Historian Alleges Smithsonian Prioritizes Activism Over Education After First Visit in a Decade

A prominent historian and museum expert has voiced strong criticism against the Smithsonian, asserting that its National Museum of American History (NMAH) has deviated from its core educational purpose to embrace an agenda of activism. This assessment follows his initial visit to the institution in over ten years, occurring amidst broader concerns from conservative circles and the previous presidential administration regarding the portrayal of American history within the museum's exhibits.

Reflecting on his experience, Ginn stated,

Its mission is clearly exactly what they changed it to be. It is a museum for activism. They use history, but that's kind of the problem.

He further emphasized his view that those involved no longer function as historical scholars but rather as activists.

Ginn's decision to visit was prompted by a report from the previous administration's Domestic Policy Council. This report had criticized the Smithsonian and NMAH for allegedly failing to present historical narratives "in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our great republic." Motivated by these claims, Ginn undertook the journey from Texas to observe the museum firsthand.

Upon entering the museum, Ginn remarked,

From the moment I walked in, it's a very different experience.

He noted that this transformation was not entirely unexpected, as he had been observing a similar evolution within the museum profession for over a decade.

Observing a Shift Towards Activism

Throughout his tour of the exhibits, Ginn observed that the institution appeared to "specifically direct" visitors "to action," rather than equipping them with information to "make their own decisions." He elaborated that the objective, in his view, had shifted to transform museums from educational public institutions into venues that foster activism, a change he suggested could be interpreted as indoctrination.

While Ginn identified instances of "factually incorrect information" within certain displays, he contended that the most significant issue lay in the historical details and contexts that were omitted, deeming these omissions equally misleading. He emphasized,

The biggest problem is in what they leave out.

Ginn also expressed concern over what he described as "graphic" and sexually explicit exhibits, arguing they were unsuitable for a museum visited by children and families. He characterized these displays as "out of sync with what museums were just a few years ago." He questioned the appropriateness of such content, remarking,

These are geared towards all ages. Why would you do that? All of that's out of sync with what museums were just a few years ago.

Congressional Scrutiny and Mission Redefinition

These sentiments echoed concerns voiced by lawmakers during a recent House hearing, where they questioned Anthea Hartig, the Director of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, about the nature of the museum's exhibits.

During the hearing, Representative Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) specifically inquired about the exhibit titled "Illegal to Be You: Gay History Beyond Stonewall," which reportedly included a bondage harness. Burchett noted,

You have pictures of bondage, you have some overtly sexual things up there, you have transgender folks.

Legislators also raised questions regarding the 2017 MASS Action Toolkit, a resource for museum professionals. This toolkit references the 2014 police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, and the ensuing Black Lives Matter demonstrations, while controversially characterizing "objectivity" as an element of "white supremacy culture." Ginn views this toolkit as further evidence of the museum's inclination towards activism.

Ginn characterized Director Hartig’s testimony as "very disappointing," stating it did not constitute "a scholarly presentation whatsoever." He advised,

If that's the kind of museum you've been approved to run, then just own it. Don't say you're being unbiased when it's really evident.

Ginn further criticized Hartig for asserting the museum's neutrality, arguing that its revised mission statement fundamentally "changed the purpose of that museum." In a 2024 presentation to history students, Director Hartig elaborated on the decision to remove "American history" from the museum's mission statement. She explained this change was made because it was "hard to get out of the 'America First' mentality."

For Ginn, his recent visit served to confirm what he perceives as a "massive shift" within the broader museum profession. He views the Smithsonian as "the highest-profile symptom of a process that's been going on for some time." He articulated his belief, stating,

It is my opinion as a public historian that the mission we've always had is to educate the public and provide scholarly information. To me, that's what the National Museum of American History should be.

Despite his concerns, Ginn expressed a lack of optimism for significant change within the institution. He believes a "massive effort" would be required to replace existing personnel with individuals who would prioritize historical accuracy and scholarship above political agendas. He concluded,

You're going to have to put in new people who are committed to scholarly standards and non-politicized educational programming. These people have bought into it, hook, line and sinker.