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:Has anybody actually read the demands from this administration?

They want to remove all courses, students and teachers that are deemed anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian.

Funny how they can't do anything about school shootings but will do something if it hurts Israel's feelings

How many Harvard professors are conservative, pro-Trump Republicans who are allowed to freely express their viewpoints?

Why are you assuming there should be an *equal* number of people expressing Pro-Trump viewpoints. One is enough.

To me the dearth of pro-Trump viewpoints among the educated points to the fact that anyone with reasonable critical thinking skills and basic knowledge of history, government, etc. would never be pro-Trump. He's an idiot whose ideas about government are antithetical to the American system of democracy and laws.

Why should we have to shoe-horn in viewpoints that promote violence, hate, disregard of the law, disregard of human rights etc. How does that benefit everyone? Go start your own hate university.

Where did I say an equal number? You clearly don't want any opposing viewpoints. FWIW I voted for Harris with misgivings.

I clearly don't? Wrong. I would be happy to sit down with HONEST people and have a good faith discussion about economic policy, college admissions, immigration, etc etc with an old-school conservative. An old-school Republican who believes in the rule of law, the independence of the Fed, the independence of Justice Dept, separation of powers, etc.

But right now it is the TRUMP ADMINISTRATION that is actively working to quash any opposition or opposing views. And it is lying and maligning people to do so. And projecting what they are doing onto others. And having the audacity to cloak it in a bad faith lie that they give two hoots about antisemitism.

So forgive me, smug supposed Harris voter, for not wanting that brand of "viewpoint" widely disseminated. What is happening right now is so outside the norm, so dangerous for our country, that NO, I will not abide it. I do not view constant lying as a valid "viewpoint" and neither should you.

FFS wake up.

Typically, dishonesty emanates from the Liberal camps, so you might want to take a look in the mirror. Many of these liberal studies come up with conclusions that clearly contradict simple logic. Dump a bunch of poor ESL students in your neighborhood and the school is going to struggle. Liberal economists from the rich school district across town with plenty of resources, "But the economy overall improves. Diversity is good for your kids. You're just a racist"

Ok so do your own studies? Nobody is stopping Trump.

Only the rich can fund studies.

Ummm we have a massive Governemnt agency that funds (or used to fund) research. Republicans are welcome to use it for their own research goals! They don’t actually appear to have any interest or ability to do so, and would rather destroy it.

We kind of thought they would do that last go round, but I'm pretty sure they just churned out anti-Trump propaganda, can't really blame him for not needing that this time around. I mean on immigration there are all of these studies, but then how is it that Meta and Apple both got busted committing green card fraud, and there were plenty of willing and able skilled Americans applying. Doesn't make sense.

If your government funded "studies" converge on that even once, I'd take them down to the humane society, for the final put down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure which is worse, that this is a cover up, or if this is true

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-letter-mistake.htm

neither is a good look

Page not found.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-letter-mistake.html?unlocked_article_code=1.A08.KPeJ.d4ZGKndNCERQ&smid=url-share

A mistake. So much that they typed, signed it(multiple people), sent it, double downed on it. And then it’s the recipient who should have known it was a joke? Because governments are known for mistakenly and jokingly sending demand letters and threats as mistakes?

It seems the mistake was thinking anyone in this administration is serious or professional enough to be allowed in government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody actually read the demands from this administration?

They want to remove all courses, students and teachers that are deemed anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian.

Funny how they can't do anything about school shootings but will do something if it hurts Israel's feelings

How many Harvard professors are conservative, pro-Trump Republicans who are allowed to freely express their viewpoints?

Allen Dershowitz, for one.

Almost none. The Harvard Crimson’s annual survey of political views show a grotesque lack of viewpoint diversity.

Harvard has plenty of conservatives. But no scientist at any university likes Trump, and there are almost no other professors who do in any field at a serious research university, because he lies all the time, sees no need for data or logic, and uses bullying and intimidation rather than reasoned argument to get things done. while there may be a few humanities disciplines that have had problems with activism, the spirit of all academic inquiry and accomplishment is still showing data and sources, record keeping and transparency and peer review.

The rule of law and statistical analysis are not issues related to "viewpoint diversity." It is just that being "pro Trump" is incompatible with support for these pillars of any serious university level inquiry. Similarly, the need for logical, civil argument and reasoned inquiry are also seen as opposition to Trump, whatever the premise of the argument. These aspects of university discourse date back to Plato and Aristotle (who, btw, were quite conservative in their political leanings). Professors thus tend overwhelmingly to see these norms as central to their way of thinking, and thus find support of Trump incompatible with university level thinking.

And yes, of course, this whole letter has nothing to do with "viewpoint diversity," and is really just about control, power, and Trump's bottomless need for obsequious flattery he shares with all dictators and aspiring dictators.

By “plenty” you mean <5%? See link below.

As for the rest, you're being deliberately obtuse.

No one is arguing that universities need hire MAGA; rather, that universities have become places that willfully exclude and even punish those who hold views that do not comport with their extreme left orthodoxy.

And of course this does not justify Trump’s absurd, pretextual overreach, but it does help explain it (and its relative popularity).

https://www.thecrimson.com/column/council-on-academic-freedom-at-harvard/article/2024/2/12/VanderWeele-harvard-viewpoint-diversity/

It's not that Harvard excludes MAGA-types. It's that education and thinking is incompatible with MAGA. Even at red state universities, few professors are right-wing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody actually read the demands from this administration?

They want to remove all courses, students and teachers that are deemed anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian.

Funny how they can't do anything about school shootings but will do something if it hurts Israel's feelings

How many Harvard professors are conservative, pro-Trump Republicans who are allowed to freely express their viewpoints?

Why are you assuming there should be an *equal* number of people expressing Pro-Trump viewpoints. One is enough.

To me the dearth of pro-Trump viewpoints among the educated points to the fact that anyone with reasonable critical thinking skills and basic knowledge of history, government, etc. would never be pro-Trump. He's an idiot whose ideas about government are antithetical to the American system of democracy and laws.

Why should we have to shoe-horn in viewpoints that promote violence, hate, disregard of the law, disregard of human rights etc. How does that benefit everyone? Go start your own hate university.

Where did I say an equal number? You clearly don't want any opposing viewpoints. FWIW I voted for Harris with misgivings.

I clearly don't? Wrong. I would be happy to sit down with HONEST people and have a good faith discussion about economic policy, college admissions, immigration, etc etc with an old-school conservative. An old-school Republican who believes in the rule of law, the independence of the Fed, the independence of Justice Dept, separation of powers, etc.

But right now it is the TRUMP ADMINISTRATION that is actively working to quash any opposition or opposing views. And it is lying and maligning people to do so. And projecting what they are doing onto others. And having the audacity to cloak it in a bad faith lie that they give two hoots about antisemitism.

So forgive me, smug supposed Harris voter, for not wanting that brand of "viewpoint" widely disseminated. What is happening right now is so outside the norm, so dangerous for our country, that NO, I will not abide it. I do not view constant lying as a valid "viewpoint" and neither should you.

FFS wake up.

Typically, dishonesty emanates from the Liberal camps, so you might want to take a look in the mirror. Many of these liberal studies come up with conclusions that clearly contradict simple logic. Dump a bunch of poor ESL students in your neighborhood and the school is going to struggle. Liberal economists from the rich school district across town with plenty of resources, "But the economy overall improves. Diversity is good for your kids. You're just a racist"

So your answer is another sweeping generalization that is untrue. This is why honest people won't engage with you and dismiss you. If you come out with statements with no basis in reality just so you can denigrate an large, heterogeneous group of people, you are never going to have a good faith discussion that we are interested in having. So buh-bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody actually read the demands from this administration?

They want to remove all courses, students and teachers that are deemed anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian.

Funny how they can't do anything about school shootings but will do something if it hurts Israel's feelings

How many Harvard professors are conservative, pro-Trump Republicans who are allowed to freely express their viewpoints?

Allen Dershowitz, for one.

Almost none. The Harvard Crimson’s annual survey of political views show a grotesque lack of viewpoint diversity.

Harvard has plenty of conservatives. But no scientist at any university likes Trump, and there are almost no other professors who do in any field at a serious research university, because he lies all the time, sees no need for data or logic, and uses bullying and intimidation rather than reasoned argument to get things done. while there may be a few humanities disciplines that have had problems with activism, the spirit of all academic inquiry and accomplishment is still showing data and sources, record keeping and transparency and peer review.

The rule of law and statistical analysis are not issues related to "viewpoint diversity." It is just that being "pro Trump" is incompatible with support for these pillars of any serious university level inquiry. Similarly, the need for logical, civil argument and reasoned inquiry are also seen as opposition to Trump, whatever the premise of the argument. These aspects of university discourse date back to Plato and Aristotle (who, btw, were quite conservative in their political leanings). Professors thus tend overwhelmingly to see these norms as central to their way of thinking, and thus find support of Trump incompatible with university level thinking.

And yes, of course, this whole letter has nothing to do with "viewpoint diversity," and is really just about control, power, and Trump's bottomless need for obsequious flattery he shares with all dictators and aspiring dictators.

By “plenty” you mean <5%? See link below.

As for the rest, you're being deliberately obtuse.

No one is arguing that universities need hire MAGA; rather, that universities have become places that willfully exclude and even punish those who hold views that do not comport with their extreme left orthodoxy.

And of course this does not justify Trump’s absurd, pretextual overreach, but it does help explain it (and its relative popularity).

https://www.thecrimson.com/column/council-on-academic-freedom-at-harvard/article/2024/2/12/VanderWeele-harvard-viewpoint-diversity/

ALL universities are about extreme left orthodoxy? Nope. You can't be taken seriously if you would make such an absurd, unsupportable generalization. You sound like a MAGA. Just damn everyone with the same broad brush and reality be damned.

You mean a broad brush like the one Democrats use to describe 70+ milluon voters as ignorant, Nazis, racists, uneducated, etc?

On anonymous websites? You know you have no idea who you are responding to. And I can throw that back at you about all the PPs on here who say "libs this.." "libs that" "Dems this", "Dems that". We could do this circle dance all day.

Do you have anything based in reality to make a comment on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure which is worse, that this is a cover up, or if this is true

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-letter-mistake.htm

neither is a good look

Page not found.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-letter-mistake.html?unlocked_article_code=1.A08.KPeJ.d4ZGKndNCERQ&smid=url-share

A mistake. So much that they typed, signed it(multiple people), sent it, double downed on it. And then it’s the recipient who should have known it was a joke? Because governments are known for mistakenly and jokingly sending demand letters and threats as mistakes?

It seems the mistake was thinking anyone in this administration is serious or professional enough to be allowed in government.

And this after having conversations about military actions on Signal and bringing in a reporter who shouldn't have been privy, admitting they sent a MD man to a gulag erroneously, firing all the nuclear safety people and having to rehire, not to mention all the tariff idiocy.

HOW MANY MISTAKES ARE WE EXPECTED TO ENDURE FROM THIS SHAM OF AN ADMINISTRATION.

There is not a competent person among them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody actually read the demands from this administration?

They want to remove all courses, students and teachers that are deemed anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian.

Funny how they can't do anything about school shootings but will do something if it hurts Israel's feelings

How many Harvard professors are conservative, pro-Trump Republicans who are allowed to freely express their viewpoints?

Allen Dershowitz, for one.

Almost none. The Harvard Crimson’s annual survey of political views show a grotesque lack of viewpoint diversity.

Harvard has plenty of conservatives. But no scientist at any university likes Trump, and there are almost no other professors who do in any field at a serious research university, because he lies all the time, sees no need for data or logic, and uses bullying and intimidation rather than reasoned argument to get things done. while there may be a few humanities disciplines that have had problems with activism, the spirit of all academic inquiry and accomplishment is still showing data and sources, record keeping and transparency and peer review.

The rule of law and statistical analysis are not issues related to "viewpoint diversity." It is just that being "pro Trump" is incompatible with support for these pillars of any serious university level inquiry. Similarly, the need for logical, civil argument and reasoned inquiry are also seen as opposition to Trump, whatever the premise of the argument. These aspects of university discourse date back to Plato and Aristotle (who, btw, were quite conservative in their political leanings). Professors thus tend overwhelmingly to see these norms as central to their way of thinking, and thus find support of Trump incompatible with university level thinking.

And yes, of course, this whole letter has nothing to do with "viewpoint diversity," and is really just about control, power, and Trump's bottomless need for obsequious flattery he shares with all dictators and aspiring dictators.

By “plenty” you mean <5%? See link below.

As for the rest, you're being deliberately obtuse.

No one is arguing that universities need hire MAGA; rather, that universities have become places that willfully exclude and even punish those who hold views that do not comport with their extreme left orthodoxy.

And of course this does not justify Trump’s absurd, pretextual overreach, but it does help explain it (and its relative popularity).

https://www.thecrimson.com/column/council-on-academic-freedom-at-harvard/article/2024/2/12/VanderWeele-harvard-viewpoint-diversity/

It's not that Harvard excludes MAGA-types. It's that education and thinking is incompatible with MAGA. Even at red state universities, few professors are right-wing.

It's the new conservatives that are the problem. If they won't base their views on widely accepted facts and instead on lies that anyone with half a brain can clearly disprove/see through, no one in academia is going to want to engage with them. For instance, if you get caught fabricating your data in science, you have to go.

[Anonymous]

It's like this paper: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/wage-impact-marielitos-reappraisal-0

They studied the population shock from the Muriel boat lift. The original paper concluded significant wage drops for natives. Then that Harvard paper came out and tried to contradict it. "Long term benefits...". "Some people's wages were higher "

That was a popular paper. I don't think their data were fabricated, but there hypothesis just wasn't very good. Thanks but no thanks, don't need research like that no sir.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's like this paper: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/wage-impact-marielitos-reappraisal-0

They studied the population shock from the Muriel boat lift. The original paper concluded significant wage drops for natives. Then that Harvard paper came out and tried to contradict it. "Long term benefits...". "Some people's wages were higher "

That was a popular paper. I don't think their data were fabricated, but there hypothesis just wasn't very good. Thanks but no thanks, don't need research like that no sir.

the way to address research you disagree with is to publish a review and do your own research. Not to defund all research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's like this paper: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/wage-impact-marielitos-reappraisal-0

They studied the population shock from the Muriel boat lift. The original paper concluded significant wage drops for natives. Then that Harvard paper came out and tried to contradict it. "Long term benefits...". "Some people's wages were higher "

That was a popular paper. I don't think their data were fabricated, but there hypothesis just wasn't very good. Thanks but no thanks, don't need research like that no sir.

the way to address research you disagree with is to publish a review and do your own research. Not to defund all research.

Well, people in the public are using that paper to justify depressing wages for Americans, it's a highly cited paper in the media, why can't we use that paper to justify defunding research?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's like this paper: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/wage-impact-marielitos-reappraisal-0

They studied the population shock from the Muriel boat lift. The original paper concluded significant wage drops for natives. Then that Harvard paper came out and tried to contradict it. "Long term benefits...". "Some people's wages were higher "

That was a popular paper. I don't think their data were fabricated, but there hypothesis just wasn't very good. Thanks but no thanks, don't need research like that no sir.

the way to address research you disagree with is to publish a review and do your own research. Not to defund all research.

Well, people in the public are using that paper to justify depressing wages for Americans, it's a highly cited paper in the media, why can't we use that paper to justify defunding research?

Defunding research harms the economy. It is an economic engine. Harming the economy harms us all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's like this paper: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/wage-impact-marielitos-reappraisal-0

They studied the population shock from the Muriel boat lift. The original paper concluded significant wage drops for natives. Then that Harvard paper came out and tried to contradict it. "Long term benefits...". "Some people's wages were higher "

That was a popular paper. I don't think their data were fabricated, but there hypothesis just wasn't very good. Thanks but no thanks, don't need research like that no sir.

the way to address research you disagree with is to publish a review and do your own research. Not to defund all research.

Well, people in the public are using that paper to justify depressing wages for Americans, it's a highly cited paper in the media, why can't we use that paper to justify defunding research?

Defunding research harms the economy. It is an economic engine. Harming the economy harms us all.

Well, why do Academics let bad papers fester then, isn't that more evidence that we need to defund these evil Academies, who unethically said it's OK to depress wages for certain Americans.

[Anonymous]

Harvard hired Robert Hur to represent them.

There’s a lot being said with that hiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's like this paper: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/wage-impact-marielitos-reappraisal-0

They studied the population shock from the Muriel boat lift. The original paper concluded significant wage drops for natives. Then that Harvard paper came out and tried to contradict it. "Long term benefits...". "Some people's wages were higher "

That was a popular paper. I don't think their data were fabricated, but there hypothesis just wasn't very good. Thanks but no thanks, don't need research like that no sir.

the way to address research you disagree with is to publish a review and do your own research. Not to defund all research.

Well, people in the public are using that paper to justify depressing wages for Americans, it's a highly cited paper in the media, why can't we use that paper to justify defunding research?

It is really sad and telling at the same time that you even need to ask such a question. Again, in an open and free society where science is not directed by the government, the process is other researchers do a scientific-based research, publish their results and also show why the paper you mention got to an incorrect conclusion. Have you ever heard of Galileo? When he published his study showing that the Earth was going around the sun and not the other way around, the government of the time, the Catholic Church threaten to burn him if he did not withdraw his paper. What you are suggesting is the same, minus the open grill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard hired Robert Hur to represent them.

There’s a lot being said with that hiring.

And William Burck.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-harvard-lawyers-mueller-biden-dde164955122391ee05f8a10f9b70507