Harvard tell Trump to pound sand

[Anonymous]

*a moron (made a late switch from imbecile)

[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.

*their research

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To be fair (and correct me if I am wrong), but I believe that was with respect only to Tucker Carlson's show and his show was "entertainment" and not "news".

[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.

Of course they could get hired.

PP here. Why do you believe that to be true?

I can’t see either one surviving the mandatory diversity statement much less the global south/colonial oppression/anti-capitalist orthodoxy that is currently de rigeur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To be fair (and correct me if I am wrong), but I believe that was with respect only to Tucker Carlson's show and his show was "entertainment" and not "news".

No, it's the whole network. Just as claimed by CNN and MSNBC.

[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?

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

Wow tell all the economists that someone on the internet figured it out!

[Anonymous]

Hundreds of Israeli Academics Condemn Trump for Exploiting Antisemitism to Target Universities

Clearly just a ploy to prevent students from speaking up against the genocide and Holocaust in Gaza


https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-04-17/ty-article/.premium/over-200-israeli-academics-accuse-trump-of-exploiting-antisemitism-to-target-universities/00000196-4384-ddef-a5df-dfffc8960000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hundreds of Israeli Academics Condemn Trump for Exploiting Antisemitism to Target Universities

Clearly just a ploy to prevent students from speaking up against the genocide and Holocaust in Gaza


https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-04-17/ty-article/.premium/over-200-israeli-academics-accuse-trump-of-exploiting-antisemitism-to-target-universities/00000196-4384-ddef-a5df-dfffc8960000

Anyone who isn’t completely comfortable under a Klansman’s hood knew the score all along.

Criminalizing protected speech is bad enough; but protected speech that only involves criticism of a foreign state’s policies and actions, when the exact same criticisms have also been lodged and/or supported by approx. 185 of the 193 U.N. member states?

Look, antisemitism IS abhorrent but it ISN’T among the Top 25 biggest issues on college campuses that require reform. Full stop. To believe this administration (or more pointedly, to believe the rabid, extremist Zionists provoking this administration to act), you must suspend disbelief, elevate feelings over facts, and ignore the actual evidence.

[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.

Of course they could get hired.

PP here. Why do you believe that to be true?

I can’t see either one surviving the mandatory diversity statement much less the global south/colonial oppression/anti-capitalist orthodoxy that is currently de rigeur.

You have no idea what the young assistant profs today will become. They are hired for their ability to come up with abstract representations of the real world and to make predictions based on them. What that will lead to in practice is years away and whether they will be go-to experts to support liberal or conservative arguments is also years away. Here is a random assistant professor at UChicago’s Econ dept. How will his work be adopted? And by what political philosophy? It’s too early to say.

https://sites.google.com/site/mtabordmeehan/research?authuser=0

All we know is that pretty much all economists (left/right/center) think we are on a weird path right now. Except of course Peter Navarro.

[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.

Of course they could get hired.

PP here. Why do you believe that to be true?

I can’t see either one surviving the mandatory diversity statement much less the global south/colonial oppression/anti-capitalist orthodoxy that is currently de rigeur.

Are you on drugs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course they could get hired.

PP here. Why do you believe that to be true?

I can’t see either one surviving the mandatory diversity statement much less the global south/colonial oppression/anti-capitalist orthodoxy that is currently de rigeur.

Are you on drugs?

Nope. But the Columbia School of Social Work might be: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/opinion/social-work-columbia-ideology.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BE8.69Wi.jsZGzp_EaZzg&smid=url-share

Want more examples?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course they could get hired.

PP here. Why do you believe that to be true?

I can’t see either one surviving the mandatory diversity statement much less the global south/colonial oppression/anti-capitalist orthodoxy that is currently de rigeur.

You have no idea what the young assistant profs today will become. They are hired for their ability to come up with abstract representations of the real world and to make predictions based on them. What that will lead to in practice is years away and whether they will be go-to experts to support liberal or conservative arguments is also years away. Here is a random assistant professor at UChicago’s Econ dept. How will his work be adopted? And by what political philosophy? It’s too early to say.

https://sites.google.com/site/mtabordmeehan/research?authuser=0

All we know is that pretty much all economists (left/right/center) think we are on a weird path right now. Except of course Peter Navarro.

Certainly agree with the last paragraph.

I think you’re overstating the carbon hiring, though. Political litmus tests clearly have been applied. Consider this:

“ At Berkeley, a faculty committee rejected 75 percent of applicants in life sciences and environmental sciences and management purely on diversity statements, according to a new academic paper by Steven Brint, a professor of public policy at U.C. Riverside, and Komi Frey, a researcher for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which has opposed diversity statements.”

Full article is well worth reading. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/ucla-dei-statement.html?smid=url-share

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hundreds of Israeli Academics Condemn Trump for Exploiting Antisemitism to Target Universities

Clearly just a ploy to prevent students from speaking up against the genocide and Holocaust in Gaza


https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-04-17/ty-article/.premium/over-200-israeli-academics-accuse-trump-of-exploiting-antisemitism-to-target-universities/00000196-4384-ddef-a5df-dfffc8960000

Anyone who isn’t completely comfortable under a Klansman’s hood knew the score all along.

Criminalizing protected speech is bad enough; but protected speech that only involves criticism of a foreign state’s policies and actions, when the exact same criticisms have also been lodged and/or supported by approx. 185 of the 193 U.N. member states?

Look, antisemitism IS abhorrent but it ISN’T among the Top 25 biggest issues on college campuses that require reform. Full stop. To believe this administration (or more pointedly, to believe the rabid, extremist Zionists provoking this administration to act), you must suspend disbelief, elevate feelings over facts, and ignore the actual evidence.

They had Klansmen at Harvard? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/04/slavery-probe-harvards-ties-inseparable-from-rise/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hundreds of Israeli Academics Condemn Trump for Exploiting Antisemitism to Target Universities

Clearly just a ploy to prevent students from speaking up against the genocide and Holocaust in Gaza


https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-04-17/ty-article/.premium/over-200-israeli-academics-accuse-trump-of-exploiting-antisemitism-to-target-universities/00000196-4384-ddef-a5df-dfffc8960000

Anyone who isn’t completely comfortable under a Klansman’s hood knew the score all along.

Criminalizing protected speech is bad enough; but protected speech that only involves criticism of a foreign state’s policies and actions, when the exact same criticisms have also been lodged and/or supported by approx. 185 of the 193 U.N. member states?

Look, antisemitism IS abhorrent but it ISN’T among the Top 25 biggest issues on college campuses that require reform. Full stop. To believe this administration (or more pointedly, to believe the rabid, extremist Zionists provoking this administration to act), you must suspend disbelief, elevate feelings over facts, and ignore the actual evidence.

They had Klansmen at Harvard? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/04/slavery-probe-harvards-ties-inseparable-from-rise/

Thanks for posting. I found the following very interesting. So when is Harvard going to pay reparations from its endowment?

"Among the report’s findings is that more than a third of the funds donated or pledged to Harvard in the first half of the 19th century came from five men whose fortunes derived from slavery in some form: James Perkins, Benjamin Bussey, John McLean, Abbott Lawrence, and Peter Brooks."

We can’t say that Harvard would not have existed in some form without donations from enslavers and slave traders,” said Annette Gordon-Reed, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and a member of the committee. “But there is no doubt that infusions of slavery-tainted money put the School on the path to becoming the institution that we know today: one of the premier universities in the world.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hundreds of Israeli Academics Condemn Trump for Exploiting Antisemitism to Target Universities

Clearly just a ploy to prevent students from speaking up against the genocide and Holocaust in Gaza


https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-04-17/ty-article/.premium/over-200-israeli-academics-accuse-trump-of-exploiting-antisemitism-to-target-universities/00000196-4384-ddef-a5df-dfffc8960000

Anyone who isn’t completely comfortable under a Klansman’s hood knew the score all along.

Criminalizing protected speech is bad enough; but protected speech that only involves criticism of a foreign state’s policies and actions, when the exact same criticisms have also been lodged and/or supported by approx. 185 of the 193 U.N. member states?

Look, antisemitism IS abhorrent but it ISN’T among the Top 25 biggest issues on college campuses that require reform. Full stop. To believe this administration (or more pointedly, to believe the rabid, extremist Zionists provoking this administration to act), you must suspend disbelief, elevate feelings over facts, and ignore the actual evidence.

They had Klansmen at Harvard? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/04/slavery-probe-harvards-ties-inseparable-from-rise/

Apparently there are Nazi Germany ties as well.

https://forward.com/culture/127097/the-nazi-sympathizers-who-ran-american-universitie/