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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

That’s literally the whole point of civil rights legislation.

Black people can eat at the diner counter and Jewish students can walk across the campus without being harassed.

+1

😂😂😂 +1, indeed

PP wants to equate (A) centuries of slavery, lynching, systemic violence and mistreatment, violations of civil rights under color of law, vigilante racism, etc. with (B) college students who are uncomfortable hearing or seeing criticisms about a foreign country - a country whose policies and actions, mind you, have been condemned over and over again by essentially the entire planet.

I guess we have to suspend disbelief and listen to dipshits tell us that words hurt more than white phosphorus bombs dropped on churches and shelters. Oh, the feelings of it all …

So you don't believe Jews should be protected. We get it. We disagree.

Wrong. I believe in equal rights for all, including Jewish Americans.

But what are you referring to
… protected from what? From having to see or hear criticisms of Israel, a foreign nation scorned by the entire planet for its policies and actions? Yeah, you can F right the F off if that’s what you’re arguing they “should be protected” from. Nobody has a right to silence others.

Now it’s your turn - cite where Jewish American college students these past two years have faced mistreatment in the same universe of what African Americans and others (Arab Americans, Asian Americans, women, LGBTQ, etc.) have faced here in America for centuries … or just point me to where Jewish American students were attacked these past two years like the anti-war protestors were attacked by pro-Israel terrorists out on the West Coast last spring. Just one example will suffice … we’ll wait.

DP. If you believe in equal rights for all, why are you comparing the suffering of different Americans? You either believe everyone should be protected, or you don't. If you do, then you should be the first one calling for Harvard and other schools to protect their rights. But you're not. Instead, you're trying to minimize their suffering.

If protecting all civil rights was the goal than it wouldn’t be focused on antisemitism and specific schools would not be singled out as I guarantee all schools have faced issues. Further, what is needed to resolve the issue wouldn’t be targeting certain topics of study.

It's called executive (or prosecutorial) discretion. The DOJ has done so under many Democratic presidents. As for certain topics of study being targeted, please provide examples.

The administration does not have the legal right to make any of those demands they listed in the letter. You are also confusing government agencies or or didn’t actually read the demand letter. The letter to Harvard was signed by the Department of Education, HHS and GSA. The DOJ did not sign the letter.

What part of "executive discretion" did you not understand. DOJ was cited d as an example. The administration clearly thinks Harvard's actions are unlawful (and egregious) and has decided to make an example of it for other universities. Are you saying it can't do that? What happened to letting the courts decide?

The letter isn’t enforceable.

Removing tax exempt status is also unlawful. A president can’t directly or indirectly remove tax exempt status. What did Trump do? Tweet about it. That man is incapable of keeping his trap shut.

Groups have their tax exempt status removed all the time. If Harvard is not acting in the public interest, they can have their tax exempt status removed. Just as Bob Jones University had its tax exempt status removed because it didn't allow interracial dating.

Are you saying Harvard is racially discriminating?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Has Harvard stopped its racial discrimination?

WTF are you going on about? This is about the RWNJs dictating what will be taught, who will teach it, what can not be taught and who can attend Harvard. This is Mao Tse-tung thought police and you are Trumps Red Guard.

Wow. So, this is how democracy does in darkness. Criticism of only one party is allowed. Proof that goose steppers also vote blue and wear blue.

Most people that typically support Democrats will admit that nominating Biden in 2020 was a mistake because his unfitness wound up making it possible for an even bigger mistake to win a second POTUS term in 2024. Being honest with yourself by admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence that leads to not repeating mistakes. Very few people who mistakenly supported Trump have admitted to their mistake and most of them have repeated that mistake.

What does all this mean? The average Dem is a few notches up the IQ ladder from the average Republican.

Agree that admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence. Comparing one party to another is ridiculous. Side A being slightly less ((bad characteristic)) than side B on an issue doesn’t mean that side Ą is good. What the PP upthread failed to understand is that some do-good policies at Harvard lead to discriminatory behaviors. They cannot see that because they see that is somehow exempts them from criticism and feel the need to shut down such comments. THAT is also totalitarian behavior. Free speech is only free if it supports the correct side (or the side in office).

Please tell us which "side" is "correct". All we've had to witness in recent years is a bunch of pathetic losers losing to another group of pathetic losers.

The side that doesn't discriminate based on race

Nice try but that factor eliminates both "sides" from the realm of righteousness.

And so it should. A pox on both their houses. But they discriminate against different groups so it yield different results.

Republicans are nativist, white supremacists, racist against urm, and anti intellectual.

Democrats are elitist, white supremacist, racist against Asians, bigoted against pre and working class whites, and anti merit.

There are no good options just the least of two evils.

This is bullsh*t. Dems are not racist against Asians and do believe in merit. We just believe that everyone should at least get a chance to compete. The Republicans have shown over and over again that they do not believe in merit. Look at Trump's cabinet.

Every Senate Democrat voted against an amendment to deny funds to colleges that discriminated against Asians.

That’s because colleges at large don’t discriminate against Asians. They just don’t allow them to be an overwhelmingly majority of their class. They try to balance the dynamics of the class.

And how do they accomplish this?

By discriminating against them.

+1

I wish they would at least admit the obvious: they support systemic racism against Asians and whites for the benefit of everyone else. They do not want admissions to be based on merit. They want them to be based on a preconceived notion of what the student body should physically look like.

Actually what should be obvious is that Harvard — should get to use their own definitions of “merit “ rather than yours or the desiccated Edward Blum’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

That’s literally the whole point of civil rights legislation.

Black people can eat at the diner counter and Jewish students can walk across the campus without being harassed.

+1

😂😂😂 +1, indeed

PP wants to equate (A) centuries of slavery, lynching, systemic violence and mistreatment, violations of civil rights under color of law, vigilante racism, etc. with (B) college students who are uncomfortable hearing or seeing criticisms about a foreign country - a country whose policies and actions, mind you, have been condemned over and over again by essentially the entire planet.

I guess we have to suspend disbelief and listen to dipshits tell us that words hurt more than white phosphorus bombs dropped on churches and shelters. Oh, the feelings of it all …

So you don't believe Jews should be protected. We get it. We disagree.

Wrong. I believe in equal rights for all, including Jewish Americans.

But what are you referring to
… protected from what? From having to see or hear criticisms of Israel, a foreign nation scorned by the entire planet for its policies and actions? Yeah, you can F right the F off if that’s what you’re arguing they “should be protected” from. Nobody has a right to silence others.

Now it’s your turn - cite where Jewish American college students these past two years have faced mistreatment in the same universe of what African Americans and others (Arab Americans, Asian Americans, women, LGBTQ, etc.) have faced here in America for centuries … or just point me to where Jewish American students were attacked these past two years like the anti-war protestors were attacked by pro-Israel terrorists out on the West Coast last spring. Just one example will suffice … we’ll wait.

DP. If you believe in equal rights for all, why are you comparing the suffering of different Americans? You either believe everyone should be protected, or you don't. If you do, then you should be the first one calling for Harvard and other schools to protect their rights. But you're not. Instead, you're trying to minimize their suffering.

If protecting all civil rights was the goal than it wouldn’t be focused on antisemitism and specific schools would not be singled out as I guarantee all schools have faced issues. Further, what is needed to resolve the issue wouldn’t be targeting certain topics of study.

Very well said!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apnews.com/article/trump-harvard-tax-exempt-status-international-students-07a10958bf078cb04b59d1fc9a3a27a8

Why does Harvard even enroll international students?

You're right. Maybe smart, ambitious foreign students should just stay in their sh*thole countries. And mybe American students shuold stop syudying abroad, as well.

Why do we want rich students from *those* countries? When there is so much unmet demand here in the US that is. I know they only want rich international Asians.

Well said.

Many foreign students, especially at top universities, steal intellectual property and engage in anti American activities.

They are guests and they sh6be deported if they do not act like guests.

Apple was started by a furener you know. Many of our companies are started by students who come from other countries and stay. We want the best and brightest to go to China? Our education is proving to be lacking. Our young people can’t even pass the military aptitude test.

Really? Which one? The one born in California? Or the other one born in California?

[Anonymous]

I asked the question earlier in this thread, and no one responded. We should take a look at their recent admissions. They told the court that black and Hispanic numbers would drop substantially if they were not allowed to discriminate by race. If they still have the same numbers then they are either discriminating by race, or they lied to the courts.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Harvard stopped its racial discrimination?

WTF are you going on about? This is about the RWNJs dictating what will be taught, who will teach it, what can not be taught and who can attend Harvard. This is Mao Tse-tung thought police and you are Trumps Red Guard.

Wow. So, this is how democracy does in darkness. Criticism of only one party is allowed. Proof that goose steppers also vote blue and wear blue.

Most people that typically support Democrats will admit that nominating Biden in 2020 was a mistake because his unfitness wound up making it possible for an even bigger mistake to win a second POTUS term in 2024. Being honest with yourself by admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence that leads to not repeating mistakes. Very few people who mistakenly supported Trump have admitted to their mistake and most of them have repeated that mistake.

What does all this mean? The average Dem is a few notches up the IQ ladder from the average Republican.

Agree that admitting mistakes is a sign of intelligence. Comparing one party to another is ridiculous. Side A being slightly less ((bad characteristic)) than side B on an issue doesn’t mean that side Ą is good. What the PP upthread failed to understand is that some do-good policies at Harvard lead to discriminatory behaviors. They cannot see that because they see that is somehow exempts them from criticism and feel the need to shut down such comments. THAT is also totalitarian behavior. Free speech is only free if it supports the correct side (or the side in office).

Please tell us which "side" is "correct". All we've had to witness in recent years is a bunch of pathetic losers losing to another group of pathetic losers.

The side that doesn't discriminate based on race

Nice try but that factor eliminates both "sides" from the realm of righteousness.

And so it should. A pox on both their houses. But they discriminate against different groups so it yield different results.

Republicans are nativist, white supremacists, racist against urm, and anti intellectual.

Democrats are elitist, white supremacist, racist against Asians, bigoted against pre and working class whites, and anti merit.

There are no good options just the least of two evils.

This is bullsh*t. Dems are not racist against Asians and do believe in merit. We just believe that everyone should at least get a chance to compete. The Republicans have shown over and over again that they do not believe in merit. Look at Trump's cabinet.

Every Senate Democrat voted against an amendment to deny funds to colleges that discriminated against Asians.

That’s because colleges at large don’t discriminate against Asians. They just don’t allow them to be an overwhelmingly majority of their class. They try to balance the dynamics of the class.

And how do they accomplish this?

By discriminating against them.

+1

I wish they would at least admit the obvious: they support systemic racism against Asians and whites for the benefit of everyone else. They do not want admissions to be based on merit. They want them to be based on a preconceived notion of what the student body should physically look like.

Actually what should be obvious is that Harvard — should get to use their own definitions of “merit “ rather than yours or the desiccated Edward Blum’s.

Fine by me. They just have to do that without discriminating based on race. In court it was shown they did not do that.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

That’s literally the whole point of civil rights legislation.

Black people can eat at the diner counter and Jewish students can walk across the campus without being harassed.

+1

😂😂😂 +1, indeed

PP wants to equate (A) centuries of slavery, lynching, systemic violence and mistreatment, violations of civil rights under color of law, vigilante racism, etc. with (B) college students who are uncomfortable hearing or seeing criticisms about a foreign country - a country whose policies and actions, mind you, have been condemned over and over again by essentially the entire planet.

I guess we have to suspend disbelief and listen to dipshits tell us that words hurt more than white phosphorus bombs dropped on churches and shelters. Oh, the feelings of it all …

So you don't believe Jews should be protected. We get it. We disagree.

Wrong. I believe in equal rights for all, including Jewish Americans.

But what are you referring to
… protected from what? From having to see or hear criticisms of Israel, a foreign nation scorned by the entire planet for its policies and actions? Yeah, you can F right the F off if that’s what you’re arguing they “should be protected” from. Nobody has a right to silence others.

Now it’s your turn - cite where Jewish American college students these past two years have faced mistreatment in the same universe of what African Americans and others (Arab Americans, Asian Americans, women, LGBTQ, etc.) have faced here in America for centuries … or just point me to where Jewish American students were attacked these past two years like the anti-war protestors were attacked by pro-Israel terrorists out on the West Coast last spring. Just one example will suffice … we’ll wait.

DP. If you believe in equal rights for all, why are you comparing the suffering of different Americans? You either believe everyone should be protected, or you don't. If you do, then you should be the first one calling for Harvard and other schools to protect their rights. But you're not. Instead, you're trying to minimize their suffering.

If protecting all civil rights was the goal than it wouldn’t be focused on antisemitism and specific schools would not be singled out as I guarantee all schools have faced issues. Further, what is needed to resolve the issue wouldn’t be targeting certain topics of study.

It's called executive (or prosecutorial) discretion. The DOJ has done so under many Democratic presidents. As for certain topics of study being targeted, please provide examples.

The administration does not have the legal right to make any of those demands they listed in the letter. You are also confusing government agencies or or didn’t actually read the demand letter. The letter to Harvard was signed by the Department of Education, HHS and GSA. The DOJ did not sign the letter.

What part of "executive discretion" did you not understand. DOJ was cited d as an example. The administration clearly thinks Harvard's actions are unlawful (and egregious) and has decided to make an example of it for other universities. Are you saying it can't do that? What happened to letting the courts decide?

The letter isn’t enforceable.

Removing tax exempt status is also unlawful. A president can’t directly or indirectly remove tax exempt status. What did Trump do? Tweet about it. That man is incapable of keeping his trap shut.

Groups have their tax exempt status removed all the time. If Harvard is not acting in the public interest, they can have their tax exempt status removed. Just as Bob Jones University had its tax exempt status removed because it didn't allow interracial dating.

Blah blah blah. Trump is targeting universities because they will argue against his unlawful conduct, expose his lies, educate people who will question his motives and his actions. Trump wants to shut down all avenues of possible dissent. This is an assault on democracy and free speech. Full stop. This is How to Build an Autocracy 101.

Trump has demonstrated time and again in his personal and political dealings that he has no respect for the law and no intention to follow it. Any of you pretending there are legitimate reasons he is targeting these universities are FOS and are supporters of the impending dictatorship.

Any University out there has things they can improve on. Trump isn't doing anything that indicates a real intent to improve things. There is no good faith here. He just wants everyone under his thumb. He just wants to wreck things. Shame on you if you go along with this transparent nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Yep. Federal government will have to pay for it now.

Are you an idiot??? You think the government has need for intellectual property?? The government exists only to destroy thought, research and advancement. They won’t be buying IP…

Your naïveté is pathetic

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

That’s literally the whole point of civil rights legislation.

Black people can eat at the diner counter and Jewish students can walk across the campus without being harassed.

+1

😂😂😂 +1, indeed

PP wants to equate (A) centuries of slavery, lynching, systemic violence and mistreatment, violations of civil rights under color of law, vigilante racism, etc. with (B) college students who are uncomfortable hearing or seeing criticisms about a foreign country - a country whose policies and actions, mind you, have been condemned over and over again by essentially the entire planet.

I guess we have to suspend disbelief and listen to dipshits tell us that words hurt more than white phosphorus bombs dropped on churches and shelters. Oh, the feelings of it all …

So you don't believe Jews should be protected. We get it. We disagree.

Wrong. I believe in equal rights for all, including Jewish Americans.

But what are you referring to
… protected from what? From having to see or hear criticisms of Israel, a foreign nation scorned by the entire planet for its policies and actions? Yeah, you can F right the F off if that’s what you’re arguing they “should be protected” from. Nobody has a right to silence others.

Now it’s your turn - cite where Jewish American college students these past two years have faced mistreatment in the same universe of what African Americans and others (Arab Americans, Asian Americans, women, LGBTQ, etc.) have faced here in America for centuries … or just point me to where Jewish American students were attacked these past two years like the anti-war protestors were attacked by pro-Israel terrorists out on the West Coast last spring. Just one example will suffice … we’ll wait.

DP. If you believe in equal rights for all, why are you comparing the suffering of different Americans? You either believe everyone should be protected, or you don't. If you do, then you should be the first one calling for Harvard and other schools to protect their rights. But you're not. Instead, you're trying to minimize their suffering.

If protecting all civil rights was the goal than it wouldn’t be focused on antisemitism and specific schools would not be singled out as I guarantee all schools have faced issues. Further, what is needed to resolve the issue wouldn’t be targeting certain topics of study.

It's called executive (or prosecutorial) discretion. The DOJ has done so under many Democratic presidents. As for certain topics of study being targeted, please provide examples.

The administration does not have the legal right to make any of those demands they listed in the letter. You are also confusing government agencies or or didn’t actually read the demand letter. The letter to Harvard was signed by the Department of Education, HHS and GSA. The DOJ did not sign the letter.

What part of "executive discretion" did you not understand. DOJ was cited d as an example. The administration clearly thinks Harvard's actions are unlawful (and egregious) and has decided to make an example of it for other universities. Are you saying it can't do that? What happened to letting the courts decide?

The letter isn’t enforceable.

Removing tax exempt status is also unlawful. A president can’t directly or indirectly remove tax exempt status. What did Trump do? Tweet about it. That man is incapable of keeping his trap shut.

Groups have their tax exempt status removed all the time. If Harvard is not acting in the public interest, they can have their tax exempt status removed. Just as Bob Jones University had its tax exempt status removed because it didn't allow interracial dating.

Are you saying Harvard is racially discriminating?

Yes, they were.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

That’s literally the whole point of civil rights legislation.

Black people can eat at the diner counter and Jewish students can walk across the campus without being harassed.

+1

😂😂😂 +1, indeed

PP wants to equate (A) centuries of slavery, lynching, systemic violence and mistreatment, violations of civil rights under color of law, vigilante racism, etc. with (B) college students who are uncomfortable hearing or seeing criticisms about a foreign country - a country whose policies and actions, mind you, have been condemned over and over again by essentially the entire planet.

I guess we have to suspend disbelief and listen to dipshits tell us that words hurt more than white phosphorus bombs dropped on churches and shelters. Oh, the feelings of it all …

So you don't believe Jews should be protected. We get it. We disagree.

Wrong. I believe in equal rights for all, including Jewish Americans.

But what are you referring to
… protected from what? From having to see or hear criticisms of Israel, a foreign nation scorned by the entire planet for its policies and actions? Yeah, you can F right the F off if that’s what you’re arguing they “should be protected” from. Nobody has a right to silence others.

Now it’s your turn - cite where Jewish American college students these past two years have faced mistreatment in the same universe of what African Americans and others (Arab Americans, Asian Americans, women, LGBTQ, etc.) have faced here in America for centuries … or just point me to where Jewish American students were attacked these past two years like the anti-war protestors were attacked by pro-Israel terrorists out on the West Coast last spring. Just one example will suffice … we’ll wait.

DP. If you believe in equal rights for all, why are you comparing the suffering of different Americans? You either believe everyone should be protected, or you don't. If you do, then you should be the first one calling for Harvard and other schools to protect their rights. But you're not. Instead, you're trying to minimize their suffering.

If you think we need the federal government attacking a private academic institution, trying to blackmail them into creating two classes of students, and threatening to weaponize the IRS to revoke their nonprofit status in response to 100% lawful assembly and 100% lawful speech (both protected under our constitution), you are a clear enemy of the state and should be treated as such.

It may be lawful speech, but there is an extra factor. Does Harvard treat all lawful speech the same way?

+1 the million dollar question

What are you even talking about?

We’ve yet to see any argument, much less a credible, sober one, suggesting that Harvard doesn’t treat all lawful speech the same way. All we’ve seen are false claims by the administration and blatant efforts to dismantle essential protections enshrined in the Constitution hundreds of years ago.

However, what the administration is attempting to accomplish on college campuses (and in the public square) is explicitly designed to criminalize speech critical of a foreign state. And to require punishment of such speech that violates the core underpinnings of the Constitution.

THAT would be failing to treat all speech the same way.

They would rather keep discriminating against Asians rather than take billions. That just about sums it up.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

That’s literally the whole point of civil rights legislation.

Black people can eat at the diner counter and Jewish students can walk across the campus without being harassed.

+1

😂😂😂 +1, indeed

PP wants to equate (A) centuries of slavery, lynching, systemic violence and mistreatment, violations of civil rights under color of law, vigilante racism, etc. with (B) college students who are uncomfortable hearing or seeing criticisms about a foreign country - a country whose policies and actions, mind you, have been condemned over and over again by essentially the entire planet.

I guess we have to suspend disbelief and listen to dipshits tell us that words hurt more than white phosphorus bombs dropped on churches and shelters. Oh, the feelings of it all …

So you don't believe Jews should be protected. We get it. We disagree.

Wrong. I believe in equal rights for all, including Jewish Americans.

But what are you referring to
… protected from what? From having to see or hear criticisms of Israel, a foreign nation scorned by the entire planet for its policies and actions? Yeah, you can F right the F off if that’s what you’re arguing they “should be protected” from. Nobody has a right to silence others.

Now it’s your turn - cite where Jewish American college students these past two years have faced mistreatment in the same universe of what African Americans and others (Arab Americans, Asian Americans, women, LGBTQ, etc.) have faced here in America for centuries … or just point me to where Jewish American students were attacked these past two years like the anti-war protestors were attacked by pro-Israel terrorists out on the West Coast last spring. Just one example will suffice … we’ll wait.

DP. If you believe in equal rights for all, why are you comparing the suffering of different Americans? You either believe everyone should be protected, or you don't. If you do, then you should be the first one calling for Harvard and other schools to protect their rights. But you're not. Instead, you're trying to minimize their suffering.

If you think we need the federal government attacking a private academic institution, trying to blackmail them into creating two classes of students, and threatening to weaponize the IRS to revoke their nonprofit status in response to 100% lawful assembly and 100% lawful speech (both protected under our constitution), you are a clear enemy of the state and should be treated as such.

It may be lawful speech, but there is an extra factor. Does Harvard treat all lawful speech the same way?

+1 the million dollar question

What are you even talking about?

We’ve yet to see any argument, much less a credible, sober one, suggesting that Harvard doesn’t treat all lawful speech the same way. All we’ve seen are false claims by the administration and blatant efforts to dismantle essential protections enshrined in the Constitution hundreds of years ago.

However, what the administration is attempting to accomplish on college campuses (and in the public square) is explicitly designed to criminalize speech critical of a foreign state. And to require punishment of such speech that violates the core underpinnings of the Constitution.

THAT would be failing to treat all speech the same way.

They would rather keep discriminating against Asians rather than take billions. That just about sums it up.

The perceived discrimination against Asian Americans (and white males) is a red herring in this effort to punish Harvard. Meanwhile, you’re suggesting that this administration is out there seeking to level the admissions playing field for … Asian Americans?

Nice try, though.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

That’s literally the whole point of civil rights legislation.

Black people can eat at the diner counter and Jewish students can walk across the campus without being harassed.

+1

😂😂😂 +1, indeed

PP wants to equate (A) centuries of slavery, lynching, systemic violence and mistreatment, violations of civil rights under color of law, vigilante racism, etc. with (B) college students who are uncomfortable hearing or seeing criticisms about a foreign country - a country whose policies and actions, mind you, have been condemned over and over again by essentially the entire planet.

I guess we have to suspend disbelief and listen to dipshits tell us that words hurt more than white phosphorus bombs dropped on churches and shelters. Oh, the feelings of it all …

So you don't believe Jews should be protected. We get it. We disagree.

Wrong. I believe in equal rights for all, including Jewish Americans.

But what are you referring to
… protected from what? From having to see or hear criticisms of Israel, a foreign nation scorned by the entire planet for its policies and actions? Yeah, you can F right the F off if that’s what you’re arguing they “should be protected” from. Nobody has a right to silence others.

Now it’s your turn - cite where Jewish American college students these past two years have faced mistreatment in the same universe of what African Americans and others (Arab Americans, Asian Americans, women, LGBTQ, etc.) have faced here in America for centuries … or just point me to where Jewish American students were attacked these past two years like the anti-war protestors were attacked by pro-Israel terrorists out on the West Coast last spring. Just one example will suffice … we’ll wait.

DP. If you believe in equal rights for all, why are you comparing the suffering of different Americans? You either believe everyone should be protected, or you don't. If you do, then you should be the first one calling for Harvard and other schools to protect their rights. But you're not. Instead, you're trying to minimize their suffering.

If you think we need the federal government attacking a private academic institution, trying to blackmail them into creating two classes of students, and threatening to weaponize the IRS to revoke their nonprofit status in response to 100% lawful assembly and 100% lawful speech (both protected under our constitution), you are a clear enemy of the state and should be treated as such.

It may be lawful speech, but there is an extra factor. Does Harvard treat all lawful speech the same way?

+1 the million dollar question

What are you even talking about?

We’ve yet to see any argument, much less a credible, sober one, suggesting that Harvard doesn’t treat all lawful speech the same way. All we’ve seen are false claims by the administration and blatant efforts to dismantle essential protections enshrined in the Constitution hundreds of years ago.

However, what the administration is attempting to accomplish on college campuses (and in the public square) is explicitly designed to criminalize speech critical of a foreign state. And to require punishment of such speech that violates the core underpinnings of the Constitution.

THAT would be failing to treat all speech the same way.

They would rather keep discriminating against Asians rather than take billions. That just about sums it up.

The perceived discrimination against Asian Americans (and white males) is a red herring in this effort to punish Harvard. Meanwhile, you’re suggesting that this administration is out there seeking to level the admissions playing field for … Asian Americans?

Nice try, though.

Yes, why would this poster think this has anything to do with Asian Americans going to Harvard or that Trump ever spends a fraction of any second ever thinking about Asian Americans going to Harvard.

If there's an Asian American out there that can give Trump money... Maybe they would get some attention. Outside of that, Trump could not care less.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

That’s literally the whole point of civil rights legislation.

Black people can eat at the diner counter and Jewish students can walk across the campus without being harassed.

+1

😂😂😂 +1, indeed

PP wants to equate (A) centuries of slavery, lynching, systemic violence and mistreatment, violations of civil rights under color of law, vigilante racism, etc. with (B) college students who are uncomfortable hearing or seeing criticisms about a foreign country - a country whose policies and actions, mind you, have been condemned over and over again by essentially the entire planet.

I guess we have to suspend disbelief and listen to dipshits tell us that words hurt more than white phosphorus bombs dropped on churches and shelters. Oh, the feelings of it all …

So you don't believe Jews should be protected. We get it. We disagree.

Wrong. I believe in equal rights for all, including Jewish Americans.

But what are you referring to
… protected from what? From having to see or hear criticisms of Israel, a foreign nation scorned by the entire planet for its policies and actions? Yeah, you can F right the F off if that’s what you’re arguing they “should be protected” from. Nobody has a right to silence others.

Now it’s your turn - cite where Jewish American college students these past two years have faced mistreatment in the same universe of what African Americans and others (Arab Americans, Asian Americans, women, LGBTQ, etc.) have faced here in America for centuries … or just point me to where Jewish American students were attacked these past two years like the anti-war protestors were attacked by pro-Israel terrorists out on the West Coast last spring. Just one example will suffice … we’ll wait.

DP. If you believe in equal rights for all, why are you comparing the suffering of different Americans? You either believe everyone should be protected, or you don't. If you do, then you should be the first one calling for Harvard and other schools to protect their rights. But you're not. Instead, you're trying to minimize their suffering.

If protecting all civil rights was the goal than it wouldn’t be focused on antisemitism and specific schools would not be singled out as I guarantee all schools have faced issues. Further, what is needed to resolve the issue wouldn’t be targeting certain topics of study.

It's called executive (or prosecutorial) discretion. The DOJ has done so under many Democratic presidents. As for certain topics of study being targeted, please provide examples.

The administration does not have the legal right to make any of those demands they listed in the letter. You are also confusing government agencies or or didn’t actually read the demand letter. The letter to Harvard was signed by the Department of Education, HHS and GSA. The DOJ did not sign the letter.

What part of "executive discretion" did you not understand. DOJ was cited d as an example. The administration clearly thinks Harvard's actions are unlawful (and egregious) and has decided to make an example of it for other universities. Are you saying it can't do that? What happened to letting the courts decide?

The letter isn’t enforceable.

Removing tax exempt status is also unlawful. A president can’t directly or indirectly remove tax exempt status. What did Trump do? Tweet about it. That man is incapable of keeping his trap shut.

Groups have their tax exempt status removed all the time. If Harvard is not acting in the public interest, they can have their tax exempt status removed. Just as Bob Jones University had its tax exempt status removed because it didn't allow interracial dating.

Blah blah blah. Trump is targeting universities because they will argue against his unlawful conduct, expose his lies, educate people who will question his motives and his actions. Trump wants to shut down all avenues of possible dissent. This is an assault on democracy and free speech. Full stop. This is How to Build an Autocracy 101.

Trump has demonstrated time and again in his personal and political dealings that he has no respect for the law and no intention to follow it. Any of you pretending there are legitimate reasons he is targeting these universities are FOS and are supporters of the impending dictatorship.

Any University out there has things they can improve on. Trump isn't doing anything that indicates a real intent to improve things. There is no good faith here. He just wants everyone under his thumb. He just wants to wreck things. Shame on you if you go along with this transparent nonsense.

You are claiming Trump is doing this because he wants to go after his political opponents?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current student at Harvard and I don't approve. Harvard has to comply with civil rights laws. I have to comply with them, you have to comply, employers have to comply, and universities have to comply too.

How is this a violation of civil rights laws?

Have you read the letter from the administration? A quick summary: Harvard must immediately begin choosing applicants based on merit and not based on race, sex, etc. Harvard must discipline the students who participated in the hate crime of assaulting Jewish students in 2023. Harvard must stop including antisemitic texts or materials in its curriculum.

All of these are civil rights issues. Let's play a game. If it had been white supremacists beating black students, would that be a civil rights issue? If the request was to stop teaching materials racist against black people, would that not be a civil rights issue? And re admissions, either you believe in merit based evaluations or you believe in giving advantages to certain races. SCOTUS has been very clear that choosing based on race is a civil rights violation.

That's a very fancy way of saying the government can require all people to be nice to Jews under penalty of whatever. If that is the government you wish for, please exercise your right of return.

That’s literally the whole point of civil rights legislation.

Black people can eat at the diner counter and Jewish students can walk across the campus without being harassed.

+1

😂😂😂 +1, indeed

PP wants to equate (A) centuries of slavery, lynching, systemic violence and mistreatment, violations of civil rights under color of law, vigilante racism, etc. with (B) college students who are uncomfortable hearing or seeing criticisms about a foreign country - a country whose policies and actions, mind you, have been condemned over and over again by essentially the entire planet.

I guess we have to suspend disbelief and listen to dipshits tell us that words hurt more than white phosphorus bombs dropped on churches and shelters. Oh, the feelings of it all …

So you don't believe Jews should be protected. We get it. We disagree.

Wrong. I believe in equal rights for all, including Jewish Americans.

But what are you referring to
… protected from what? From having to see or hear criticisms of Israel, a foreign nation scorned by the entire planet for its policies and actions? Yeah, you can F right the F off if that’s what you’re arguing they “should be protected” from. Nobody has a right to silence others.

Now it’s your turn - cite where Jewish American college students these past two years have faced mistreatment in the same universe of what African Americans and others (Arab Americans, Asian Americans, women, LGBTQ, etc.) have faced here in America for centuries … or just point me to where Jewish American students were attacked these past two years like the anti-war protestors were attacked by pro-Israel terrorists out on the West Coast last spring. Just one example will suffice … we’ll wait.

DP. If you believe in equal rights for all, why are you comparing the suffering of different Americans? You either believe everyone should be protected, or you don't. If you do, then you should be the first one calling for Harvard and other schools to protect their rights. But you're not. Instead, you're trying to minimize their suffering.

If you think we need the federal government attacking a private academic institution, trying to blackmail them into creating two classes of students, and threatening to weaponize the IRS to revoke their nonprofit status in response to 100% lawful assembly and 100% lawful speech (both protected under our constitution), you are a clear enemy of the state and should be treated as such.

It may be lawful speech, but there is an extra factor. Does Harvard treat all lawful speech the same way?

+1 the million dollar question

What are you even talking about?

We’ve yet to see any argument, much less a credible, sober one, suggesting that Harvard doesn’t treat all lawful speech the same way. All we’ve seen are false claims by the administration and blatant efforts to dismantle essential protections enshrined in the Constitution hundreds of years ago.

However, what the administration is attempting to accomplish on college campuses (and in the public square) is explicitly designed to criminalize speech critical of a foreign state. And to require punishment of such speech that violates the core underpinnings of the Constitution.

THAT would be failing to treat all speech the same way.

They would rather keep discriminating against Asians rather than take billions. That just about sums it up.

The perceived discrimination against Asian Americans (and white males) is a red herring in this effort to punish Harvard. Meanwhile, you’re suggesting that this administration is out there seeking to level the admissions playing field for … Asian Americans?

Nice try, though.

DP. Well, there is discrimination based on the Left's theory of "correlation equals causation". Less Asian American students must mean that they are being discriminated against in favor of other groups.

[Anonymous]

I thought Harvard was being targeted not for racial discrimination in admissions against Asians, but for not protecting Jewish students, and not providing discipline records of students that would allow the administration to deport them?