On May 7, 2025, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon sent a sharply worded letter to Harvard University President Alan Garber, criticizing the university’s handling of antisemitism and accusing it of systemic failures. The letter quickly went viral, but not just for its political statements—it also sparked a social media storm over glaring grammar mistakes that were later highlighted in a marked-up version.

1. The Impact of Grammar Errors on Public Communication

The first mistake McMahon made was in her public communication approach. In her letter, she critiqued Harvard for promoting race-based preferences and for violating federal law, but the letter’s grammar errors became the focus of attention. This led to widespread discussions about the role of precise language in political discourse. If you’re sending a letter to an Ivy League university, it’s essential that your communication is clear and error-free.

Grammar is key in professional communication, especially when addressing sensitive topics in public. For more on the importance of clear communication in politics, check out this Politico article on political communication.

2. Key Grammar Errors in the Viral Letter

• Missing commas and improper punctuation: Several key sentences were riddled with punctuation mistakes that affected readability.
• Run-on sentences: Some thoughts were stretched into long, convoluted sentences, making it hard to follow the argument.
• Capitalization errors: McMahon’s capitalization of certain words like “GRANTS” appeared unprofessional in the context.
• Unnecessary use of informal language: The use of phrases like “where do many of these ‘students’ come from?” detracted from the professional tone.
• Typographical mistakes: Simple typos like “TARRIF” instead of “TARIFF” caused unnecessary distractions.

3. Why Harvard’s Response Added Fuel to the Fire

Following the viral circulation of McMahon’s letter, an X (formerly Twitter) account posted an edited version of the letter, marking the numerous grammatical errors. Harvard, in a statement, claimed that McMahon’s letter was an example of the government trying to impose control over academic institutions. This response drew even more attention to the letter’s flaws and sparked a further online debate.

Harvard’s official statement, addressing the concerns raised in McMahon’s letter, can be read on their [official website](https://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvard-glance) (external link).

4. The Political and Social Media Fallout

The political fallout from McMahon’s letter is significant. Not only does it address issues surrounding federal funding for universities, but it also touches on deeper issues of national security and federal law violations. The grammar mistakes, however, shifted the narrative towards public relations blunders, with many criticizing McMahon for not ensuring a more polished presentation of her concerns.

Social media reactions were quick, with many users criticizing McMahon’s communication mishaps.

5. Conclusion: The Importance of Polished Public Communication

Linda McMahon’s viral letter is a perfect example of how grammar mistakes in political communication can overshadow the content of the message itself. In today’s world, where social media reactions can shape public perception almost instantly, ensuring a well-crafted and error-free letter can make all the difference in how your message is received. Whether it’s defending policies or criticizing institutions, a clean, clear, and professionally written letter is essential for conveying authority and credibility.