Harvard tell Trump to pound sand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not JUST about Harvard. He is attacking academic institutions in general, the war just happened to start with Harvard. All fascists attack institutions of free thought and eduction and then replace them with their own version.

Harvard hasn't encouraged free thought in decades.

This kind of vapid, baseless generalization just makes it clear that you had no chance of going to Harvard.

Really? You think they encourage and welcome those with conservative political views to speak and matriculate there?!

Of course they do. Maybe more classic conservatives than Trump 'conservatives' (given that it's a pretty anti-intellectual take).

Someone gave a whole list above of conservatives who went to Harvard (eg, Elise Stefanik). And most graduates -- the males at least -- of HBS are conservative.

DP.

Not quite true. Most Harvard students feel quite uncomfortable expressing contrary political views. Especially true for moderate and conservative students.

“ While 41 percent of liberal students reported feeling comfortable discussing controversial topics, only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt similarly.”

Moreover, “ Slightly more than a quarter of the class of 2024 respondents said they only like to engage socially with people who share their political beliefs. Only 29 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/10/survey-results-controversial-opinions/

Now compare this with the general public or a sampling of workplaces.

Would be interesting, but (a) I’m done with homework today, and (b) I’d argue that a universities should be far more welcoming to unpopular opinions than workplaces or social settings.

Look, I think Pinker had it exactly right in his NYT op-ed: there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Harvard and seek reform, none of which justify Trump’s war of annihilation against it.

I think the best approach here is to speak honestly about Harvard’s shortcomings while also opposing Trump’s actions.

I don’t think that minimizing Harvard’s mistakes benefits anyone, especially Harvard.

NP here. I don't think it benefits anyone to put Harvard's problems on equal footing with Trump's attempt to dismantle one of the most respected institutions of higher education. And Pinker's op-ed was not aimed at criticizing Harvard. By contrast, he was saying that whatever truth there might be to criticisms of Harvard, they are relatively minor in impact...as evidenced by the fact that he is still a professor in good standing there.

Trump is taking a page straight out of the fascist handbook, and we're arguing about hiring practices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not JUST about Harvard. He is attacking academic institutions in general, the war just happened to start with Harvard. All fascists attack institutions of free thought and eduction and then replace them with their own version.

Harvard hasn't encouraged free thought in decades.

This kind of vapid, baseless generalization just makes it clear that you had no chance of going to Harvard.

Really? You think they encourage and welcome those with conservative political views to speak and matriculate there?!

Of course they do. Maybe more classic conservatives than Trump 'conservatives' (given that it's a pretty anti-intellectual take).

Someone gave a whole list above of conservatives who went to Harvard (eg, Elise Stefanik). And most graduates -- the males at least -- of HBS are conservative.

DP.

Not quite true. Most Harvard students feel quite uncomfortable expressing contrary political views. Especially true for moderate and conservative students.

“ While 41 percent of liberal students reported feeling comfortable discussing controversial topics, only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt similarly.”

Moreover, “ Slightly more than a quarter of the class of 2024 respondents said they only like to engage socially with people who share their political beliefs. Only 29 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/10/survey-results-controversial-opinions/

Now compare this with the general public or a sampling of workplaces.

Would be interesting, but (a) I’m done with homework today, and (b) I’d argue that a universities should be far more welcoming to unpopular opinions than workplaces or social settings.

Look, I think Pinker had it exactly right in his NYT op-ed: there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Harvard and seek reform, none of which justify Trump’s war of annihilation against it.

I think the best approach here is to speak honestly about Harvard’s shortcomings while also opposing Trump’s actions.

I don’t think that minimizing Harvard’s mistakes benefits anyone, especially Harvard.

NP here. I don't think it benefits anyone to put Harvard's problems on equal footing with Trump's attempt to dismantle one of the most respected institutions of higher education. And Pinker's op-ed was not aimed at criticizing Harvard. By contrast, he was saying that whatever truth there might be to criticisms of Harvard, they are relatively minor in impact...as evidenced by the fact that he is still a professor in good standing there.

Trump is taking a page straight out of the fascist handbook, and we're arguing about hiring practices?

PP.

I did not intend to “equate” Harvard’s shortcomings with Trump’s insanity in any way.

But I do believe that it’s productive to be honest about Harvard’s shortcomings for three reasons: (1) I believe in fact-based discussion and think obfuscation is counterproductive, (2) Harvard’s problems have contributed to the American public’s increasingly negative opinion of it, and (3) I’d argue that Harvard’s issues are a microcosm of the problems on the left that helped give rise to Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not JUST about Harvard. He is attacking academic institutions in general, the war just happened to start with Harvard. All fascists attack institutions of free thought and eduction and then replace them with their own version.

Harvard hasn't encouraged free thought in decades.

This kind of vapid, baseless generalization just makes it clear that you had no chance of going to Harvard.

Really? You think they encourage and welcome those with conservative political views to speak and matriculate there?!

Of course they do. Maybe more classic conservatives than Trump 'conservatives' (given that it's a pretty anti-intellectual take).

Someone gave a whole list above of conservatives who went to Harvard (eg, Elise Stefanik). And most graduates -- the males at least -- of HBS are conservative.

DP.

Not quite true. Most Harvard students feel quite uncomfortable expressing contrary political views. Especially true for moderate and conservative students.

“ While 41 percent of liberal students reported feeling comfortable discussing controversial topics, only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt similarly.”

Moreover, “ Slightly more than a quarter of the class of 2024 respondents said they only like to engage socially with people who share their political beliefs. Only 29 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/10/survey-results-controversial-opinions/

I'm sorry that conservatives are such snowflakes.

It never occurs to them that some conservative views are just not deserving of being given equal weight. It’s like listening to anti science folks…just because Joe Rogan gave your point of view air time doesn’t mean that it’s worthy of being taken seriously.

Do you seriously think about what this typing? You seem to think 70 million voters are ignorant, uneducated, racist folks who never read. Get over yourself.

dp. Should universities be required to hire 'scientists' who believe in creationism just because some people believe in it?

Not everything in the range of beliefs held by society fits with the universities' research-based approach to teaching and hiring.

Oh, you mean like the “scientists” who say gender is completely separate from sex—but then also say you need surgery and hormones to look like the sex you’re not? That’s supposed to be science-based? If being a woman or a man is just about how you feel, why the medical procedures? Sounds more like ideology dressed up as science.

So no, universities shouldn’t be forced to hire people just because they believe in something. But let’s be honest—those same universities are already hiring and promoting people who push gender ideology, even when it contradicts basic biology. If creationists don’t belong in science departments because their views aren’t evidence-based, why do people who deny biological sex get a pass?

I believe that many scientists would tell you that sex is not as black-and-white as many people want to believe.

What the chromosomes say may get fuzzled by the way the gene expression happens.

Also, something nonstandard may happen such that the hormones that act on the brain during development--thus affecting what sex a person feels like--may not be consistent with the physical development.

Actually I think this is a good example of an area where the the typical experts has views a little different than a lot of lay people *because* they know the science well enough to understand that there is a lot of variation that happens naturally.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to all of the noise about affirmative action. The school was put under a microscope. All the people who didn't get in will bring it down.

be serious. Harvard has been around for hundreds of years. Most people have never gained admittance and yet it's still there. Find something better to do with your time.

Harvard chose to "fight" the U.S. Government. It may win a battle here and there, but the U.S. Government has far greater resources than even Harvard to keep up the fight for years. If Republicans keep the White House in 2028, Harvard will settle this case very quickly (assuming Trump doesn't use the nuclear option and revoke its tax exempt status).

Harvard has the resources to fight these battles in court. And they are most likely to prevail. Highly unlikely they will settle.

No, they don't. The US Government has more lawyers and money than any institution on the planet. Harvard can try to drag this out, but there are so many levers Trump can pull that courts cannot stop. What you don't get is that Trump is trying to set legal precedents with a friendly Supreme Court. These cases will get there before his term is up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not indoctrination that educated people being less right politically.

It's *because* they are educated, critically thinking people that they tend left.

Harvard required DEI statements from all faculty members.

That isn’t critical thinking, it is textbook indoctrination.

Why do you care? People like you with such a complete lack of understanding of the concepts you mentioned would never qualify to be at Harvard anyway.

This is ultimately the unique problem with stupid people. Short people know they are short. Weak people know they are weak. Stupid people are incapable of understanding how stupid you are.

Because my taxes are going to this place! That’s why. If they want to be elite, make professors quack like chickens while burning the Torah in the quad, they can have at it.

But they don’t get access to federal funds. I.e., the public’s money.

Everything they do can be done at other institutions. Harvard isn’t owed a penny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not indoctrination that educated people being less right politically.

It's *because* they are educated, critically thinking people that they tend left.

Harvard required DEI statements from all faculty members.

That isn’t critical thinking, it is textbook indoctrination.

Why do you care? People like you with such a complete lack of understanding of the concepts you mentioned would never qualify to be at Harvard anyway.

This is ultimately the unique problem with stupid people. Short people know they are short. Weak people know they are weak. Stupid people are incapable of understanding how stupid you are.

Because my taxes are going to this place! That’s why. If they want to be elite, make professors quack like chickens while burning the Torah in the quad, they can have at it.

But they don’t get access to federal funds. I.e., the public’s money.

Everything they do can be done at other institutions. Harvard isn’t owed a penny.

Why do you think other institutions are different than Harvard?

Do you not understand the difference in basic and commercial research and how tgey ate funded and why?

Do you not understand that public funding of a broad swath of basic research--mostly conducted by universities--is a huge part of the US's commercial success over time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not indoctrination that educated people being less right politically.

It's *because* they are educated, critically thinking people that they tend left.

Harvard required DEI statements from all faculty members.

That isn’t critical thinking, it is textbook indoctrination.

Why do you care? People like you with such a complete lack of understanding of the concepts you mentioned would never qualify to be at Harvard anyway.

This is ultimately the unique problem with stupid people. Short people know they are short. Weak people know they are weak. Stupid people are incapable of understanding how stupid you are.

Because my taxes are going to this place! That’s why. If they want to be elite, make professors quack like chickens while burning the Torah in the quad, they can have at it.

But they don’t get access to federal funds. I.e., the public’s money.

Everything they do can be done at other institutions. Harvard isn’t owed a penny.

Entitlement mentality. Harvard has received federal money for so long, it's become dependent on it for it's survival as an elite institution. Without it, Harvard loses its elite status, and in turn its international students who pay full tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not indoctrination that educated people being less right politically.

It's *because* they are educated, critically thinking people that they tend left.

Harvard required DEI statements from all faculty members.

That isn’t critical thinking, it is textbook indoctrination.

Why do you care? People like you with such a complete lack of understanding of the concepts you mentioned would never qualify to be at Harvard anyway.

This is ultimately the unique problem with stupid people. Short people know they are short. Weak people know they are weak. Stupid people are incapable of understanding how stupid you are.

Because my taxes are going to this place! That’s why. If they want to be elite, make professors quack like chickens while burning the Torah in the quad, they can have at it.

But they don’t get access to federal funds. I.e., the public’s money.

Everything they do can be done at other institutions. Harvard isn’t owed a penny.

Entitlement mentality. Harvard has received federal money for so long, it's become dependent on it for it's survival as an elite institution. Without it, Harvard loses its elite status, and in turn its international students who pay full tuition.

Every researcher at *every* university depends on grants from the government or some foundation or some similar kind of institution.

Why are you anti-research?

[Anonymous]

Harvard certainly seems consumed by Trump’s political moves. Trump just goes about his business every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not JUST about Harvard. He is attacking academic institutions in general, the war just happened to start with Harvard. All fascists attack institutions of free thought and eduction and then replace them with their own version.

Harvard hasn't encouraged free thought in decades.

This kind of vapid, baseless generalization just makes it clear that you had no chance of going to Harvard.

Really? You think they encourage and welcome those with conservative political views to speak and matriculate there?!

Of course they do. Maybe more classic conservatives than Trump 'conservatives' (given that it's a pretty anti-intellectual take).

Someone gave a whole list above of conservatives who went to Harvard (eg, Elise Stefanik). And most graduates -- the males at least -- of HBS are conservative.

DP.

Not quite true. Most Harvard students feel quite uncomfortable expressing contrary political views. Especially true for moderate and conservative students.

“ While 41 percent of liberal students reported feeling comfortable discussing controversial topics, only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt similarly.”

Moreover, “ Slightly more than a quarter of the class of 2024 respondents said they only like to engage socially with people who share their political beliefs. Only 29 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/10/survey-results-controversial-opinions/

I'm sorry that conservatives are such snowflakes.

It never occurs to them that some conservative views are just not deserving of being given equal weight. It’s like listening to anti science folks…just because Joe Rogan gave your point of view air time doesn’t mean that it’s worthy of being taken seriously.

Do you seriously think about what this typing? You seem to think 70 million voters are ignorant, uneducated, racist folks who never read. Get over yourself.

dp. Should universities be required to hire 'scientists' who believe in creationism just because some people believe in it?

Not everything in the range of beliefs held by society fits with the universities' research-based approach to teaching and hiring.

Oh, you mean like the “scientists” who say gender is completely separate from sex—but then also say you need surgery and hormones to look like the sex you’re not? That’s supposed to be science-based? If being a woman or a man is just about how you feel, why the medical procedures? Sounds more like ideology dressed up as science.

So no, universities shouldn’t be forced to hire people just because they believe in something. But let’s be honest—those same universities are already hiring and promoting people who push gender ideology, even when it contradicts basic biology. If creationists don’t belong in science departments because their views aren’t evidence-based, why do people who deny biological sex get a pass?

I believe that many scientists would tell you that sex is not as black-and-white as many people want to believe.

What the chromosomes say may get fuzzled by the way the gene expression happens.

Also, something nonstandard may happen such that the hormones that act on the brain during development--thus affecting what sex a person feels like--may not be consistent with the physical development.

Actually I think this is a good example of an area where the the typical experts has views a little different than a lot of lay people *because* they know the science well enough to understand that there is a lot of variation that happens naturally.

NP. You are one of those lay people who don't know what you're talking about. Let me help you out to the degree you are sincerely ignorant and not just a politically motivate liar:

1. There are exactly TWO human gametes: sperm and ova. There is no third gamete. Moreover, the two gametes are mutually exclusive, which means there is no "intersex" gamete that is a combination of a sperm and ovum.

2. The two gametes give rise to exactly TWO pathways along which human bodies are organized: one that is female and results in the production of ova (due to the absence of the SRY gene) and one way that is male and results in the production of sperm (due to the presence of the SRY gene).

3. The two pathways are mutually antagonistic and shut each other off. This means that a human being cannot produce both sperm and ova. Nor can a human being's body be organized partly along the pathway that produces ova and then partly along the pathway that produces sperm. It is either one or the other. BINARY.

4. All intersex people are either male or female. For instance, Turner syndrome only occurs in females. CAIS and PAIS only occur in males. In other words, just like all other humans, intersex people's bodies are either organized along the pathway that produces ova (no SRY gene activation) or the one that produces sperm (SRY gene activation). The term intersex does NOT mean that they are both sexes or some in between form. That is biologically impossible.

Now, you don't have to like these facts. But they are still facts. Sex is binary. That's the science. Anything else is politics, new age religion, and wishful thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not JUST about Harvard. He is attacking academic institutions in general, the war just happened to start with Harvard. All fascists attack institutions of free thought and eduction and then replace them with their own version.

Harvard hasn't encouraged free thought in decades.

This kind of vapid, baseless generalization just makes it clear that you had no chance of going to Harvard.

Really? You think they encourage and welcome those with conservative political views to speak and matriculate there?!

Of course they do. Maybe more classic conservatives than Trump 'conservatives' (given that it's a pretty anti-intellectual take).

Someone gave a whole list above of conservatives who went to Harvard (eg, Elise Stefanik). And most graduates -- the males at least -- of HBS are conservative.

DP.

Not quite true. Most Harvard students feel quite uncomfortable expressing contrary political views. Especially true for moderate and conservative students.

“ While 41 percent of liberal students reported feeling comfortable discussing controversial topics, only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt similarly.”

Moreover, “ Slightly more than a quarter of the class of 2024 respondents said they only like to engage socially with people who share their political beliefs. Only 29 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/10/survey-results-controversial-opinions/

I'm sorry that conservatives are such snowflakes.

It never occurs to them that some conservative views are just not deserving of being given equal weight. It’s like listening to anti science folks…just because Joe Rogan gave your point of view air time doesn’t mean that it’s worthy of being taken seriously.

Do you seriously think about what this typing? You seem to think 70 million voters are ignorant, uneducated, racist folks who never read. Get over yourself.

dp. Should universities be required to hire 'scientists' who believe in creationism just because some people believe in it?

Not everything in the range of beliefs held by society fits with the universities' research-based approach to teaching and hiring.

Oh, you mean like the “scientists” who say gender is completely separate from sex—but then also say you need surgery and hormones to look like the sex you’re not? That’s supposed to be science-based? If being a woman or a man is just about how you feel, why the medical procedures? Sounds more like ideology dressed up as science.

So no, universities shouldn’t be forced to hire people just because they believe in something. But let’s be honest—those same universities are already hiring and promoting people who push gender ideology, even when it contradicts basic biology. If creationists don’t belong in science departments because their views aren’t evidence-based, why do people who deny biological sex get a pass?

I believe that many scientists would tell you that sex is not as black-and-white as many people want to believe.

What the chromosomes say may get fuzzled by the way the gene expression happens.

Also, something nonstandard may happen such that the hormones that act on the brain during development--thus affecting what sex a person feels like--may not be consistent with the physical development.

Actually I think this is a good example of an area where the the typical experts has views a little different than a lot of lay people *because* they know the science well enough to understand that there is a lot of variation that happens naturally.

What do intersex people have to do with the men who are not intersex yet demand to be considered women?

[Anonymous]

Can we stay on topic? Take your sperm and ova chat to another thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not JUST about Harvard. He is attacking academic institutions in general, the war just happened to start with Harvard. All fascists attack institutions of free thought and eduction and then replace them with their own version.

Harvard hasn't encouraged free thought in decades.

This kind of vapid, baseless generalization just makes it clear that you had no chance of going to Harvard.

Really? You think they encourage and welcome those with conservative political views to speak and matriculate there?!

Of course they do. Maybe more classic conservatives than Trump 'conservatives' (given that it's a pretty anti-intellectual take).

Someone gave a whole list above of conservatives who went to Harvard (eg, Elise Stefanik). And most graduates -- the males at least -- of HBS are conservative.

DP.

Not quite true. Most Harvard students feel quite uncomfortable expressing contrary political views. Especially true for moderate and conservative students.

“ While 41 percent of liberal students reported feeling comfortable discussing controversial topics, only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt similarly.”

Moreover, “ Slightly more than a quarter of the class of 2024 respondents said they only like to engage socially with people who share their political beliefs. Only 29 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/10/survey-results-controversial-opinions/

I'm sorry that conservatives are such snowflakes.

It never occurs to them that some conservative views are just not deserving of being given equal weight. It’s like listening to anti science folks…just because Joe Rogan gave your point of view air time doesn’t mean that it’s worthy of being taken seriously.

Do you seriously think about what this typing? You seem to think 70 million voters are ignorant, uneducated, racist folks who never read. Get over yourself.

dp. Should universities be required to hire 'scientists' who believe in creationism just because some people believe in it?

Not everything in the range of beliefs held by society fits with the universities' research-based approach to teaching and hiring.

Oh, you mean like the “scientists” who say gender is completely separate from sex—but then also say you need surgery and hormones to look like the sex you’re not? That’s supposed to be science-based? If being a woman or a man is just about how you feel, why the medical procedures? Sounds more like ideology dressed up as science.

So no, universities shouldn’t be forced to hire people just because they believe in something. But let’s be honest—those same universities are already hiring and promoting people who push gender ideology, even when it contradicts basic biology. If creationists don’t belong in science departments because their views aren’t evidence-based, why do people who deny biological sex get a pass?

I believe that many scientists would tell you that sex is not as black-and-white as many people want to believe.

What the chromosomes say may get fuzzled by the way the gene expression happens.

Also, something nonstandard may happen such that the hormones that act on the brain during development--thus affecting what sex a person feels like--may not be consistent with the physical development.

Actually I think this is a good example of an area where the the typical experts has views a little different than a lot of lay people *because* they know the science well enough to understand that there is a lot of variation that happens naturally.

What do intersex people have to do with the men who are not intersex yet demand to be considered women?

A) I didn't say anything directly about intersex people.

B) See the paragraph that starts "Also."

[Anonymous]

I think Harvard is an excellent example of what occurs academically and politically when you gather too many brainy, nerdy people with limited social and interpersonal skills in one place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not JUST about Harvard. He is attacking academic institutions in general, the war just happened to start with Harvard. All fascists attack institutions of free thought and eduction and then replace them with their own version.

Harvard hasn't encouraged free thought in decades.

This kind of vapid, baseless generalization just makes it clear that you had no chance of going to Harvard.

Really? You think they encourage and welcome those with conservative political views to speak and matriculate there?!

Of course they do. Maybe more classic conservatives than Trump 'conservatives' (given that it's a pretty anti-intellectual take).

Someone gave a whole list above of conservatives who went to Harvard (eg, Elise Stefanik). And most graduates -- the males at least -- of HBS are conservative.

DP.

Not quite true. Most Harvard students feel quite uncomfortable expressing contrary political views. Especially true for moderate and conservative students.

“ While 41 percent of liberal students reported feeling comfortable discussing controversial topics, only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt similarly.”

Moreover, “ Slightly more than a quarter of the class of 2024 respondents said they only like to engage socially with people who share their political beliefs. Only 29 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement.”

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/10/survey-results-controversial-opinions/

I'm sorry that conservatives are such snowflakes.

It never occurs to them that some conservative views are just not deserving of being given equal weight. It’s like listening to anti science folks…just because Joe Rogan gave your point of view air time doesn’t mean that it’s worthy of being taken seriously.

Do you seriously think about what this typing? You seem to think 70 million voters are ignorant, uneducated, racist folks who never read. Get over yourself.

dp. Should universities be required to hire 'scientists' who believe in creationism just because some people believe in it?

Not everything in the range of beliefs held by society fits with the universities' research-based approach to teaching and hiring.

Oh, you mean like the “scientists” who say gender is completely separate from sex—but then also say you need surgery and hormones to look like the sex you’re not? That’s supposed to be science-based? If being a woman or a man is just about how you feel, why the medical procedures? Sounds more like ideology dressed up as science.

So no, universities shouldn’t be forced to hire people just because they believe in something. But let’s be honest—those same universities are already hiring and promoting people who push gender ideology, even when it contradicts basic biology. If creationists don’t belong in science departments because their views aren’t evidence-based, why do people who deny biological sex get a pass?

I believe that many scientists would tell you that sex is not as black-and-white as many people want to believe.

What the chromosomes say may get fuzzled by the way the gene expression happens.

Also, something nonstandard may happen such that the hormones that act on the brain during development--thus affecting what sex a person feels like--may not be consistent with the physical development.

Actually I think this is a good example of an area where the the typical experts has views a little different than a lot of lay people *because* they know the science well enough to understand that there is a lot of variation that happens naturally.

NP. You are one of those lay people who don't know what you're talking about. Let me help you out to the degree you are sincerely ignorant and not just a politically motivate liar:

1. There are exactly TWO human gametes: sperm and ova. There is no third gamete. Moreover, the two gametes are mutually exclusive, which means there is no "intersex" gamete that is a combination of a sperm and ovum.

2. The two gametes give rise to exactly TWO pathways along which human bodies are organized: one that is female and results in the production of ova (due to the absence of the SRY gene) and one way that is male and results in the production of sperm (due to the presence of the SRY gene).

3. The two pathways are mutually antagonistic and shut each other off. This means that a human being cannot produce both sperm and ova. Nor can a human being's body be organized partly along the pathway that produces ova and then partly along the pathway that produces sperm. It is either one or the other. BINARY.

4. All intersex people are either male or female. For instance, Turner syndrome only occurs in females. CAIS and PAIS only occur in males. In other words, just like all other humans, intersex people's bodies are either organized along the pathway that produces ova (no SRY gene activation) or the one that produces sperm (SRY gene activation). The term intersex does NOT mean that they are both sexes or some in between form. That is biologically impossible.

Now, you don't have to like these facts. But they are still facts. Sex is binary. That's the science. Anything else is politics, new age religion, and wishful thinking.

So you are claiming that bodies always develop exactly the way they are supposed to? We all know that is not true.

Meanwhile, I never used the term intersex -- someone else introduced that. What I am talking about has to do with more than just the sex organs themselves.

There are a lot of the parts of the body that develop, as a generality, differently in males and females due to hormones.

The balance of hormones matter! They are not produced in the exact same amounts in every man and every woman. This is obvious -- some people are really masculine with big muscles etc etc, some are very feminine.

But not all such manifestations of the role of hormones are superficial and readily observable. There are differences throughout the body and the brain. There can be variations in hormone levels at different stages of development, for whatever quirky reasons of life, such that not all aspects of someone's body have the same amount of "maleness" and "femaleness."

But, yes, this all way off topic.

But the bottom-line is that because it is complex, the experts should decide what is researched and taught. It should't be decided by Trump or by Joe Blow just because he pays taxes.