Athletes and a Nation's Pride
Every four years, the Olympics give us something that is pretty rare for Americans: the chance to show the world that we can, in fact, understand the metric system.
At the Olympics, times are measured down to the hundredth of a second, distances are recorded to the centimeter, and medals are earned based on precise measurements. When the Games are over, the medal chart becomes a simple ledger and shows the broad outline of what happened: who won, who placed, and how each country compares.
We celebrate the medals, and we remember the stories, like Michael Phelps dominating the pool and becoming the most decorated Olympian in history, medaling in 28 events, 23 of them gold, and Caitlyn Jenner winning the decathlon in 1976, setting the points record for the decathlon and setting personal best performances in 7 of the 10 events. And what about Simone Biles? She practically redefined what the body is capable of doing, and, along the way, she won 11 medals and invented five named skills in women's gymnastics. But one of the most memorable stories is that of Jesse Owens at the 1936 Berlin Games, where he challenged Nazi Germany's claim to racial superiority and won 4 gold medals.
For many Americans, our Olympic medals are compelling evidence that we as a nation are more powerful, more talented, and have more grit than other countries because we have more freedom. And who could refute it? The medal count tells the whole story: in the last 8 Summer Olympiads, the U.S. has led the world in total medals in all 8 and in gold medals in 7.
A Thought Experiment
But what if someone edited those outcomes because they believe some competitors do not deserve recognition? What if that person were in charge of well-trusted sources of information? Then, fast forward fifty or a hundred years to a student reviewing the edited results. The student would correctly conclude, based on those sources, that U.S. athletes were middle of the pack in worldwide competition.
To show you what I mean, I removed every medal won by an American who was either female or a person of color at the 2024 Summer Olympics.
The story changed not only for individual athletes but for our country and others. America went from first place with 126 medals to seventh place with only 38 medals. But it isn’t just about the medal count. It’s about the times and distances recorded. Coaches use the results to structure athletes' training. They don’t just look at the wins; they look at the losses to see where an athlete or a team can improve. When they can see the whole picture, they are better equipped to make training decisions that lead to positive outcomes.
Furthermore, we can all, at a gut level, understand the unfairness and plain wrongheadedness of removing these athletes from the record. They earned those medals with years and years of hard work and sacrifice.
History Works the Same Way.
That extended thought experiment was meant to show how deeply troubling some current trends are at all levels of government. In recent years, there have been concerted efforts to rewrite history to remove references to facts some would rather not think about, or that portray their interests in a bad light.
History--all of it: the good, the bad, and the ugly--isn't simply a collection of stories. It is, in a very real sense, a guide to tomorrow. Leave out portions of the story, and you risk making wrong decisions.
The athletes I removed from the above table came from diverse backgrounds, experiences, and identities. As long as they could meet the physical requirements for their event, they were allowed to compete. They had to meet the same standards and had the same rules as everyone else. They earned their place on the podium. All competitors were equal in the eyes of the Olympic officials except in their performance and potential. This is what diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) look like in real life.
The term DEI has become politically charged. Proponents argue that it refers to policies that seek to ensure workplaces and educational institutions create fair, supportive, and representative environments. It was created because marginalized communities have not always had equal opportunities for jobs and education. Rightly or wrongly, some people believe that DEI policies have been used to discriminate against those who are not members of traditionally marginalized groups. In other words, some people believe that DEI policies have been used to disadvantage those who, throughout U.S. history, have held the bulk of political and economic power.
Whether DEI policies are inherently unfair and lead to the hiring of less qualified people over more qualified ones is perhaps debatable. What is not debatable is that the backlash against DEI is being used by politicians and others to rewrite history, removing facts that reflect poorly on the traditional power structure. Anti-DEI sentiment is also being used to defund scientific and medical research that focuses on women and people of color.
Across many institutions, efforts have been made to either remove or limit certain language from public records, online archives, and government agency websites. Words related to topics such as the environment, social issues, and even public health are being scrutinized.
Recent Examples and Ongoing Debates
In recent years, a number of changes to public-facing materials, funding priorities, and educational content have sparked debate about how history and research should be presented.
Several news and watchdog groups have published lists of words removed from federal websites or flagged for review by federal agencies overseeing research and education. The list includes hot-button terms such as "climate change," "transgender," and "critical race theory," as well as words like "black," "disability," "woman," and "safe drinking water." PEN America's article: Federal Government’s Growing Banned Words List
To comply with the current administration's executive order eliminating Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEI) policies, federal agencies and departments have removed references to the historical contributions of women and people of color from their websites and other educational materials, including Arlington National Cemetery educational programs about the history of the U.S. armed services.
Museums have also found themselves at the center of similar conversations. Exhibits connected to World War II—including those featuring the Enola Gay—have prompted discussion about how much context should be provided, particularly regarding the human and environmental impact of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima that effectively ended the war. These conversations raise important questions about how future generations will understand complex historical events. Article summary: History and the Culture Wars: The Case of the Smithsonian Institution's Enola Gay Exhibition
In the scientific community, changes to funding priorities have also drawn attention. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, a significant amount of grant funding connected to research that references gender, race, or minority populations has been discontinued or redirected. Supporters of these changes often point to shifting policy goals, while others have raised concerns about how such decisions might affect long-term research—particularly in areas like cancer, where outcomes can vary across different populations. Science News Article: $1.8 billion in NIH grant cuts hit minority health research the hardest
In recent years, there have been increased efforts in across the country and Texas in particular to challenge, remove, or restrict access to certain books and materials in public libraries. The most commonly challenged books, much like efforts to alter the historical record, are by or about people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community. American Library Association webpage: Censorship by the Numbers
Learn More:
Executive Order: RESTORING TRUTH AND SANITY TO AMERICAN HISTORY
Why the Full Record Matters
Even small changes can shape how stories are understood over time. When pieces of the record are minimized or lost, the picture that remains may be less complete, making it harder to learn from the past or apply those lessons to the future.
History, like the Olympic medal table, tells a fuller and more useful story when all of the results are visible. The more complete the record, the better equipped we are to ask informed questions, understand different perspectives, and make thoughtful decisions.
A strong foundation—whether in athletics, science, or history—depends on accuracy and completeness. Without it, we risk building our understanding on gaps rather than solid ground.
Add a comment to: Why Complete History Matters: Lessons from an Olympic Thought Experiment