Harvard Rejects Trump Admin’s Demands, Going to Court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jewish Harvard alum here, and I am 1000% in favor of what Harvard is doing. Most Jewish students and families support free speech and want the university to function as an independent institution, not an arm of the government. Trump is using antisemisitm as a pretext and using Jewish students as pawns. He doesn't give 2 shits about antisemitism on campus. And the ridiculous demands made on Harvard would not have made the university safer for Jews. Bravo, Harvard!

Gullible moron^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s extortion. No previous White House has ever tried to use the power of the state to steer the nation’s preeminent institutions of higher learning in an ideological direction favored by the president.

“U.S. research universities, and the federal funding that supports them, are one major reason Americans have collected more Nobel Prizes than citizens of any other country. They also help make the United States the world’s innovation engine and the top destination for foreign students. No other country is as adept at converting raw human talent and ideas into cutting-edge products. Research universities anchor innovation clusters such as Silicon Valley, which in turn fuel the country’s economic growth.”

Nearly a month ago, for example, Columbia University agreed to most of the White House’s demands in the hopes that Trump and his team would restore $400 million in federal funding. Not only were those hopes soon dashed — Columbia didn’t get its money back — but the administration soon after proposed installing oversight personnel to help run the school in ways that would make the president happy.

In effect, the White House responded to Columbia’s appeasement by trying in part to take over Columbia.

+100

People cheering for this are puppets. It’s the beginning of a fascist regime. They want to control all of the elite universities so there are no alternative ideas or push back. Much like firing all the IGs.

Obama sent letters threatening universities to install DEI or lose funding. Full compliance.

Obama did not tell schools their federal funding depended on creating entire DEI programs, much less demand to pick students and faculty who shared his party’s “viewpoints.” If you mean trans kids getting to use the restroom that matched their identity, you can’t possibly think that was as consequential as reshaping the ideology of any entire university’s population, as the Harvard letter lays out. I’m all for diversity of thought, but the gov should not be in the business of evaluating what that looks like when it itself swings so dramatically from one election to the other.

Republicans are supposed to favor small gov!

Forcing trans ideology on everyone is not really great either.

And Republicans never favored small government, they favor low taxes and no entitlements or social safety nets. Bootstraps and all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having Harvard stop doing research is like the Post Office stop doing mail. It makes no sense and it doesn't help any American ..


Oh wait, they're also trying to do that.

Harvard can do research all it wants. It's a free country. Nobody is stopping it.

Sure. Except it won’t be doing research for US federal programs.

Stopping this research primarily hurts the US, not Harvard.

Harvard is not the only university in the US.

This isn’t like shopping around for someone to fix your car. Researchers aren’t interchangeable and there will be significant loss of institutional knowledge.

This petty tantrum will primarily hurt the US.

Nice job, idiots. You don’t even comprehend the harm that you are inflicting on yourself.

Assuming the grants come back anytime soon, the researchers will go to whatever institution gets the grant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard acted like it's above the law and discriminated Asians all they want.
Now it's acting like it's entiled to my tax money.

This.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No you are looking at different things. Viewpoint diversity is about making sure all viewpoints are welcomed. DEI has morphed into putting one group over another based on past wrong etc.

False

True

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s extortion. No previous White House has ever tried to use the power of the state to steer the nation’s preeminent institutions of higher learning in an ideological direction favored by the president.

“U.S. research universities, and the federal funding that supports them, are one major reason Americans have collected more Nobel Prizes than citizens of any other country. They also help make the United States the world’s innovation engine and the top destination for foreign students. No other country is as adept at converting raw human talent and ideas into cutting-edge products. Research universities anchor innovation clusters such as Silicon Valley, which in turn fuel the country’s economic growth.”

Nearly a month ago, for example, Columbia University agreed to most of the White House’s demands in the hopes that Trump and his team would restore $400 million in federal funding. Not only were those hopes soon dashed — Columbia didn’t get its money back — but the administration soon after proposed installing oversight personnel to help run the school in ways that would make the president happy.

In effect, the White House responded to Columbia’s appeasement by trying in part to take over Columbia.

+100

People cheering for this are puppets. It’s the beginning of a fascist regime. They want to control all of the elite universities so there are no alternative ideas or push back. Much like firing all the IGs.

Obama sent letters threatening universities to install DEI or lose funding. Full compliance.

Obama did not tell schools their federal funding depended on creating entire DEI programs, much less demand to pick students and faculty who shared his party’s “viewpoints.” If you mean trans kids getting to use the restroom that matched their identity, you can’t possibly think that was as consequential as reshaping the ideology of any entire university’s population, as the Harvard letter lays out. I’m all for diversity of thought, but the gov should not be in the business of evaluating what that looks like when it itself swings so dramatically from one election to the other.

Republicans are supposed to favor small gov!

Forcing trans ideology on everyone is not really great either.

And Republicans never favored small government, they favor low taxes and no entitlements or social safety nets. Bootstraps and all that.

LOL. Bigots are so dumb.

Republicans have been whining about “small government” for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No you are looking at different things. Viewpoint diversity is about making sure all viewpoints are welcomed. DEI has morphed into putting one group over another based on past wrong etc.

False

True

Troll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No you are looking at different things. Viewpoint diversity is about making sure all viewpoints are welcomed. DEI has morphed into putting one group over another based on past wrong etc.

I understand the sales pitch, but the mechanism is spelled out in the letter. Each paragraph starts off with what sound like good intentions, but then when you read how it will be implemented the risks and dangers become clear. The gov should not be involved in picking the faculty or students of a private school just because the gov is a large customer of a university (paying for and receiving the benefits of research).

Nor should the gov be dictating which student orgs get kicked off campus just based on allegations. There’s a need for due process.

DEI was not about putting one group over another. It was about giving (previously wronged) groups help to reach the level enjoyed by others. I don’t agree with all the tools it used to do that, like affirmative action, but having a place to go when there is a complaint or a need for training isn’t crazy. It could be rolled into HR at some places since it’s the same kind of compliance function, but calling a student facing org HR is confusing. (Ultimately there will be a rebrand just so Trump can say he won.)

DEI brought this down on everyone. Maybe next time don't let the lunatic left FA and the world won't have to FO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

There are many concerns with the demands, but here are three:

-Harvard is being told they have to end recognition of student orgs merely accused of things, not proven to have done those things. Many of the allegations have been disputed.

-Affirmative action and DEI aren’t the same. DEI can still play a role in ensuring no discrimination, but they are being told even that is not allowed.

- Most seriously, Harvard employees and students would be immediately evaluated for “viewpoint diversity. ” If not satisfying the gov, future hires and admits would need to reach whatever level of parity the gov sees fit. Viewpoint diversity is a subjective assessment, and easily corrupted to disallow academic criticism of public policy. That would remove yet another “check,” as the politicians studied by academics would now control the hiring of those asking the questions, not unlike what just happened with the WH press corps.

Can the gov withhold Harvard funding if their demands aren’t met? Possibly, but that doesn’t make it right, as the courts exist to determine compliance with the law, not to tell us what laws we should have. Much of this hasn’t been attempted before in this country, so at least some of the relevant laws are vague. If they do pull it off, why would the top researchers and students in the world stay when they are in high demand by countries not policing thought?

So the anti Asian discrimination revealed by the sffa case doesn't disturb you?

We have a court system to handle SFFA and discrimination issues. That is how it is supposed to work.

BTW, if you think what Trump is doing is to help Asian students, I have a bridge to sell you. It may help them marginally, but that is not the purpose.

[Anonymous]

Federal government can and should terminate Harvard's participation in federal student financial aid programs including loans, grants etc. Let racist Harvard pay for ALL student aid for their under and graduate students. I don’t think Harvard can withstand that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No you are looking at different things. Viewpoint diversity is about making sure all viewpoints are welcomed. DEI has morphed into putting one group over another based on past wrong etc.

False

True

Troll

Stop signing your name.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No you are looking at different things. Viewpoint diversity is about making sure all viewpoints are welcomed. DEI has morphed into putting one group over another based on past wrong etc.

I understand the sales pitch, but the mechanism is spelled out in the letter. Each paragraph starts off with what sound like good intentions, but then when you read how it will be implemented the risks and dangers become clear. The gov should not be involved in picking the faculty or students of a private school just because the gov is a large customer of a university (paying for and receiving the benefits of research).

Nor should the gov be dictating which student orgs get kicked off campus just based on allegations. There’s a need for due process.

DEI was not about putting one group over another. It was about giving (previously wronged) groups help to reach the level enjoyed by others. I don’t agree with all the tools it used to do that, like affirmative action, but having a place to go when there is a complaint or a need for training isn’t crazy. It could be rolled into HR at some places since it’s the same kind of compliance function, but calling a student facing org HR is confusing. (Ultimately there will be a rebrand just so Trump can say he won.)

And how comfortable did you feel expressing your opposition to affirmative action?

Sure it's reactionary and it's probably an over reaction but so we're the BLM riots and people seemed to have all sorts of excuses for those.

Decades of anti Asian discrimination and anyone that questioned it was called a racist until finally the term racist no longer held any meaning and now we have this would be tyrant. And still, the only thing that people don't like is the tariffs and the change approach to cutting government. His attacks on places like Harvard are not hurting him... Not one bit.

Between the racism against the white and Asians, the legacy preferences, and the liberal elitism, nobody is going to stand up for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

You're really thick in the head. We have the 1st amendment. We have this thing called a Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s extortion. No previous White House has ever tried to use the power of the state to steer the nation’s preeminent institutions of higher learning in an ideological direction favored by the president.

“U.S. research universities, and the federal funding that supports them, are one major reason Americans have collected more Nobel Prizes than citizens of any other country. They also help make the United States the world’s innovation engine and the top destination for foreign students. No other country is as adept at converting raw human talent and ideas into cutting-edge products. Research universities anchor innovation clusters such as Silicon Valley, which in turn fuel the country’s economic growth.”

Nearly a month ago, for example, Columbia University agreed to most of the White House’s demands in the hopes that Trump and his team would restore $400 million in federal funding. Not only were those hopes soon dashed — Columbia didn’t get its money back — but the administration soon after proposed installing oversight personnel to help run the school in ways that would make the president happy.

In effect, the White House responded to Columbia’s appeasement by trying in part to take over Columbia.

+100

People cheering for this are puppets. It’s the beginning of a fascist regime. They want to control all of the elite universities so there are no alternative ideas or push back. Much like firing all the IGs.

Obama sent letters threatening universities to install DEI or lose funding. Full compliance.

It is the government's responsibility to uphold civil rights and non-discrimination laws. Call it "control" if you want - but it's controlling fairness.
The Trump administration's demands work against civil rights and are controlling ideology they agree with and eliminating opposing views. That is not appropriate government "control."
It isn't federal regulations or government policies that are to blame if students with more conservative views don't feel comfortable expressing those views on their campus, or similarly employees in a company. That's the result of the school and the company's chosen practices.
Is Trump going after Liberty University for being too conservative or too Christian?

That's funny because a private party has to file a lawsuit to stop them from racially discriminating against Asians.

Did the government prevent them from demanding diversity statements as part of the hiring process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax exempt status next.

It's absurd the Harvard pays no taxes and gets $9B of federal money. Meanwhile their class sizes remain tiny, while they talk about equity and privilege, and play racial discrimination games where a black student has 10x the odds of getting in than an Asian American student with similar stats across all achievement deciles.

Please share a post SCOTUS ruling source for that statistic.

I happen to disfavor affirmative action too, but am often surprised how many rail against that while fine with athletic recruiting. They have the highest admit rates of all, and these are supposed to be academic institutions. Some people are just born more athletic; an average person can’t get recruited with just hard work the way they can get good grades or test scores with just hard work.

Not to be contrary but you can't get a top 1% SAT score just by trying real hard.