Harvard tell Trump to pound sand

[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?

Because that has zero academic or scientific integrity. Seriously do you have to be told that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard hired Robert Hur to represent them.

There’s a lot being said with that hiring.

Says what?

[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?

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.

I guess they can continue to do there research, we just don't want to fund them. Big difference. Also, in this instance the Harvard is contradicting the original paper's conclusion (which they never disproved), so in many ways the Academic institution is functioning like the Catholic church. Trying to suppress results counter to the Harvard theory written by immigrants for immigrants about how good immigration is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I guess they can continue to do there research, we just don't want to fund them. Big difference. Also, in this instance the Harvard is contradicting the original paper's conclusion (which they never disproved), so in many ways the Academic institution is functioning like the Catholic church. Trying to suppress results counter to the Harvard theory written by immigrants for immigrants about how good immigration is.

What are you babbling about? the paper is still available on the Harvard website and the author is still a Harvard professor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I guess they can continue to do there research, we just don't want to fund them. Big difference. Also, in this instance the Harvard is contradicting the original paper's conclusion (which they never disproved), so in many ways the Academic institution is functioning like the Catholic church. Trying to suppress results counter to the Harvard theory written by immigrants for immigrants about how good immigration is.

Who is “we”? People on an anonymous website? Elected officials?

[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.

PP here. I agree, but you’re missing the point.

Could a Waltz (neorealist) or a Friedman (Chicago school of economics) get hired today at a private T25? I tend to doubt it, as their frameworks don’t fit the prevailing leftist orthodoxy.

That’s a significant problem.

[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/

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.

PP here. I agree, but you’re missing the point.

Could a Waltz (neorealist) or a Friedman (Chicago school of economics) get hired today at a private T25? I tend to doubt it, as their frameworks don’t fit the prevailing leftist orthodoxy.

That’s a significant problem.

Of course they could get hired.

[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/

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.

PP here. I agree, but you’re missing the point.

Could a Waltz (neorealist) or a Friedman (Chicago school of economics) get hired today at a private T25? I tend to doubt it, as their frameworks don’t fit the prevailing leftist orthodoxy.

That’s a significant problem.

There’s quite literally affirmative action admissions for conservative students and hiring for conservative professors at elite universities. In fact, mega donors will set up special endowments for these conservatives students & professors so they are fully funded. It’s a whole thing.

Conservatives at elite universities are absolutely coddled and given a glide path not available to others outside the Conservative Inc pipeline.

[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?

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.

PP here. I agree, but you’re missing the point.

Could a Waltz (neorealist) or a Friedman (Chicago school of economics) get hired today at a private T25? I tend to doubt it, as their frameworks don’t fit the prevailing leftist orthodoxy.

That’s a significant problem.

There’s quite literally affirmative action admissions for conservative students and hiring for conservative professors at elite universities. In fact, mega donors will set up special endowments for these conservatives students & professors so they are fully funded. It’s a whole thing.

Conservatives at elite universities are absolutely coddled and given a glide path not available to others outside the Conservative Inc pipeline.

We saw them accept Hogg and pull the acceptance of a Republican.

[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.

All the talk about Eisenhower's warning of the military-industrial complex, but not his warning of research funding can be captured by a scientific-technological elite.

[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?

Because that has zero academic or scientific integrity. Seriously do you have to be told that?

Econ 101 tells you that if you increase the supply of workers , wages will decrease.

Anyone or study that says it has no impact is absurd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

PP here. I agree, but you’re missing the point.

Could a Waltz (neorealist) or a Friedman (Chicago school of economics) get hired today at a private T25? I tend to doubt it, as their frameworks don’t fit the prevailing leftist orthodoxy.

That’s a significant problem.

There’s quite literally affirmative action admissions for conservative students and hiring for conservative professors at elite universities. In fact, mega donors will set up special endowments for these conservatives students & professors so they are fully funded. It’s a whole thing.

Conservatives at elite universities are absolutely coddled and given a glide path not available to others outside the Conservative Inc pipeline.

We saw them accept Hogg and pull the acceptance of a Republican.

Hogg is a putz, but link to any evidence that his acceptance at Harvard was linked to a Republican having their acceptance pulled?

Hell, link to ANY evidence in ANY year of an acceptance being pulled at Harvard on the basis of domestic political affiliation?

(I say domestic because of course there’s evidence of acceptances being pulled following targeted character assassination campaigns by foreign state terrorist organizations like Canary Mission and Betar)

[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

WTF? Is the administration actually blaming Harvard for assuming the letter was legit?

Yes. Sort of like Fox “News” holding that any rational people would know that they are an “entertainment “ network — NOT a purveyor of actual news.

[Anonymous]

Why is someone going on here about one paper among literally thousands of research papers written by Harvard professors in recent years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is someone going on here about one paper among literally thousands of research papers written by Harvard professors in recent years?

Because “alternative facts” was officially birthed at the highest level of our government during 45 (let’s face it, our government had been concocting alternative facts as justification for our foreign policy policies and actions for many decades by that point).

Once alternative facts escaped its Pandora’s box, all it now takes to derail serious discussion and debate is something like that one paper and an moron to wave it around madly.