Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Harvard tell Trump to pound sand
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
A couple of problems with your analogy: (1) “pro-hamas” is a extremist Zionist talking point bearing no resemblance to the protesters on the Harvard campus who are opposed to Israel’s policies and actions and (2) there was no violence against Jewish students on the Harvard campus. Beyond that, solid work, ig. The excuse of “feeling unsafe” or “feeling unwelcome” is the purported basis of this shitstorm. Feelings. Feelings. Those expressing those feelings should take it up with the snowflake authorities and the defunct DEI office. |
Anonymous
+1 Th |
Anonymous
When making an example, yes. |
Anonymous
|
Scott Pelley destroyed this attack during his Wake commencement speech. Everyone should see this.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/05/24/scott_pelley_delivers_commencement_address_freedom_of_speech_is_under_attack_the_country_is_calling_you.html |
Anonymous
I agree about the t-shirt and about point (1). But if you read the editorial linked to up above in the thread, there were some incidents that fell in a middle ground -- some spitting on a Jewish student, a staff member yelling at a Jewish student (the staff member got fired), and a professor (or some level of teacher) telling a Jewish student to leave the class because they made other students uncomfortable. That stuff sucks, and feeling unwelcome in your home (which univ. is for students) sucks. Fortunately, Harvard seems to have gotten a grip on these things a while back. But, still, the "consequences" that Trump has imposed and wants to impose are way over-drastic. They are just not defensible, and all the people defending them on the assumption that "if the administration is doing it, then it must makes sense" are making fools of themselves, because it doesn't make sense. |
Anonymous
*someone (ie, another student) spitting, not some spitting |
Anonymous
Scott Pelley at Wake Forest: “Power can rewrite history. With grotesque, false narratives, it can turn heroes into criminals and criminals into heroes. It can change the definitions of the words we use to describe reality. ‘Diversity’ is now described as ‘illegal.’ ‘Equity’ is to be shunned. ‘Inclusion’ is a dirty word. This is an old playbook, my friends. George Orwell—whom we met on the street in London—in 1949 warned of what he called ‘newspeak.’ He understood ignorance works for power.” |
Anonymous
Jeff, please make this the 4th📌 on political forum. |
Anonymous
Point taken re: spitting (if it was actual spitting and not spittle flying while yelling, I’m supportive of criminal consequences for that), although I would take issue with characterizing yelling and/or removal a student from class when tensions are high as “violence” (especially if the student was bring provocative or disruptive, which I believe was the case you are referring to). Regarding that removal, though, I would also add that Arab and Muslim students have faced similar and far worse experiences for decades now on college campuses. Likewise, much of what the police and campus security on college campuses did last year was 100x more appalling (e.g., Emory, UCLA, etc.). Emphatically agree with the last para … |
Anonymous
Thank you for the list. I’d counter that if the federal government paid for the research on those things, they should be owned by the American people. Specially the patents that Harvard claims, that taxpayers funded. Instead we pay for the research and get charged astronomical prices to have access the same things we funded. |
Anonymous
PP. Fair point and led me to do some reading. Prior to enactment of the Bayh Dole Act in 1980, government did retain ownership. However, the government failed to license most of its patents, resulting in 95% of government-owned patents being unused in 1980. The Act was designed to get innovations to the market for public use by granting ownership to the grantee. Worth revisiting this arrangement? Absolutely. But if the choices are (a) have innovation and let private entities benefit, or (b) end government funding and throttle innovation? I’ll take option (a) every time. |
Anonymous
On a completely different note, I do find it interesting that the party of micro aggressions is now the party of “show us the physical violence “. Thats it, carry on. |
Anonymous
+1 yep |
Anonymous
This is a good question. However, there's is nothing about research grants that applies uniquely to Harvard (or Columbia). |
Anonymous
I agree with this too. Nothing on the list is unique to Harvard. Any medical school with an academic medical center can do the health discoveries. And since the majority of the taxpayers funding is going to cover overhead, I’d be willing to bet you can find just about any university, especially in the lower cost areas, to spend that money on their research overhead. Money follows money and Harvard has grown used to be the favorite child. But they allowed their institutions to be overrun by ideology, so now it’s someone’s else’s turn. |