Radical Harvard Professor Touts Stacey Abrams as ‘Political Mastermind’
Harvard University is once again drawing criticism for elevating left-wing figures in its curriculum, this time by promoting failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams as a “political mastermind.”
The seminar, titled “Race, Gender, and the Law Through the Archive,” is taught by assistant history professor Myisha Eatmon, whose academic work centers on Critical Race Theory and the idea that law itself is a tool of “systemic oppression.” The course description specifically names Abrams alongside Michelle Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris as “political masterminds” who shaped 21st-century politics, despite Abrams losing two consecutive elections for governor and never holding federal office.
The description itself contained a glaring misspelling of Abrams’s first name, calling her “Stacy” instead of “Stacey.” Still, the class insists on framing Abrams as a trailblazing strategist while ignoring the widespread criticism of her record and political failures.
Eatmon’s seminar explores how “Black women and non-binary people” influenced politics and the law, with particular focus on concepts of intersectionality, gender, and sexuality. The course materials openly state that students will be taught to understand law through the “subjectivity” of identity rather than through objective principles. Critics say this turns a prestigious law-related course into a political indoctrination exercise.
Abrams, who served over a decade in the Georgia House of Representatives, rose to national prominence after her narrow 2018 defeat to Republican Brian Kemp. Instead of conceding graciously, Abrams claimed that Georgia’s election was “stolen” from her, alleging voter suppression. She later softened her rhetoric in her 2022 rematch with Kemp, where she again lost by a significant margin, insisting that she “never denied” losing but continued to describe the process as “flawed.”
Abrams funneled millions into lawsuits targeting Georgia’s election system through her nonprofit organizations. One of those groups was penalized for funneling millions in improper funds directly into her campaign efforts, raising further ethical questions about her so-called political genius.
Despite her self-promotion and backing from the academic elite, Abrams’ influence among Democrats is slipping. Georgia-based Democratic strategist Fred Hicks admitted recently that “there’s not a lot of energy…or a large appetite” for a third Abrams run in 2026. Even within her own party, enthusiasm for her leadership has waned, leaving her portrayed as a “mastermind” mainly in elite classrooms rather than in real-world politics.
Nevertheless, Harvard’s decision to glorify Abrams while billing the course as legal scholarship reveals how far academia has drifted from intellectual rigor into left-wing activism. Instead of preparing students for the real challenges of law and governance, courses like Eatmon’s appear designed to rewrite history and manufacture legacies for Democrats who failed to win at the ballot box.