Harvard tell Trump to pound sand

[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.

That’s a pretty interesting comparison. New College put out generations of thinkers and was fairly difficult to get in to, while Liberty’s goal was to remove as much knowledge from society as possible and was about as exclusive as gaining admission to Sears.

[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:

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.

Nobody says it is. However, federal money can have strings attached. What you call ideological purity, others call complying with the law.

[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.

Have fun going to Cousin Clem's Cancer Treatment and Muffler Exchange. Mass General doesn't want you. Nor does any other reputable institution

[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.

Funny enough, china and Harvard just succeeded - they stared him down and he crumpled like a baby. Score!!!

[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.

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.

You mean like Jared Kushner and George W Bush

[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.

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

That’s a pretty interesting comparison. New College put out generations of thinkers and was fairly difficult to get in to, while Liberty’s goal was to remove as much knowledge from society as possible and was about as exclusive as gaining admission to Sears.

I agree with you about New College of the past. However New College if 2024 is differ t from new College of 2000. You can thank DeSantis for that.

[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.

Academic freedom isn't a federal right. Any of the corporate sponsors can easily remove grants whenever they want. I think academic freedom is only within the academic community.

[Anonymous]

No the WH is saying the letter of demands to Harvard was "unauthorized." Anyone have a theory about why they are trying to back away from their letter of demands?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-letter-mistake.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BE8.Y9RT.n66eCSXYx3eK&smid=url-share

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No the WH is saying the letter of demands to Harvard was "unauthorized." Anyone have a theory about why they are trying to back away from their letter of demands?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-letter-mistake.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BE8.Y9RT.n66eCSXYx3eK&smid=url-share

They realized that letter was going to be used against them in court

[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.

Academic freedom isn't a federal right. Any of the corporate sponsors can easily remove grants whenever they want. I think academic freedom is only within the academic community.

For g-d sake it is called the First Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No the WH is saying the letter of demands to Harvard was "unauthorized." Anyone have a theory about why they are trying to back away from their letter of demands?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-letter-mistake.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BE8.Y9RT.n66eCSXYx3eK&smid=url-share

Occams Razor is that it actually was a mistake to send it when it was sent. They really are that incompetent. Now why they think that claiming the mistake is somehow going to make them more sympathetic, I am not sure.

[Anonymous]

Harvard doesn't need tax payer dollars. Shut them off and claw back whatever they can.

[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.

Hillsdale doesn’t do significant levels of research thats saves countless lives or introduces entirely new technology to our nation’s business sector.

Hillsdale enjoys tax-exempt status, which some courts have said amounts to federal aid. Hillsdale fought hard to get those courts overruled so they wouldn’t have to comply with Title IX rules for preventing and investigating sex assault, which two alleged victims recently sued them over. It’s telling their defense was essentially “we aren’t required to protect against sex assault to the same degree.” Not where I would want to send a daughter!

Hillsdale is in the process of creating a network of k-12 charter schools that use its sanctioned curriculum. No doubt they want these lower ed initiatives to similarly be simultaneously exempt from federal taxes and Title IX expectations.

Interesting side note about Hillsdale: it doesn’t have a “Political Science” department. They have instead a “Politics” department which does not teach statistical methods for evaluating policy. Very on brand the school doesn’t even recognize or teach Poli Sci as a social science and yet are a sought after destination for conservatives who wish to govern.

Harvard shouldn’t follow Hillsdale in any way. Harvard shouldn’t be subjected to far more government interference when doing far more public good.

[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.

Academic freedom isn't a federal right. Any of the corporate sponsors can easily remove grants whenever they want. I think academic freedom is only within the academic community.

You might want to read the First Amendment again. After you've taken remedial reaading.

Please someone tell me this is a bot. A human can't possibly be this stupid and still live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No the WH is saying the letter of demands to Harvard was "unauthorized." Anyone have a theory about why they are trying to back away from their letter of demands?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-letter-mistake.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BE8.Y9RT.n66eCSXYx3eK&smid=url-share

They realized that letter was going to be used against them in court

Because it didn’t get them what they wanted and now they have egg on their face.