The Harvard University course “History 167: Race, Gender, and the Law Through the Archive” covers the political activism of Black women but omits well‑known conservative figures, raising questions about ideological breadth in academic settings. According to the published syllabus, the class highlights liberal figures like Michelle Obama, Stacey Abrams and Kamala Harris, while excluding conservative women such as Mia Love, Condoleezza Rice and Mildred Jefferson.
The syllabus describes its focus as: “Black women in the 20th century who shape politics, grassroots organizing, the legal profession, and higher education during Jim (Jane) Crow and beyond.” It specifies topics such as “reproductive rights,” “non‑binary people,” and “Black Feminism.” Critics argue that this framing narrows the classroom lens to left‑leaning ideology at the expense of ideological diversity.
One critic, Brenda Thiam, a former Maryland legislator affiliated with Project 21 (a black conservative policy group), stated the exclusion of conservative Black women “denies students a full view of political history.” According to the syllabus, conservative figures and movements are not listed among the learning objectives.
The course is taught by Myisha Eatmon and others. The syllabus includes writings from critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw and former Black Panther leader Angela Davis. The reported aim is to define “intersectionality,” explore the impact of Jim Crow on Black women, and examine their role in protecting reproductive rights.
Institutions of higher learning are expected to offer academically balanced content that reflects a range of perspectives. When a course on political history excludes prominent conservative Black women, it raises legitimate concerns about representation and completeness. Including diverse viewpoints—across the political spectrum—ensures students are exposed to the full scope of historical contributions. Academic integrity is strengthened when curricula reflect a comprehensive view of political involvement, regardless of ideology.
