Harvard tell Trump to pound sand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Getting rid of this kind of stuff is definitely welcome IMO. But - the answer to restraint on academic freedom is not for an insane president and cabal of locos taking over higher education and dictating their own viewpoints on pain of ending all governmental support of research and financial support of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Getting rid of this kind of stuff is definitely welcome IMO. But - the answer to restraint on academic freedom is not for an insane president and cabal of locos taking over higher education and dictating their own viewpoints on pain of ending all governmental support of research and financial support of students.

NP. This is true, but universities have shown themselves spectacularly unable to remove their own version of McCarthyism. They have created their own version of political orthodoxy that they tightly enforce.

I completely disagree with what Trump is doing here, but denying what was and is going on at our most elite universities is not helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Getting rid of this kind of stuff is definitely welcome IMO. But - the answer to restraint on academic freedom is not for an insane president and cabal of locos taking over higher education and dictating their own viewpoints on pain of ending all governmental support of research and financial support of students.

There is no restraint on academic freedom. There is a restraint on federal funds. Harvard is free to follow Hillsdale and not take any federal money.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile Harvard is borrowing 3/4 of a billion to survive the next 4 years

https://www.masslive.com/news/2025/04/harvard-plans-to-borrow-750-million-after-trump-threatens-funding-cut.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile Harvard is borrowing 3/4 of a billion to survive the next 4 years

https://www.masslive.com/news/2025/04/harvard-plans-to-borrow-750-million-after-trump-threatens-funding-cut.html

That's Harvard's choice. Plenty of companies do this instead of taking federal research contracts.

[Anonymous]

A Harvard degree does not carry the prestige that it did just a few years so, and before long it will mean even less. Go woke bo broke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A Harvard degree does not carry the prestige that it did just a few years so, and before long it will mean even less. Go woke bo broke.

It’s always going to be worth a hell of a lot more than one from Liberty College or New College in FL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A Harvard degree does not carry the prestige that it did just a few years so, and before long it will mean even less. Go woke bo broke.

Absolutely. Harvard does more harm than good overall and should be permanently cut off from any federal funds going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Harvard degree does not carry the prestige that it did just a few years so, and before long it will mean even less. Go woke bo broke.

Absolutely. Harvard does more harm than good overall and should be permanently cut off from any federal funds going forward.

Hahahahah hahahahahahaha.

Sorry had to catch my breath hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahavahahahahaha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Harvard degree does not carry the prestige that it did just a few years so, and before long it will mean even less. Go woke bo broke.

Absolutely. Harvard does more harm than good overall and should be permanently cut off from any federal funds going forward.

Let’s see what the courts say. You better believe Harvard isn’t going down without a fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Harvard degree does not carry the prestige that it did just a few years so, and before long it will mean even less. Go woke bo broke.

Absolutely. Harvard does more harm than good overall and should be permanently cut off from any federal funds going forward.

Let’s see what the courts say. You better believe Harvard isn’t going down without a fight.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the MAGA president, the children of the MAGA president, the MAGA VP and his MAGA wife, and key members of the current and past MAGA administration went to "liberal elitist" colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else find it ironic that the MAGA president, the children of the MAGA president, the MAGA VP and his MAGA wife, and key members of the current and past MAGA administration went to "liberal elitist" colleges?

Why let hypocrisy get in the way of petty vengeance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has 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

Getting rid of this kind of stuff is definitely welcome IMO. But - the answer to restraint on academic freedom is not for an insane president and cabal of locos taking over higher education and dictating their own viewpoints on pain of ending all governmental support of research and financial support of students.

There is no restraint on academic freedom. There is a restraint on federal funds. Harvard is free to follow Hillsdale and not take any federal money.

Pound sand MAGA. Federal support for higher education and research benefits the nation and world. It cannot be conditioned on ideological purity tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Harvard degree does not carry the prestige that it did just a few years so, and before long it will mean even less. Go woke bo broke.

It’s always going to be worth a hell of a lot more than one from Liberty College or New College in FL.

Easier admits changed the meaningfulness of a Harvard degree.