harvard won?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like the law firms that capitulated easily, the schools that settled with Trump are looking like absolute cowards.

Eh, sometimes it is better to settle lawsuits. They don’t look like cowards…event though they were also in the right.

They absolutely did and still do look like cowards.

Anticipatory obedience to authoritarian overreach benefits no university. It’s too bad the universities didn’t band together once Trump started his illegal actions and resist uniformly. Instead Columbia caved, Brown caved and now Trump is going after every uni from George Mason to Northwestern to Duke.

Band together and do what? Starve together?

Trump is far less likely to beat a united resistance of universities that all are setting the same line in the sand. some principles are worth fighting.

Big Law firms should have done the same but I guess we all know they mostly care about making a buck and not legal principles.

He can just defund them. How would anything be different? A couple of schools that can't afford it suddenly lose their funding. And I do mean suddenly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard may have won in court yesterday, but that ruling only protects current grants. Going forward, agencies can simply choose not to award new money. Over time, losing access to fresh grants will hurt far more than the short-term win they just secured.

Well, there's a few recent data points indicating that the voters are actually not impressed with some of the choices made by the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether this crapping all over science research is permanent or temporary.

If Harvard only gets grants during democratic administration, they are cooked. Nobody is actually on Harvard's side they are just pissed at Trump.

If the research happens at Texas A&M instead of Harvard, nobody will care

[Anonymous]

It’s not over. Trump admin appealing.

President Harvard alluded there was more to come, pundits think they will eventually make a “light” agreement like Brown- ci ceding very little. It’s the only way to get the fly of your back and let him think he won.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge invalidates Trump admin’s Harvard funding freeze

The judge is Alison Burroughs. She always rules in Harvard's favor.

She is the one that ruled that Harvard wasn't discriminating against Asians in the face of obvious discrimination against Asians.

This ruling will be appealed and the first circuit will also rule in Harvard's favor and then it will go to the Supreme Court where they will settle the matter.

And that ruling was held up on appeal and was not included as part of the final appeal to the Supreme Court. And the issue decided by the Supreme Court had nothin to do with that finding.

She was still clearly wrong and engaged in contorted reasoning to get to her conclusion.

I suspect that the appeals court that completely upheld her decision doesn't agree with you.

Arcidiacono's work in support of SFFA was sloppy with very tortured reasoning. It was inadequate because it was developed to achieve the desired result as would be expected in this case. The problem was that Professor Cards rebuttal was far more comprehensive, taking into account far more weighed variables than Arcidiacono's model and very clearly showed no discrimination. It wasn't a difficult or contorted decision at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge invalidates Trump admin’s Harvard funding freeze

The judge is Alison Burroughs. She always rules in Harvard's favor.

She is the one that ruled that Harvard wasn't discriminating against Asians in the face of obvious discrimination against Asians.

This ruling will be appealed and the first circuit will also rule in Harvard's favor and then it will go to the Supreme Court where they will settle the matter.

Don't you ever get tired of being so easily proven wrong?

Harvard sued its insurance firm, the Zurich American Insurance Company, in September 2021, arguing that the firm’s refusal to cover its legal fees violated a contract between the two sides.

But on Wednesday, Judge Allison D. Burroughs sided with the insurance firm, rejecting Harvard’s argument that it did not have to notify the company of its widely-covered Students For Fair Admissions lawsuit. The ruling will force the school to pay the fees it incurred over eight years of litigation in the case.

Oopsie on your part.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/11/3/sffa-insurer-ruling/

Making an insurance company pay litigation costs does nothing to advance the woke agenda.

Little bit of copium eh?

[Anonymous]

Not sure yet if they won the battle but lost the war

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard may have won in court yesterday, but that ruling only protects current grants. Going forward, agencies can simply choose not to award new money. Over time, losing access to fresh grants will hurt far more than the short-term win they just secured.

Well, there's a few recent data points indicating that the voters are actually not impressed with some of the choices made by the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether this crapping all over science research is permanent or temporary.

If Harvard only gets grants during democratic administration, they are cooked. Nobody is actually on Harvard's side they are just pissed at Trump.

If the research happens at Texas A&M instead of Harvard, nobody will care

And then the Democrats come into power and they take away the research from Texas a&m and give it to Harvard? That is a horrible recipe for progress in scientific research.

There's a competitive process to get the research grants as there should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump doesn't follow the law (or the Constitution) tho

Trump often criticizes judges and rulings (as all presidents have) but has always ultimately followed the court rulings. Therr is not a single ruling he has persistently violated in defiance of the courts. So your comment is rubbish.

As Mark Halperin commented, don't get excited by a district court ruling. Many of these cases end up in higher courts and Trump wins plenty of those. This battle with Harvard isn't over by a long shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard may have won in court yesterday, but that ruling only protects current grants. Going forward, agencies can simply choose not to award new money. Over time, losing access to fresh grants will hurt far more than the short-term win they just secured.

Well, there's a few recent data points indicating that the voters are actually not impressed with some of the choices made by the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether this crapping all over science research is permanent or temporary.

If Harvard only gets grants during democratic administration, they are cooked. Nobody is actually on Harvard's side they are just pissed at Trump.

If the research happens at Texas A&M instead of Harvard, nobody will care

And then the Democrats come into power and they take away the research from Texas a&m and give it to Harvard? That is a horrible recipe for progress in scientific research.

There's a competitive process to get the research grants as there should be.

No. They expect Democrats to "play nice" and not do something petty to even the score. And they're probably right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge invalidates Trump admin’s Harvard funding freeze

The judge is Alison Burroughs. She always rules in Harvard's favor.

She is the one that ruled that Harvard wasn't discriminating against Asians in the face of obvious discrimination against Asians.

This ruling will be appealed and the first circuit will also rule in Harvard's favor and then it will go to the Supreme Court where they will settle the matter.

And that ruling was held up on appeal and was not included as part of the final appeal to the Supreme Court. And the issue decided by the Supreme Court had nothin to do with that finding.

She was still clearly wrong and engaged in contorted reasoning to get to her conclusion.

I suspect that the appeals court that completely upheld her decision doesn't agree with you.

Arcidiacono's work in support of SFFA was sloppy with very tortured reasoning. It was inadequate because it was developed to achieve the desired result as would be expected in this case. The problem was that Professor Cards rebuttal was far more comprehensive, taking into account far more weighed variables than Arcidiacono's model and very clearly showed no discrimination. It wasn't a difficult or contorted decision at all.

Yeah, they were wrong too.

Arcidiacono's analysis was pretty spot on. He made Card look like snake oil salesman.

And David Card's analysis was fekkin embarassing. His entire analysis relies on that the difference in personal ratings was somehow justifiable outside of the admissions office's desire to racially balance the incoming class. I don't know how card lives with his intellectual dishonesty in that case. I hope the paycheck was worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like the law firms that capitulated easily, the schools that settled with Trump are looking like absolute cowards.

Eh, sometimes it is better to settle lawsuits. They don’t look like cowards…event though they were also in the right.

They absolutely did and still do look like cowards.

They are and look like shameful cowards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard may have won in court yesterday, but that ruling only protects current grants. Going forward, agencies can simply choose not to award new money. Over time, losing access to fresh grants will hurt far more than the short-term win they just secured.

Well, there's a few recent data points indicating that the voters are actually not impressed with some of the choices made by the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether this crapping all over science research is permanent or temporary.

If Harvard only gets grants during democratic administration, they are cooked. Nobody is actually on Harvard's side they are just pissed at Trump.

If the research happens at Texas A&M instead of Harvard, nobody will care

And then the Democrats come into power and they take away the research from Texas a&m and give it to Harvard? That is a horrible recipe for progress in scientific research.

There's a competitive process to get the research grants as there should be.

No. They expect Democrats to "play nice" and not do something petty to even the score. And they're probably right.

The Democrats are pro-science and will fund science research as they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard may have won in court yesterday, but that ruling only protects current grants. Going forward, agencies can simply choose not to award new money. Over time, losing access to fresh grants will hurt far more than the short-term win they just secured.

Well, there's a few recent data points indicating that the voters are actually not impressed with some of the choices made by the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether this crapping all over science research is permanent or temporary.

If Harvard only gets grants during democratic administration, they are cooked. Nobody is actually on Harvard's side they are just pissed at Trump.

If the research happens at Texas A&M instead of Harvard, nobody will care

And then the Democrats come into power and they take away the research from Texas a&m and give it to Harvard? That is a horrible recipe for progress in scientific research.

There's a competitive process to get the research grants as there should be.

Yeah but you can exclude the anti-semitic schools like harvard from consideration.

Like the president couldn't say that it was categorically wrong to call for the genocide of jews. Remember, THAT'S the sort of institution we are dealing with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIVDL57yRN0

This was also the person who pushed Ronald Sullivan out of his deanship for representing Harvey Weinstein. Apparently you can call for the genocide of jews but you cannot represent a scumbag. The first amendment freedom of association was not important to protect in that situation but free speech is important to protect when calling for the genocide of jews?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M8pip9A1og

This is also the person that tried to get Roland Fryer's tenure revoked and fired because he published a paper that concluded what is now widely accepted, police show racial bias in the use of excessive force but do not show racial bias in use of deadly force. This undercut the BLM narrative and Claudine gay ruined the career of one of america's best young economists because he would not say the things they wanted him to say. Free speech and freedom of thought was not important to protect in that situation but it was important to protect when calling for the genocide of jews?

Harvsard has had a good run, but it might be time to shut it down. Revoke its tax exempt status and stop federal funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like the law firms that capitulated easily, the schools that settled with Trump are looking like absolute cowards.

Eh, sometimes it is better to settle lawsuits. They don’t look like cowards…event though they were also in the right.

They absolutely did and still do look like cowards.

They are and look like shameful cowards.

It's hard to have confidence in a law firm that won't fight for itself. How the hell can i expect them to fight for me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard may have won in court yesterday, but that ruling only protects current grants. Going forward, agencies can simply choose not to award new money. Over time, losing access to fresh grants will hurt far more than the short-term win they just secured.

Well, there's a few recent data points indicating that the voters are actually not impressed with some of the choices made by the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether this crapping all over science research is permanent or temporary.

If Harvard only gets grants during democratic administration, they are cooked. Nobody is actually on Harvard's side they are just pissed at Trump.

If the research happens at Texas A&M instead of Harvard, nobody will care

And then the Democrats come into power and they take away the research from Texas a&m and give it to Harvard? That is a horrible recipe for progress in scientific research.

There's a competitive process to get the research grants as there should be.

No. They expect Democrats to "play nice" and not do something petty to even the score. And they're probably right.

Texas A&M isn't even an objectively conservative institution.
There is probably an even balance of liberal and conservative students and the faculty is reliably more liberal than the student body.