director. In Tehran, the regime media have denounced the film as furnishing a “pretext for attacking Iran” and called its Iranian actors “traitors working with Zionists.” One outlet claimed that the film peddled a “violent, anti-culture, anti-art, and anti-human view of Iran and Iranians.”
The idea that Reading Lolita in Tehran is anti-Iranian because of its portrayal of the Islamic Republic, and of the life of women under its rule, was always patently ridiculous. The claim bears up particularly poorly in 2024, two years after women-centered protests rocked Iran under the slogan “Women, Life, Freedom.” What Nafisi does best, and the reason her work has endured, is precisely to refuse cartoonish portrayals and basic morality plays.
In Riklis, known for his empathetic depiction of Israelis and Palestinians in films such as Lemon Tree and Dancing Arabs, her book finds an able interpreter who has stayed true to its ethos. The film isn’t neutral. It vividly tells the story of how puritanical Islamist goons attacked universities in the early years after 1979, imposed mandatory veiling on women, and banned books they didn’t like. But neither is it a simple story of scary Islamists versus heroic women resisters.
The film captures the atmosphere of Iran in the 1980s and ’90s remarkably well for having been shot in Italy and directed by an Israeli who has never set foot in the country. The dialogue is mostly in Persian, a language Riklis doesn’t speak; he was able to pull this off with the help of a carefully chosen cast of diasporic Iranians. Golshifteh Farahani, perhaps the best-known Iranian actor outside the country, is at her height as Nafisi, whom she plays as confident but humane, by turns brazen and vulnerable.
The young women of the clandestine class include Sanaz (Zar Amir), who has survived imprisonment and torture; Mahshid (Bahar Beihaghi, in one of the film’s most delightful performances), who, unlike most of her classmates, wore the Islamic veil even before the revolution and defends an ideal of modesty as virtue; and Azin (Lara Wolf), whose multiple divorces make her an object of fascination to the less experienced students, but who turns out to be suffering from domestic abuse.
In Nafisi’s apartment, the students are far from the prying eyes of the regime and also of men (even the professor’s husband is barred from their meetings). They construct for themselves, in that all-female room, a little literary republic that survives the years of war and revolution. In one memorable scene, Nafisi has the students practice a Jane Austen–era dance as part of their study of Pride and Prejudice, drawing parallels between the stifling rules of courtship in Victorian England and those of some contemporary families in Iran.
The film also ventures beyond that cloistered space. Bahri (Reza Diako), a devout 1979 revolutionary, is nevertheless an avid student in Nafisi’s class at the university before it is shut down. Despite their diametrically opposed politics, Nafisi and Bahri form a bond. Early in the story, she tells him his essay on Huckleberry Finn is the best she’s ever received from a student, even in America. The two reconnect when Bahri returns from the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, having lost an arm. He has used his family connections to the regime to obtain a surprise gift for his old professor: two tickets to The Sacrifice, by Andrei Tarkovsky, showing at the Tehran film festival. The connection between Nafisi and Bahri is presented with complexity and without sentimentality, neither papering over political differences nor caricaturing Bahri as a generic revolutionary.
In this way, both film and book avoid didacticism. And in doing so, they demonstrate exactly the point Nafisi explores with her students, which is the power of literature to stir empathy across seemingly unbridgeable divides. When the group discusses The Great Gatsby, Nafisi insists on understanding the forbidden love that Daisy Buchanan, the married socialite, has for Jay Gatsby as a true human feeling, not a symbol of Western perfidy, as some of her more revolutionary students claim it to be. The latter advocate banning the book. Nafisi organizes a mock trial for the novel in her class, with students divided into teams for and against.
Nafisi calls on students on both sides of the political divide to treat each other with humanity. When she catches some in her class expressing glee at the wartime deaths of pro-regime peers, she enjoins them not to become like their oppressors. And she is no dogmatic opponent of Islam, only of religiously inspired repressive government: At one point Nafisi tells Bahri, “My grandmother was the most devout Muslim I knew. She never missed a prayer. But she wore her scarf because she was devout, not because she was a symbol.” (I am not the only critic with a Muslim background who found this line powerful.)
The point here isn’t just to repeat the liberal platitude that “the problem isn’t with Islam but with its repressive enforcement.” Rather, Nafisi is rejecting the revolutionaries’ tendency to treat all that surrounds them as a field of symbols. People are worth more than that, she tells them and us, as though echoing the Kantian dictum to treat one another “as an end, never merely as a means.”
This message about the humane power of literature makes Reading Lolita in Tehran a work of art rather than an exercise in sloganeering. And the fact that now, more than two decades after the book’s release, and at a time of regional tension, an Israeli filmmaker has worked with Iranians to adapt Nafisi’s book to the screen gives the film a special power.
The audience at the screening I attended, at a Jewish community center on the Upper West Side, included American Jews, Israelis, and Iranians. What we had in common was the experience of being gripped by a story about the capacity of literature to reveal us to one another as ends rather than as means. The setup might sound mawkish. But I recommend avoiding the temptation of cynicism and embracing the film as truly one for these times.
Vermont, a traditionally liberal state, has a moderate (non-MAGA) Republican governor, Phil Scott, and a Democratic-controlled legislature. Governor Scott appointed Zoie Saunders as Education Secretary. When the U.S. Department of Education recently directed every state to certify that it had banned DEI programs (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs, Saunders asked the state’s districts to comply. Instead, she faced a widespread revolt by the state’s education organizations, and she issued a new directive, revoking her earlier request for compliance.
But just three days later, after initially defending and clarifying the decision in the face of public backlash, Education Secretary Zoie Saunders backtracked late Monday afternoon, informing superintendents the state would instead send a single statewide certification.
“To be clear, the Agency of Education and the Attorney General’s Office continue to support diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in our schools. Our communication on Friday was intended to make you aware of the directive from the U.S. Department of Education regarding Title VI,” Saunders wrote Monday afternoon, “and to reinforce that diversity, equity, and inclusion practices are lawful and supported in Vermont. In no way, did AOE direct schools to ban DEI.”
So why all the confusion?
On Friday, Saunders told school district leaders they had 10 days to submit their certification, but also said the agency believed certification required only that districts “reaffirm … compliance with existing law.”
That communication came in response to President Donald Trump and his administration, who have threatened to withhold funding to public schools that fail to comply with the expansive directive.
A letter dated April 3 from the U.S. Department of Education said noncompliance with the diversity programming ban could result in schools losing a crucial stream of money meant to support economically disadvantaged students, known as Title I, among other sources of federal dollars. The letter cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in schools based on “race, color or national origin,” and also cited a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court Case against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina that restricted affirmative action.
Saunders, in the letter to district leaders, wrote that the federal restriction includes “policies or programs under any name that treat students differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students of particular races.”
Programs highlighting specific cultures or heritages “would not in and of themselves” violate federal regulations, the letter said. “We do not view this Certification to be announcing any new interpretation of Title VI,” Saunders wrote, adding that the agency’s “initial legal review” determined the federal letter only required the state to “reaffirm our compliance with existing law.”
But guidance from the federal education department cited by Saunders seems to restrict a variety of practices, arguing that school districts have “veil(ed) discriminatory policies” under initiatives like diversity programming, “social-emotional learning” and “culturally responsive” teaching.
Following news of the agency’s letter to districts, Saunders released an initial public statement around 3 p.m. on Monday saying the federal demands would not require Vermont’s schools to change practices. And in that communication, Vermont’s top education official gave no indication the agency would alter its request for districts to confirm their compliance with Trump’s directive.
“The political rhetoric around this federal directive is designed to create outrage in our communities, confusion in our schools, and self-censorship in our policy making. But we are not going to allow the chaos to control how we feel, or how we respond,” Saunders said in the statement. “Our priority is to protect Vermont’s values, preserve essential federal funding, and support schools in creating positive school environments free from the type of bullying and manipulation we see in our national politics today.”
In the same press release, Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark said Vermont was in compliance with federal law.
“We will continue to protect Vermonters against any unlawful actions by the federal government,” Clark said.
One neighboring state, meanwhile, took a different tack. Soon after the Trump administration sent states last week’s letter, New York announced it would not comply.
Vermont and other states’ responses to the federal government are due April 14, and the state agency said last week that its response was supposed to include school districts’ “compliance issues” and “the Agency’s proposed enforcement plans” for those districts.
Before Saunders, in consultation with Clark, decided to rescind the state’s request for districts’ certifications, the Agency of Education’s actions drew criticism from the public education community.
Representatives from the Vermont School Boards Association, Vermont Principals’ Association, Vermont Superintendents Association and Vermont-NEA, the state teachers’ union, met with state leaders Monday. They later penned a letter to Saunders and Clark calling Vermont’s approach to the federal directive “not workable.”
“Expecting individual superintendents to certify compliance based on a cover letter (that they have not yet seen) that clarifies the legal boundaries of their certification will lead to a patchwork of responses that could put Vermont and local school districts at risk,” the organizations wrote.
The coalition urged Vermont to follow New York’s lead and reject the certification process. That strong approach, they wrote, “would also send a powerful message to students and families across the state.”
Hours later, the Agency of Education appeared to heed their advice. In her late afternoon message to superintendents, Saunders wrote that “AOE has received feedback throughout the day regarding the need for clarity on the intent of the certification and the state’s specific response.”
“We understand that many in the community are concerned because of the political rhetoric surrounding DEI,” she added.
News of Saunders’ initial Friday letter spread quickly on social media over the weekend. Already, plans for a Wednesday protest had circulated online.
At least one district, Winooski, said it wouldn’t comply with the certification.
“I notified the Secretary that I will not be signing anything,” Wilmer Chavarria, the district’s superintendent, wrote in an email to staff shared with VTDigger. “I also requested that the state grow some courage and stop complying so quickly and without hesitation to the politically-driven threats of the executive.”
Winooski’s school board will address the compliance certification at a regularly scheduled board meeting Wednesday, according to Chavarria’s message.
In Vermont, ethnic studies have been a larger part of the education landscape since the passage of Act 1 in 2019. The law, which the Legislature approved unanimously and Gov. Phil Scott signed, required public schools to incorporate ethnic studies into their curricula. The legislation charged a panel with making suggestions for better including the history and contributions of underrepresented groups in Vermont’s classrooms.
Correction: A previous version of this story attributed a quote directly to Charity Clark that was in fact a statement released by the Vermont Agency of Education and Vermont Attorney General’s Office.
Following a federal directive that schools ban “illegal” diversity, equity and inclusion-related programs, the Vermont Agency of Education last Friday asked school districts to submit compliance certifications.
Our nonprofit newsroom depends on community support — not corporate owners or investors — to keep investigative reporting strong in Vermont. If you value independent journalism that holds power to account, please make a donation today.
Jennifer Berkshire has been writing insightfully about the rightwing attacks on public schools and on education for many years. She has written for national magazines and collaborated with education historian Jack Schneider to create a podcast “Have You Heard?”) and to write two excellent books: A Wolf at the Schoolhouse Door and The Education Wars (which is also the title of her blog).
This post is the first of two that “connects the dots.” I am posting them together as they provide an excellent critique of the logic of today’s education policy changes. She explains the Republican animus towards public schools and education and their desire to eliminate the U.S. Departnent of Education.
She writes:
If you read the coverage regarding this week’s ‘bloodbath’ at the Deparment of Education, there is little sense to be made of the savage layoffs and shuttering of whole units. In reports like this one, this one, and this particularly half-baked take, the general tone is a sort of ‘how could this be happening?’ bafflement. But there is a brutal logic to rendering much of the Department inoperable. Since Trump’s first term, the intellectual architects of Trumpism have been laying the groundwork for what is essentially a roll-back of the modern civil rights era. In other words, we don’t have to speculate wildly about what these folks are up to because they’ve been telling us non-stop for the past six years. We need to pay attention.
They’re kneecapping the knowledge agencies
If it feels like DOGE is devoting a disproportionate amount of effort to dismantling agencies and departments that create, distribute, and legitimize knowledge, that’s because it’s true. A fascinating new analysis of DOGE layoffs finds that so-called knowledge agencies have borne the brunt of the chainsaw. This has nothing to do with ‘efficiency’ but instead reflects the belief of influential thinkers in the Trump-o-sphere that these are precisely the agencies and departments that have been captured by the woke mind virus and require elimination.
If you’ve managed to make it this far without encountering the ‘insights’ of Curtis Yarvin aka Mencious Moldbug, congratulations. But Yarvin’s argument that democracy is over, and that we’d be better served by a technocratic monarch, has found favor with the likes of JD Vance; its Yarvin’s case for demolishing ‘the cathedral,’ the knowledge institutions at the heart of modern life, that we’re living through right now.
The goal is to send fewer kids to college.
The AP posted a panicked story this week about the student loan website crashing in the wake of the ED layoffs. Make it too onerous for students to access information about paying for college, the story implied, and they just might give up and stay home. To which some high-profile Trump ‘intellectuals’ might respond: ‘good!’ In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last year, activist Christopher Rufo stated that his goal is reduce the number of students who attend college by half. Scott Yenor, an influential advisor to Ron DeSantis, wants to see the number reduced to less than 10 percent, and has argued repeatedly that too many women attend college. Various GOP proposals, meanwhile, could reduce the volume of student loans by one third. The idea that we’d make it harder and more expensive for kids to attend college after a few decades of ‘college for all’ thinking may be hard to wrap your head around. But the likes of Rufo and Yenor view this experiment as a collosal failure. In their view, college campuses are filled with students who don’t belong there, representing the sort of social engineering that they’re now determined to unwind. The anti-DEI purges currently remaking campuses reflect the general sentiment on the right these days that colleges, entirely captured by the ‘woke,’ are indoctrinating youngsters. But at the heart of these efforts is an even more retrograde cause: making college elite again.
They believe in natural hierarchies and race science.
The creepiest story I read this week had nothing to do with education but with the effort to rebuild the US semiconductor industry known as the CHIPS program. Employees in the CHIPS program office have been undergoing a now-familiar ritual: demonstrating their intellectual worth and abilities to Trump officials.
In late February, Michael Grimes, a senior official at the Department of Commerce and former investment banker at Morgan Stanley, conducted brief interviews with employees of the CHIPS Program Office, which oversees the grants.
In interactions some described as “demeaning,” Mr. Grimes asked employees to justify their intellect by providing test results from the SAT or an IQ test, said four people familiar with the evaluations. Some were asked to do math problems, like calculate the value of four to the fourth power or long division.
What does demanding IQ or SAT test results from engineers have to do with the dismantling of the Departmet of Education? Everything. If you start from the assumption that IQ is, not just fixed, but genetically determined, as many Trump intellectuals do, there is little case to be made for public schools that try to equalize outcomes—it can’t be done. Far better to shovel cash at the would-be ‘cognitive elite’ (an apt description of vouchers for the well-to-do, when you think about it) than to redistribute resources to the ‘lessers.’ It’s a bleak and brutal view of the world and one that holds increasing sway on the right.
They believe that race-based data powers the ‘civil rights regime’
In his fantastic new book, Dangerous Learning: the South’s Long War on Black Literacy, legal scholar Derek Black argues that a vision of racial equality is woven through education policy. Writes Black: “Education bureaucracy disaggregates every aspect of education by race–from basic attendance, test scores, and graduation rates to suspensions, expulsions, advanced placement opportunities, access to qualified teachers, and more.” But this is precisely why the data collectors have borne the brunt of the DOGE-ing of the Department of Education.
Read the likes of Richard Hanania, whose argument that ‘woke’ is essentially just civil rights law, inspired Trump’s early executive order rolling back affirmative action in federal hiring, and you get a much clearer picture of what’s happening right now. As Hanania argues, “[g]overnment should not be into the race, sex, and LGBT bean counting business.” His colleague, the afforementioned Scott Yenor, goes even farther. Yenor wants to see states criminalize the collection of data on the basis of race or sex as a challenge to what he describes as “the country’s corrupting ‘civil rights’ regime.”
So while federally-funded education research may have just been decimated, at least the researchers themselves aren’t being rounded up—yet.
They’re rolling back civil rights
At the heart of the Trumpist intellectual project is a relatively straight-forward argument. The civil rights revolution in this country went too far and it’s time to start rolling it back. As Jack Schneider and I argue in our recent book, The Education Wars, the role that public schools have historically played in advancing civil rights makes them particuarly vulnerable in this moment of intense backlash. It’s why the administration has moved with such ferocity against the most recent effort to extend civil rights through the schools—to transgender students. And it’s why the cuts to the Department of Education have fallen so heavily on its civil rights enforcement role. Of the agency’s civil rights offices across the country, only five are still open.
The OCR is one of the federal government’s largest enforcers of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, investigating thousands of allegations of discrimination each year. That includes discrimination based on disability, race and gender.
Diane Ravitch's blog 