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:

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.

Exactly. I need MY dollars more than Harvard does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Does Harvard even have an IP portfolio? They probably do mostly policy research.

7722 patents across all sorts of stuff.

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/school/Harvard-University/portfolio-p4.html

That is a fraction of an ordinary public university: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&srch=top&query_txt=University+of+Missouri&submit=&patents_us=on

People don't realize Harvard is about business, law, oh yeah maybe medicine, but not much in medicine.

True. But as this sniping goes on whose side do you think MIT will join? They get 1.6 billion . . . and have a few more patents than Univ. of Missouri (is that you Josh?)

Yes, but MIT makes things that are useful, Harvard only does policy research. If Harvard isn't going to produce any research that is usefult to this administration, why should we fund it?

Harvard only does policy research? What kind of moronic universe do MAGAs inhabit?

I'm pretty sure in scientific circles Harvard doesn't mean anything and won't be missed. What did you study at Harvard, engineering? Hahaha

This is what chatGPT had to say about why Harvard has so many fewer patents:

Focus on Basic Research
Harvard emphasizes fundamental science — research aimed at understanding how things work, rather than immediately creating marketable technologies. This kind of work often leads to papers and discoveries rather than patents.

Different Institutional Missions
Public universities like the University of California system, University of Michigan, or University of Texas often have large engineering schools and agriculture/biotech programs that are historically more tied to applied research and commercialization. These schools also have strong partnerships with industry and state initiatives that incentivize patenting.

Size and Breadth
Schools like UC Berkeley or Texas A&M have massive engineering and agriculture departments (often larger than Harvard’s entire science faculty) and more infrastructure specifically aimed at technology transfer and commercialization.

Culture and Incentives
Some academic environments encourage publishing over patenting. Harvard has stepped up its Office of Technology Development in recent years, but the culture still leans more toward scholarly impact than commercial output.

Harvard vs. MIT
Just across the river, MIT is an engineering and applied science beast, and it cranks out patents like crazy. If you're comparing institutions in terms of innovation-to-product pipeline, MIT usually dwarfs Harvard, even though both schools collaborate on a lot of research.

Thank you.

[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.

Exactly. I need MY dollars more than Harvard does.

The money goes to things like cancer research. Are you doing your own, or would you rather have a few pennies of YOUR tax dollars go to Harvard and other researchers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Does Harvard even have an IP portfolio? They probably do mostly policy research.

7722 patents across all sorts of stuff.

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/school/Harvard-University/portfolio-p4.html

That is a fraction of an ordinary public university: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&srch=top&query_txt=University+of+Missouri&submit=&patents_us=on

People don't realize Harvard is about business, law, oh yeah maybe medicine, but not much in medicine.

True. But as this sniping goes on whose side do you think MIT will join? They get 1.6 billion . . . and have a few more patents than Univ. of Missouri (is that you Josh?)

Yes, but MIT makes things that are useful, Harvard only does policy research. If Harvard isn't going to produce any research that is usefult to this administration, why should we fund it?

Harvard only does policy research? What kind of moronic universe do MAGAs inhabit?

I'm pretty sure in scientific circles Harvard doesn't mean anything and won't be missed. What did you study at Harvard, engineering? Hahaha

This is what chatGPT had to say about why Harvard has so many fewer patents:

Focus on Basic Research
Harvard emphasizes fundamental science — research aimed at understanding how things work, rather than immediately creating marketable technologies. This kind of work often leads to papers and discoveries rather than patents.

Different Institutional Missions
Public universities like the University of California system, University of Michigan, or University of Texas often have large engineering schools and agriculture/biotech programs that are historically more tied to applied research and commercialization. These schools also have strong partnerships with industry and state initiatives that incentivize patenting.

Size and Breadth
Schools like UC Berkeley or Texas A&M have massive engineering and agriculture departments (often larger than Harvard’s entire science faculty) and more infrastructure specifically aimed at technology transfer and commercialization.

Culture and Incentives
Some academic environments encourage publishing over patenting. Harvard has stepped up its Office of Technology Development in recent years, but the culture still leans more toward scholarly impact than commercial output.

Harvard vs. MIT
Just across the river, MIT is an engineering and applied science beast, and it cranks out patents like crazy. If you're comparing institutions in terms of innovation-to-product pipeline, MIT usually dwarfs Harvard, even though both schools collaborate on a lot of research.

Thank you.

+1

[Anonymous]

At what point do we keep sacrificing everything good in America at Israel’s alter?

[Anonymous]

It looks like Harvard's accreditation is at risk.

Not only will Harvard lose federal funds but also lose foreign students and its accreditation as well.

Say good bye to racist Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Harvard's accreditation is at risk.

Not only will Harvard lose federal funds but also lose foreign students and its accreditation as well.

Say good bye to racist Harvard.

how quaint. Where did you attend university. If it can done so easily to Harvard, let’s pray the next person do it to BYU, Notre Dame, Liberty U, Wash U, UVA and others. Say goodbye to higher education as we know it and hello to Moscow U.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Harvard's accreditation is at risk.

Not only will Harvard lose federal funds but also lose foreign students and its accreditation as well.

Say good bye to racist Harvard.

Nah, it's brand name value will just go up amongst the wealthy. Better get some of that brand name education while it lasts. They didn't want to study science on Federal grants anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Harvard's accreditation is at risk.

Not only will Harvard lose federal funds but also lose foreign students and its accreditation as well.

Say good bye to racist Harvard.

He isn’t going to take them down. They have enough money to wait him out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Harvard's accreditation is at risk.

Not only will Harvard lose federal funds but also lose foreign students and its accreditation as well.

Say good bye to racist Harvard.

If Trump is going to set up a separate accrediting body that excludes Harvard, it is not going to be the dominant accrediting body.

Come back to reality from your fantasy or nightmare, whichever it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Harvard's accreditation is at risk.

Not only will Harvard lose federal funds but also lose foreign students and its accreditation as well.

Say good bye to racist Harvard.

Any habitual racist university doesn't deserve accreditation period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Harvard's accreditation is at risk.

Not only will Harvard lose federal funds but also lose foreign students and its accreditation as well.

Say good bye to racist Harvard.

Nah, it's brand name value will just go up amongst the wealthy. Better get some of that brand name education while it lasts. They didn't want to study science on Federal grants anyway.

Highly doubtful. Wealthy Zionist donors are very big contributors towards Harvard and are going to be quite unhappy. Look how influential they are at Columbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Harvard's accreditation is at risk.

Not only will Harvard lose federal funds but also lose foreign students and its accreditation as well.

Say good bye to racist Harvard.

Nah, it's brand name value will just go up amongst the wealthy. Better get some of that brand name education while it lasts. They didn't want to study science on Federal grants anyway.

Highly doubtful. Wealthy Zionist donors are very big contributors towards Harvard and are going to be quite unhappy. Look how influential they are at Columbia.

For every Bill Ackman, there are plenty of other Jewish American Harvard grads that will support Harvard.

[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:

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.

Exactly. I need MY dollars more than Harvard does.

The money goes to things like cancer research. Are you doing your own, or would you rather have a few pennies of YOUR tax dollars go to Harvard and other researchers?

Just gonna buy a stick of gum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Harvard's accreditation is at risk.

Not only will Harvard lose federal funds but also lose foreign students and its accreditation as well.

Say good bye to racist Harvard.

If Harvard loses their accreditation for political reasons, it's just going to destroy accreditation altogether. Accreditation itself will be meaningless when online diploma mill scams are accredited but Harvard is not.