Harvard tell Trump to pound sand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I don't believe either of them would have been considered as Black or Hispanic and in need of holistic or easier admissions.
https://www.fas.harvard.edu/2024/09/11/new-harvard-college-admissions-data/

[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.

1st Amendment. Not like it is buried in a deep obscure part of the Constitution. It's right up there at the top. Sheesh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I don't believe either of them would have been considered as Black or Hispanic and in need of holistic or easier admissions.
https://www.fas.harvard.edu/2024/09/11/new-harvard-college-admissions-data/

They were admitted based on cold hard cash and connections, the same way Baron Trump was admitted to NYU one-day after submitting his application. That is unheard of and incidentally the application period was closed. Kushner’s dad donated one-million dollars for Jared’s admission. George W. Was third or fourth generation legacy admit, the son of a CIA Director and grandson of a Senator. For them, admissions could not have been more easy, or holistic. That was their diversity and inclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I don't believe either of them would have been considered as Black or Hispanic and in need of holistic or easier admissions.
https://www.fas.harvard.edu/2024/09/11/new-harvard-college-admissions-data/

They were admitted based on cold hard cash and connections, the same way Baron Trump was admitted to NYU one-day after submitting his application. That is unheard of and incidentally the application period was closed. Kushner’s dad donated one-million dollars for Jared’s admission. George W. Was third or fourth generation legacy admit, the son of a CIA Director and grandson of a Senator. For them, admissions could not have been more easy, or holistic. That was their diversity and inclusion.

And the Kennedy family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I don't believe either of them would have been considered as Black or Hispanic and in need of holistic or easier admissions.
https://www.fas.harvard.edu/2024/09/11/new-harvard-college-admissions-data/

They were admitted based on cold hard cash and connections, the same way Baron Trump was admitted to NYU one-day after submitting his application. That is unheard of and incidentally the application period was closed. Kushner’s dad donated one-million dollars for Jared’s admission. George W. Was third or fourth generation legacy admit, the son of a CIA Director and grandson of a Senator. For them, admissions could not have been more easy, or holistic. That was their diversity and inclusion.

That's not how Harvard views diversity and inclusion.

[Anonymous]

More punishment ahead for Harvard—and for us indirectly since it involves medical research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More punishment ahead for Harvard—and for us indirectly since it involves medical research.

Harvard said it didn't care...

[Anonymous]

U.S. Revokes Visas Of Over 1,400 International Students, Citing Pro-Palestine Activism including students from Harvard, UMD, and George Mason

https://thenigerialawyer.com/u-s-revokes-visas-of-over-1400-international-students-citing-pro-palestine-activism/

[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.

PP here. 100% agree. But universities need to recognize that their behavior helped make empower this insane President and his equally insane cabal of bootlickers.

[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.

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.

+1. Exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I don't believe either of them would have been considered as Black or Hispanic and in need of holistic or easier admissions.
https://www.fas.harvard.edu/2024/09/11/new-harvard-college-admissions-data/

They were admitted based on cold hard cash and connections, the same way Baron Trump was admitted to NYU one-day after submitting his application. That is unheard of and incidentally the application period was closed. Kushner’s dad donated one-million dollars for Jared’s admission. George W. Was third or fourth generation legacy admit, the son of a CIA Director and grandson of a Senator. For them, admissions could not have been more easy, or holistic. That was their diversity and inclusion.

Yes, that is true, but the reality is that these people are valuable to the university due to their connections. It may not be fair, but it actually benefits other students to admit these well-connected ultrawealthy people. I don't think NYU is currently being targted by the administration, so it appears that the university made a wise decision to admit Barron.

[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.

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.

1st Amendment. Not like it is buried in a deep obscure part of the Constitution. It's right up there at the top. Sheesh

If money is exchanged it's not free.

[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.

PP here. 100% agree. But universities need to recognize that their behavior helped make empower this insane President and his equally insane cabal of bootlickers.

They need to recognize? No, stupid voters who believe nonsense propaganda/lies enabled the criminal POTUS and his bootlickers.

FFS. The blame for Trump lies with anyone stupid enough to vote for him. Project 2025 was available to read before the election. We'll take Trump voter's apologies anytime. But they will not be forthcoming because a Trump voter would rather die first.

[Anonymous]

I'm confused why universities are expected to curtail the free speech of their students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

Yes, there was a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan at Harvard. If you'd like to view the photographic evidence yourself, here it is: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/3/25/harvard-klan-scrut/.

And yes, there were cross burnings, too. Here's a contemporaneous account from 1952: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1952/2/23/leighton-calls-yardling-fiery-cross-deplorable/.

As for Harvard's Slavery Remembrance Program, researchers "conclusively identified 913 Harvard-affiliated enslaved people, and located 403 living direct descendants," many of them from Antigua and Barbuda. See https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/10/cellini-harvard-legacy-of-slavery/; https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/1/28/hsrp-december-report-descendants/; https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/12/antigua-garber-message/. The program came to a screeching halt in January 2025 when Harvard abruptly fired HSRP's entire staff. See, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/1/28/vincent-brown-resigns-legacy-of-slavery/.

Harvard administrators haven't explained why the program ended, but it's difficult to ignore President Trump issued an executive order regarding antisemitism at universities less than two weeks prior. See, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/1/30/trump-monitor-protests/. During this time, Harvard also settled two lawsuits to resolve student allegations of antisemitism and increased spending in companies with ties to Israeli settlements in Palestine. See, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/1/28/summers-harvard-settlement-antisemitism/, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/1/28/HMC-reinvests-booking-holdings/. Readers can debate whether these events were coincidental. However, President Trump also demanded the academic destruction of the African American and African Diaspora Studies Department at Columbia University as part of the administration's antisemitism efforts. See, https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/03/21/columbia-to-acquiesce-to-trump-administrations-demands-amid-federal-funding-threats/.