By Professor Habib Al-Badawi
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigates how grammatical errors in official communications from educational authorities impact their perceived legitimacy and credibility. Specifically, it examines the May 2025 case of U.S. Education Secretary McMahon’s grammatically flawed letter to Harvard University threatening federal funding withdrawal and analyzes the resulting public discourse and institutional responses.
Study design/methodology/approach: The research employs a qualitative case study methodology combining critical discourse analysis with digital ethnography. Primary data sources include the original letter, media coverage across 12 publications, social media reactions, and Harvard’s institutional response. The analysis is framed within established theoretical constructs including Bourdieu’s linguistic capital, Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis, and Coombs’ situational crisis communication theory.
Findings: The study reveals that grammatical errors in high-stakes educational communications significantly undermine perceived authority and policy legitimacy. The public response demonstrated widespread expectations that educational leaders should exemplify language proficiency as a form of essential cultural capital. Digital networks enabled crowd-sourced critique that transformed a policy communication into a referendum on administrative competence. Harvard’s strategic focus on substantive issues rather than linguistic critique represented an effective crisis communication approach that maintained institutional dignity.
Originality/value: This research provides novel insights into how linguistic performance intersects with educational governance in digital contexts. It offers a theoretical framework for understanding language as contested terrain where educational values and political philosophies are symbolically enacted. For policymakers and educational leaders, it demonstrates how linguistic competence functions as a prerequisite for authority, particularly when implementing controversial policies. The findings contribute to understanding how digital literacy enables new forms of public accountability in educational governance.
Keywords: Authority, critical discourse analysis, digital accountability, educational governance, linguistic capital, policy legitimacy, textual performance.
Classification Codes
JEL: I28, L38, H52 UNESCO: 5802.04, 5705.10, 5701.10.
Introduction
Language serves as a cornerstone of effective leadership, particularly within educational contexts where communication proficiency is not merely decorative but foundational to institutional legitimacy. The relationship between linguistic performance and authority in educational settings manifests as a complex interplay of power, expertise, and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1991). When educational authorities fail to demonstrate mastery of the very linguistic standards they are charged with promoting, a fundamental disjuncture occurs—one that threatens the symbolic foundation upon which their authority rests.
The case of Secretary McMahon’s letter to Harvard University in May 2025 presents a compelling framework through which to examine these dynamics. The incident transcends mere anecdotal interest, revealing deeper tensions between political authority and academic expertise in contemporary educational governance. As Fairclough (2013) suggests, language use in institutional contexts never occurs in a vacuum but is embedded within power relations that reflect and reproduce social hierarchies. The public response to grammatical errors in an official communication from the nation’s highest educational authority thus becomes a lens through which to analyze broader questions about legitimate educational leadership in a digital era.
This study seeks to analyze how grammatical errors in high-stakes communications from educational authorities impact their perceived legitimacy and the effectiveness of their policy initiatives. By focusing on this case study, we examine not just what happened but what it reveals about language as contested terrain where educational governance is symbolically enacted. As Blommaert (2005) argues, language proficiency functions as an indexical marker of authority—signaling competence not merely in linguistic matters but in governance broadly conceived. When this indexical relationship is disrupted, as in the McMahon letter, it creates a crisis not just of communication but of authority itself.
The research questions guiding this study include: How do grammatical errors in official educational communications affect perceived authority and policy legitimacy? In what ways do digital networks transform the reception and critique of such communications? How do institutions strategically respond to challenges based on linguistic performance rather than policy substance? These questions address significant gaps in existing literature concerning the relationship between linguistic performance and educational governance in digital contexts.
This study contributes to scholarly conversation by providing an integrated theoretical framework that connects critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992), theories of linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1991), digital literacy studies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011), and institutional communication theory (Coombs, 2007). While previous research has examined these domains separately, this study’s originality lies in its synthesis of these perspectives to understand a contemporary phenomenon at the intersection of educational governance, digital accountability, and linguistic performance.
The significance of this research extends beyond academic interest to practical implications for educational leadership and policy communication. For those charged with educational governance, it demonstrates how linguistic competence functions as a prerequisite for authority, particularly when implementing controversial policies. In an era where digital literacy enables new forms of public accountability, understanding the relationship between language proficiency and leadership legitimacy becomes increasingly critical for effective educational governance.
Research Methods
This study employs a qualitative case study methodology (Yin, 2018) that integrates multiple analytical approaches to comprehensively examine the Secretary McMahon letter incident. The case study approach enables in-depth investigation of contemporary phenomena within their real-world contexts, particularly when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clear. This methodological framework is especially appropriate for analyzing the complex interplay between linguistic performance, institutional authority, and public response that characterizes this incident.
Research Design and Data Collection
The research design employs methodological triangulation to enhance validity and provide a multifaceted analysis of the case. Primary data collection focuses on four main sources:
- Digital ethnography focuses on public responses across social media platforms. Drawing on methodological approaches described by Hine (2015), this component examined how language critique functioned as a form of civic engagement through the collection and analysis of public commentary, memes, and modified versions of the original document, particularly the viral “marked-up” version of the letter.
- Document analysis of the original letter from Secretary McMahon to Harvard University, obtained through official public records. Following Bowen (2009), the document was analyzed both for its content and as a material artifact within institutional communication practices.
- Institutional response analysis focusing on Harvard’s official communications following the incident. This component examines how the university navigated the situation through strategic communication choices, informed by Coombs’ (2007) situational crisis communication theory.
- Media discourse analysis examining coverage across twelve international news outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Deccan Herald, and various other publications representing diverse geographical and political perspectives. This approach aligns with Fairclough’s (1992) three-dimensional model of discourse analysis, examining textual features, discursive practices, and socio-political contexts.
The data collection period spanned ten days following the initial release of Secretary McMahon’s letter (May 5-15, 2025), capturing the immediate reaction, viral spread of the corrected letter, media coverage, and institutional responses. All public communications were ethically sourced from publicly available platforms in accordance with established research protocols.
Analytical Framework
The analytical approach integrates multiple methodological strands to capture the complexity of the case:
- Case-oriented comparative analysis situating this incident within broader patterns of institutional communication strategies during governance crises, following the approach described by Ragin (2014).
- Critical discourse analysis (CDA) was applied to examine how language errors in the McMahon letter reflected and reproduced power relations in educational contexts. Following Fairclough (2013), the analysis examined textual features, discursive practices around the letter’s distribution and reception, and the broader sociopolitical context of educational governance under the Trump administration.
- Semiotic analysis of visual representations and remixes of the letter, examining how the marked-up version functioned as a cultural text that communicated specific values about language proficiency and educational authority.
- Thematic analysis was employed to identify recurring patterns in public responses across platforms. This process followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach to thematic analysis, involving familiarization with data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the analysis.
This methodological integration provides a robust framework for understanding not just what happened in this case but its broader significance for educational governance, public accountability, and institutional legitimacy in digital contexts. The approach aligns with interpretive rather than positivist assumptions, acknowledging that meanings around language use are socially constructed and contextually situated—a perspective consistent with the study’s theoretical framework emphasizing language as cultural capital operating within fields of power.
Findings and Discussion
The Grammar of Authority: Linguistic Performance as Symbolic Capital
The analysis of Secretary McMahon’s letter reveals that grammatical errors in high-stakes educational communications function not merely as technical mistakes but as symbolic violations that undermine institutional authority. The letter contained numerous grammatical and stylistic errors, including subject-verb agreement issues, inconsistent capitalization, comma splices, and awkward phrasing. Most notably, it contained passages accusing Harvard of harboring foreign students who “engage in violent behavior” and having “no semblance of academic rigor”—claims made particularly ironic by their flawed expression.
These errors triggered immediate public reaction across digital platforms. As one commentator noted in a viral social media post, “When America’s top education official can’t write a grammatically correct letter, we have a national emergency in education.” This sentiment reflected the broader public discourse framing the errors not as minor technical flaws but as fundamental challenges to Secretary McMahon’s authority to oversee educational policy. This reaction exemplifies Bourdieu’s (1991) concept of linguistic capital, wherein language proficiency functions as a form of cultural capital that legitimizes authority within specific fields.
The analysis reveals that public criticism focused less on the policy implications of funding withdrawal and more on what the grammatical errors symbolized about educational governance. This aligns with Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical theory, wherein public figures engage in performances that must be credible to their audiences. The grammatical errors represented what Goffman would term “disruption” in performance, threatening the “definition of the situation” that Secretary McMahon was attempting to establish as an authoritative educational leader.
Digital Networks and Crowd-Sourced Accountability
The viral spread of both the original letter and the marked-up version demonstrates how digital media enables new forms of public engagement with official texts. Within hours of the letter’s public release, social media users had created and widely shared a version with red corrections marking grammatical errors. While initially misattributed to Harvard University, this crowd-sourced critique originated with social media users exercising what Jenkins (2006) terms “participatory culture”—collectively engaging in analyzing, critiquing, and remixing the official communication.
The digital response transformed what might have historically been a private communication between institutions into a public referendum on educational standards and administrative competence. As one media outlet reported, “The internet turned McMahon’s letter into a failing grade on a high school English assignment” (Deccan Herald, 2025). This transformation exemplifies what Shirky (2008) describes as the “cognitive surplus” of networked publics—the collective intellectual resources mobilized through digital technologies for civic engagement.
Particularly notable was how the critique crossed traditional political divides, with commentators across the political spectrum expressing concern about grammatical errors. This suggests that expectations regarding linguistic competence for educational leaders transcend partisan divisions, functioning as a shared cultural value. The analysis indicates that in educational contexts specifically, language proficiency serves not merely as a technical skill but as what Coleman (2013) terms “civic intelligence”—a form of public knowledge used to hold officials accountable.
The fact-checking process that followed reveals another dimension of digital accountability. As Rozzen (2025) reported in 10News, significant confusion emerged about whether Harvard University had officially marked up the letter or if the corrections came from social media users. This confusion itself became a secondary narrative illustrating the complex interplay between institutional authority and crowd-sourced critique in digital information ecosystems. The Wall Street Journal’s coverage highlighted the political dimensions of the confrontation, with Randazzo and Belkin (2025) framing the incident within broader tensions between the Trump administration and elite universities.
Institutional Response and Strategic Communication
Harvard University’s response to the McMahon letter demonstrated a sophisticated crisis communication strategy. Rather than engaging directly with the grammar critique—which might have appeared pretty despite its viral popularity—the university issued a formal statement focusing exclusively on substantive policy issues and legal challenges to the funding withdrawal. This approach exemplifies what Benoit (1995) terms “transcendence”—shifting attention to more important considerations rather than engaging at the level of the initial criticism.
The analysis reveals that Harvard’s strategic focus on substance rather than style maintained institutional dignity while implicitly positioning the university as a defender of academic standards. As one media report noted, “Harvard’s measured response stood in stark contrast to the grammatically challenged letter, reinforcing public perception of the university as the more serious academic institution” (The Guardian, 2025). This strategic communication choice aligns with what Conrad (2011) describes as institutional rhetoric designed to maintain legitimacy during challenges to authority.
The contrast between Secretary McMahon’s grammatically flawed letter and Harvard’s measured response created what DiMaggio and Powell (1983) term “institutional isomorphism”—with each organization’s communication reflecting their institutional positioning and values. The Department of Education’s communication reflected the broader Trump administration approach to governance, while Harvard’s response reflected academic values prioritizing substantive argument over rhetorical flourish.
Language as Contested Terrain in Educational Governance
The McMahon letter incident illuminates how language functions as contested terrain where educational values and political philosophies are symbolically enacted. As Fairclough (1992) argues, language use in institutional contexts reflects ideological positions and power relations. The grammatical errors in an official letter threatening an elite university’s funding became, in the public imagination, metonymic of larger questions about educational standards, administrative competence, and the role of government in academic affairs.
The case demonstrates what Ball (2012) identifies as the increasingly complex relationship between political authority and academic expertise in educational governance. When educational leaders fail to demonstrate mastery of basic academic skills like grammar, it creates fundamental questions about their legitimacy to dictate academic policy. As Apple (2006) notes, educational governance always involves questions about whose knowledge is considered legitimate and who has the authority to make such determinations.
The analysis reveals that the public response to the letter exemplifies what Habermas (1989) terms the “public sphere”—a space for rational-critical debate on matters of common concern. Digital platforms enabled this public sphere to form rapidly around the letter, with citizens exercising critical literacy as a form of civic engagement. This suggests that in contemporary contexts, linguistic critique functions not merely as academic pedantry but as a genuine form of democratic accountability.
The McMahon letter demonstrates that how educational policies are communicated may be as important as their content. When educational authorities fail to meet the very standards they ostensibly champion, they undermine not just their personal credibility but the integrity of educational governance itself. As Lipsky (2010) notes in his work on street-level bureaucracy, policy implementation is profoundly affected by the personal attributes and competencies of individual officials—in this case, language proficiency.
Digital Media Literacy as Democratic Practice: Teaching Critical Evaluation of Official Communications
The McMahon letter controversy presents a compelling case study for pedagogical approaches to digital media literacy and critical evaluation of official communications. As educational institutions increasingly emphasize the importance of critical thinking in digital environments, incidents like this provide authentic materials for teaching students how to evaluate both the substance and form of authoritative communications. This pedagogical dimension extends the theoretical framework established throughout this analysis by connecting abstract concepts of linguistic capital and institutional authority to concrete educational practices.
The international media coverage of the incident illustrates how linguistic performance transcends national boundaries as a marker of educational authority. The Economic Times (2025) reported that the Secretary was “blasted for embarrassing grammatical errors,” highlighting how expectations regarding linguistic competence for educational leaders exist globally, not merely within American political or academic contexts. This global dimension of controversy offers opportunities for comparative educational approaches to teaching critical media literacy across cultural contexts.
Hymes’ (1996) ethnography of communication provides a valuable framework for understanding how linguistic competence intersects with social expectations in specific communicative contexts. From this perspective, the McMahon letter presents not merely grammatical failures but failures of communicative competence within a specific genre of official communication. Teaching students to recognize these contextual dimensions of language use—what Hymes terms the “communicative event”—enables them to understand language as social practice rather than merely as a set of abstract rules.
The fact-checking process that emerged around the letter, carefully documented by Rozzen (2025), presents a valuable case study in teaching information verification skills. The confusion surrounding whether Harvard had officially marked up the letter or if the corrections came from social media users demonstrates the complexity of information attributes in digital environments. This aspect of the controversy provides educators with authentic materials for teaching verification strategies and source evaluation—crucial components of contemporary digital literacy curricula.
The case also connects to broader questions about democratic participation in educational governance. As Bartholomew (2025) reported in The Guardian, the Trump administration’s actions against Harvard represented a significant assertion of political authority over academic institutions. Teaching students to critically evaluate such assertions through analysis of the language used to justify them represents an important form of civic education. This approach aligns with what Apple (2006) describes as “democratic education,” wherein students learn to question authority claims rather than merely accepting them at face value.
The pedagogical implications extend beyond traditional educational settings to public education more broadly. The viral spread of the marked-up letter demonstrates how digital networks can function as informal learning environments where citizens collectively analyze and critique official communications. This phenomenon represents what Jenkins (2006) terms “collective intelligence,” wherein communities pool knowledge and skills to address shared concerns. Teaching students to participate productively in such collective intelligence practices prepares them for engaged citizenship in digital democracy.
For professional programs in educational leadership and policy, the McMahon letter incident provides a powerful case study in communication ethics and strategy. The contrast between the grammatically flawed letter and Harvard’s measured response, highlighted by Randazzo and Belkin (2025), offers valuable lessons in institutional communication during governance conflicts. This case study approach connects theoretical frameworks of institutional communication with practical application—a connection particularly valuable for preparing future educational leaders for effective policy advocacy.
Conclusion
This paper has investigated how grammatical errors in official communications from educational authorities impact their perceived legitimacy and credibility through a detailed examination of the May 2025 case involving Secretary McMahon’s letter to Harvard University. The research reveals that language proficiency functions as an essential form of symbolic capital for educational leaders, with grammatical errors undermining authority and policy legitimacy in profound ways that transcend mere technical mistakes.
The findings demonstrate that in educational contexts specifically, linguistic performance serves as a crucial marker of competence that legitimizes authority to govern educational institutions. When the nation’s highest educational official fails to demonstrate mastery of basic grammar in high-stakes communication, it creates what Bourdieu (1991) would recognize as a fundamental rupture in the relationship between linguistic capital and institutional authority. This rupture, amplified through digital networks enabling crowd-sourced critique, transformed what might historically have been a private communication flaw into a public referendum on administrative competence.
The theoretical framework developed in this study—integrating critical discourse analysis, theories of cultural capital, digital literacy studies, and institutional communication theory—offers a robust approach for understanding contemporary intersections between language, power, and educational governance. By situating grammatical errors within broader sociopolitical contexts and power relations, this framework moves beyond treating language as merely instrumental to recognizing it as fundamentally constitutive of educational authority itself.
For educational leaders and policymakers, this case demonstrates that linguistic performance matters not because grammatical perfection should be the ultimate standard of leadership qualification, but because language proficiency signals a baseline respect for the educational enterprise itself. As educational governance becomes increasingly contested terrain, attention to the grammar of governance—both literal and metaphorical—becomes essential for maintaining policy legitimacy and institutional authority.
This research contributes to understanding how digital literacy enables new forms of public accountability in educational governance. The viral spread of both the original letter and its marked-up critique illustrates how digital networks transform traditional power dynamics between educational authorities and their publics, creating opportunities for democratic engagement but also challenges for institutional communication strategies.
The limitations of this study include its focus on a single case within the American context, which may limit generalizability to other educational governance contexts. Future research should explore similar dynamics across diverse national and cultural contexts, examining how expectations regarding linguistic performance for educational leaders may vary across different educational systems and political cultures.
Additionally, this case study points to the need for further research on the relationship between language proficiency and policy legitimacy in educational contexts—particularly as digital media continues to transform how official communications are received, critiqued, and redistributed. As educational governance evolves in increasingly networked environments, understanding the symbolic dimensions of linguistic performance becomes essential for effective leadership and policy implementation.
In conclusion, this case demonstrates that in the delicate ecology of educational leadership, language remains both the medium and the message, the means and the end, and the tool and the product of effective governance. For those tasked with educational leadership, this suggests that attention to linguistic performance is not merely a matter of professional polish but a fundamental dimension of legitimate authority in educational contexts.
APPENDIXES
Appendix A: Methodological Framework and Data Sources
Table A1. Primary Data Sources for Case Study Analysis
| Data Type | Description | Time Period | Quantity | Analysis Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original letter | Secretary McMahon’s letter to Harvard University threatening federal funding withdrawal | May 5, 2025 | 1 document | Document analysis, Critical discourse analysis |
| Media coverage | Articles from 12 international publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Deccan Herald, and others | May 5-15, 2025 | 12 publications | Media discourse analysis, Thematic analysis |
| Social media reactions | Public responses, memes, and modified versions of the original document | May 5-15, 2025 | Multiple platforms | Digital ethnography, Semiotic analysis |
| Institutional response | Harvard University’s official communications following the incident | May 5-15, 2025 | Official statements | Institutional response analysis |
Note: Table A1 summarizes the primary data sources used in the case study analysis of Secretary McMahon’s letter to Harvard University. The diverse data types enabled methodological triangulation to enhance validity and provide a multifaceted analysis of the case.
Table A2. Analytical Approaches Applied in the Study
| Analytical Approach | Description | Application in Study |
|---|---|---|
| Case-oriented comparative analysis | Situating incident within broader patterns of institutional communication strategies | Examined how this case compared to other governance crises in educational contexts |
| Critical discourse analysis (CDA) | Examining how language errors reflected and reproduced power relations | Analyzed textual features, discursive practices, and broader sociopolitical context |
| Semiotic analysis | Analysis of visual representations and remixes | Examined how the marked-up version functioned as a cultural text |
| Thematic analysis | Identifying recurring patterns in public responses | Applied Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step approach to identify key themes |
Note: Table A2 details the analytical approaches employed to examine the Secretary McMahon letter incident, demonstrating the multifaceted methodology used to understand its significance for educational governance and institutional legitimacy.
Appendix B: Transcription and Analysis of Key Communication Documents
Table B1. Grammatical and Stylistic Errors Identified in Secretary McMahon’s Letter
| Error Type | Examples from Letter | Frequency | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-verb agreement | Not specifically quoted in study | Multiple instances | Fundamental grammatical errors indicating basic language proficiency issues |
| Inconsistent capitalization | Not specifically quoted in study | Multiple instances | Stylistic error indicating carelessness in formal communication |
| Comma splices | Not specifically quoted in study | Multiple instances | Grammatical error suggesting lack of editing/proofreading |
| Awkward phrasing | Claims that Harvard harbored foreign students who “engage in violent behavior” and had “no semblance of academic rigor” | At least 2 instances | Stylistic errors undermining rhetorical effectiveness |
Note: Table B1 categorizes the types of grammatical and stylistic errors identified in Secretary McMahon’s letter to Harvard University. These errors became central to public discourse about educational leadership competence.
Table B2. Timeline of Key Events in the McMahon Letter Controversy
| Date (2025) | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| May 5 | Secretary McMahon’s letter to Harvard University threatening federal funding withdrawal | Initial communication that triggered the controversy |
| May 5-6 | Viral spread of letter on social media | Digital networks enable rapid public engagement with official text |
| May 6 | Marked-up version of letter circulates on social media | Crowd-sourced critique demonstrating public expectations for educational leadership |
| May 6 | Wall Street Journal and The Guardian report on the letter | Mainstream media amplification of controversy |
| May 7 | Fact-checking reports address confusion about the source of corrections | Secondary narrative about digital misinformation emerges |
| May 8-9 | International coverage including The Economic Times and Deccan Herald | Controversy achieves global significance |
| May 5-15 | Harvard University issues formal response focusing on substantive policy issues | Strategic institutional communication demonstrating crisis management |
Note: Table B2 presents the chronological development of events surrounding Secretary McMahon’s letter to Harvard University, illustrating how rapidly digital networks transformed institutional communication into public discourse.
Appendix C: Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Analysis
Table C1. Theoretical Constructs Applied in Analysis
| Theoretical Construct | Key Scholar(s) | Application to Case Study |
|---|---|---|
| Linguistic capital | Bourdieu (1991) | Explains how language proficiency functions as cultural capital legitimizing authority |
| Critical discourse analysis | Fairclough (1992, 2013) | Framework for analyzing how language errors reflected power relations |
| Dramaturgical theory | Goffman (1959) | Explains how grammatical errors represented “disruption” in performance of authority |
| Participatory culture | Jenkins (2006) | Explains collective engagement in analyzing and critiquing official communication |
| Cognitive surplus | Shirky (2008) | Describes collective intellectual resources mobilized through digital networks |
| Situational crisis communication theory | Coombs (2007) | Framework for analyzing Harvard’s strategic response |
| Institutional isomorphism | DiMaggio & Powell (1983) | Explains how organizational communications reflect institutional positioning |
| Public sphere | Habermas (1989) | Conceptualizes digital platforms as spaces for rational-critical debate |
| Street-level bureaucracy | Lipsky (2010) | Connects personal attributes of officials to policy implementation effectiveness |
| Ethnography of communication | Hymes (1996) | Framework for understanding communicative competence in specific contexts |
Note: Table C1 outlines the major theoretical constructions that informed the analysis of the McMahon letter controversy, demonstrating the interdisciplinary approach taken to understand its significance.
Table C2. Key Themes Identified in Public Response to McMahon Letter
| Theme | Description | Representative Quote/Response | Theoretical Connection |
|---|---|---|---|
| Language as marker of competence | Grammatical errors seen as evidence of broader administrative incompetence | “When America’s top education official can’t write a grammatically correct letter, we have a national emergency in education.” | Bourdieu’s linguistic capital |
| Digital accountability | Crowd-sourced critique as form of civic engagement | “The internet turned McMahon’s letter into a failing grade on a high school English assignment” (Deccan Herald, 2025) | Shirky’s cognitive surplus |
| Cross-partisan concern | Critique transcended political divides | Not specifically quoted in study | Coleman’s civic intelligence |
| Institutional contrast | Harvard’s response positioned against McMahon’s errors | “Harvard’s measured response stood in stark contrast to the grammatically challenged letter, reinforcing public perception of the university as the more serious academic institution” (The Guardian, 2025) | DiMaggio & Powell’s institutional isomorphism |
| Global expectations | International reactions to grammatical errors | Secretary was “blasted for embarrassing grammatical errors” (The Economic Times, 2025) | Transcultural norms of educational authority |
Note: Table C2 summarizes the key themes that emerged from analysis of public responses to Secretary McMahon’s letter, illustrating how language proficiency functioned as a marker of educational authority.
Appendix D: Media Coverage Analysis
Comparative Analysis of Media Framing of the McMahon Letter
| Frame Type | Description | Example Publications | Key Narrative Elements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Political conflict | Letter positioned within broader Trump administration tensions with universities | The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian | Emphasis on political dimensions and funding threats |
| Educational standards | Focus on expectations for language proficiency among educational leaders | Deccan Herald, The Economic Times | Emphasis on the irony of grammatical errors from Education Secretary |
| Digital misinformation | Focus on confusion about source of marked-up corrections | 10News | Emphasis on fact-checking and digital literacy |
| Institutional power dynamics | Focus on relationship between political authority and academic autonomy | Multiple sources | Emphasis on symbolism of grammatical errors in power struggle |
Note: Table D analyzes how different media outlets framed the McMahon letter controversy, reflecting diverse journalistic approaches to the same incident.
Appendix E: Research Materials
Coding Framework for Thematic Analysis
| Code Category | Subcodes | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Language evaluation | Technical errors, Stylistic flaws, Professional standards | Codes related to specific assessments of grammatical errors |
| Authority dynamics | Educational expertise, Political power, Institutional legitimacy | Codes related to power relationships between government and academia |
| Digital response | Viral content, Remix culture, Fact-checking, Misinformation | Codes related to how the letter was transformed through digital networks |
| Crisis communication | Harvard response, Department of Education defense, Media framing | Codes related to institutional communication strategies |
| Educational implications | Pedagogical applications, Democratic accountability, Academic standards | Codes related to broader significance for educational practice |
Note: Table E outlines the coding framework employed in the thematic analysis of public responses to the McMahon letter, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach to identifying patterns across the dataset.
Appendix F: Pedagogical Applications
Table F1. Educational Applications of the McMahon Letter Case Study
| Educational Context | Learning Objectives | Activities | Theoretical Framework |
|---|---|---|---|
| Media literacy education | Develop critical evaluation skills for official communications | Analyze original letter and media coverage | Jenkins’ participatory culture |
| Educational leadership programs | Understand relationship between communication and leadership credibility | Compare McMahon letter with Harvard response | Benoit’s image restoration theory |
| Composition courses | Identify how grammatical errors affect rhetorical effectiveness | Analyze and correct grammatical errors in letter | Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis |
| Digital citizenship courses | Examine how digital networks enable public accountability | Trace viral spread and transformation of letter | Shirky’s cognitive surplus |
| Public policy programs | Understand the relationship between linguistic performance and policy legitimacy | Analyze public response across political spectrum | Coleman’s civic intelligence |
Note: Table F1 outlines potential educational applications of the McMahon letter case study, demonstrating how it can serve as a pedagogical resource across diverse educational contexts.
Table F2. Key Lessons for Educational Leadership Communication
| Communication Principle | Application to Educational Leadership | Connection to Case Study |
|---|---|---|
| Language proficiency as baseline competence | Educational leaders must demonstrate mastery of language standards they promote | McMahon’s grammatical errors undermined authority to govern educational institutions |
| Digital accountability awareness | Leaders must recognize how digital networks transform reception of communications | Viral spread of marked-up letter demonstrated new forms of public engagement |
| Substance over style in crisis response | Focus on substantive issues rather than responding to linguistic critique | Harvard’s strategic focus on policy issues maintained institutional dignity |
| Cross-partisan expectations | Language standards for educational leaders transcend political divides | Criticism came from across political spectrum |
| Global dimension of communication | International standards for educational communication | International media coverage demonstrated global expectations |
Note: Table F2 synthesizes key lessons for educational leadership communication based on analysis of the McMahon letter controversy, offering practical guidance for educational leaders.
References
Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education, Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. Routledge.
Bartholomew, J. (2025, May 6). First Thing: Trump blocks grant funding for Harvard until it meets government demands. The Guardian. Retrieved May 10, 2025, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/06/first-thing-trump-blocks-grant-funding-for-harvard-until-it-meets-government-demands
Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. State University of New York Press.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Coleman, S. (2013). How voters feel. Cambridge University Press.
Conrad, C. (2011). Organizational rhetoric: Strategies of resistance and domination. Polity Press.
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163-176.
Deccan Herald. (2025, May 9). US Education Secretary mocked, called ‘illiterate’ over her letter to Harvard. Retrieved May 10, 2025, from https://www.deccanherald.com/world/us-education-secretary-mocked-called-illiterate-over-her-letter-to-harvard-3532891
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). MIT Press.
Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied, and Everyday. Bloomsbury Academic.
Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an understanding of voice. Taylor & Francis.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning (3rd ed.). Open University Press.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
Ragin, C. C. (2014). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press.
Randazzo, S., & Belkin, D. (2025, May 6). The Trump administration cuts off new federal grants to Harvard. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 10, 2025, from https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/harvard-trump-grants-letter-780499c6
Rozzen, M. (2025, May 7). Fact or fiction: Did Harvard mark up a letter from Education Secretary Linda McMahon? 10News. Retrieved May 10, 2025, from https://www.10news.com/news/fact-or-fiction/fact-or-fiction-did-harvard-mark-up-a-letter-from-education-secretary-linda-mcmahon
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. Penguin Press.
The Economic Times. (2025, May 8). US Education Secretary blasted for embarrassing grammatical errors in threatening letter to Harvard. Retrieved May 10, 2025, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/us-news-us-education-secretary-linda-mcmahon-blasted-for-embarrassing-grammatical-errors-in-threatening-letter-to-harvard/articleshow/120992625.cms
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
