harvard won?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard may have won in court yesterday, but that ruling only protects current grants. Going forward, agencies can simply choose not to award new money. Over time, losing access to fresh grants will hurt far more than the short-term win they just secured.

Well, there's a few recent data points indicating that the voters are actually not impressed with some of the choices made by the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether this crapping all over science research is permanent or temporary.

If Harvard only gets grants during democratic administration, they are cooked. Nobody is actually on Harvard's side they are just pissed at Trump.

If the research happens at Texas A&M instead of Harvard, nobody will care

And then the Democrats come into power and they take away the research from Texas a&m and give it to Harvard? That is a horrible recipe for progress in scientific research.

There's a competitive process to get the research grants as there should be.

No. They expect Democrats to "play nice" and not do something petty to even the score. And they're probably right.

The Democrats are pro-science and will fund science research as they should.

They just happen to have science on their side on most issues but they will reject science when it suits them.

e.g.

There is science on standardized tests
There is science on the safety of hydraulic fracking and nuclear power
There is science behind the safety of genetically modified organisms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard may have won in court yesterday, but that ruling only protects current grants. Going forward, agencies can simply choose not to award new money. Over time, losing access to fresh grants will hurt far more than the short-term win they just secured.

Well, there's a few recent data points indicating that the voters are actually not impressed with some of the choices made by the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether this crapping all over science research is permanent or temporary.

If Harvard only gets grants during democratic administration, they are cooked. Nobody is actually on Harvard's side they are just pissed at Trump.

If the research happens at Texas A&M instead of Harvard, nobody will care

And then the Democrats come into power and they take away the research from Texas a&m and give it to Harvard? That is a horrible recipe for progress in scientific research.

There's a competitive process to get the research grants as there should be.

No. They expect Democrats to "play nice" and not do something petty to even the score. And they're probably right.

The Democrats are pro-science and will fund science research as they should.

They just happen to have science on their side on most issues but they will reject science when it suits them.

e.g.

There is science on standardized tests
There is science on the safety of hydraulic fracking and nuclear power
There is science behind the safety of genetically modified organisms

I am quite sure the Democrats would be willing to fund credible and valuable research projects on any of those subjects. They probably would even make the research results available. Imagine that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard may have won in court yesterday, but that ruling only protects current grants. Going forward, agencies can simply choose not to award new money. Over time, losing access to fresh grants will hurt far more than the short-term win they just secured.

Well, there's a few recent data points indicating that the voters are actually not impressed with some of the choices made by the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether this crapping all over science research is permanent or temporary.

If Harvard only gets grants during democratic administration, they are cooked. Nobody is actually on Harvard's side they are just pissed at Trump.

If the research happens at Texas A&M instead of Harvard, nobody will care

And then the Democrats come into power and they take away the research from Texas a&m and give it to Harvard? That is a horrible recipe for progress in scientific research.

There's a competitive process to get the research grants as there should be.

No. They expect Democrats to "play nice" and not do something petty to even the score. And they're probably right.

The Democrats are pro-science and will fund science research as they should.

They just happen to have science on their side on most issues but they will reject science when it suits them.

e.g.

There is science on standardized tests
There is science on the safety of hydraulic fracking and nuclear power
There is science behind the safety of genetically modified organisms

The Maga hero tried to change scientific data by using a sharpie to demonstrate his fantasy data. And no one pushes back on him. And there are countless examples of Trump's dismissal of the value of science data. Maga weighing in on respect for science is a joke.

[Anonymous]

Have new research grants been funded to universities and how do you check this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like the law firms that capitulated easily, the schools that settled with Trump are looking like absolute cowards.

This is different.

They don't have a right to federal funding, especially if they have been racist.

Trump did not take away hundreds of millions of research funding because Harvard had been racist. He alleged anti-semitism and the (Jewish) judge found the link between those accusations and taking away research funding not justifiable.

Yeah because jews never support anti-semites, amirite?

We will see what SCOTUS thinks about withdrawing federal funding from a racist anti-semitic institution like harvard.

Yeah, so this judge, Bernie Sanders, Mandy Patinkin, Peter Beinart, Jon Stewart, Ben Cohen, Jerry Greenfeld, and thousands of other Jews are just "anti-Semitic" or, let me guess, "self hating" because they're not propagandists who support Israel at all costs?

Get out of here with your horseshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard may have won in court yesterday, but that ruling only protects current grants. Going forward, agencies can simply choose not to award new money. Over time, losing access to fresh grants will hurt far more than the short-term win they just secured.

Well, there's a few recent data points indicating that the voters are actually not impressed with some of the choices made by the Trump administration. It remains to be seen whether this crapping all over science research is permanent or temporary.

If Harvard only gets grants during democratic administration, they are cooked. Nobody is actually on Harvard's side they are just pissed at Trump.

If the research happens at Texas A&M instead of Harvard, nobody will care

And then the Democrats come into power and they take away the research from Texas a&m and give it to Harvard? That is a horrible recipe for progress in scientific research.

There's a competitive process to get the research grants as there should be.

No. They expect Democrats to "play nice" and not do something petty to even the score. And they're probably right.

The Democrats are pro-science and will fund science research as they should.

They just happen to have science on their side on most issues but they will reject science when it suits them.

e.g.

There is science on standardized tests
There is science on the safety of hydraulic fracking and nuclear power
There is science behind the safety of genetically modified organisms

yet .. all these things are totally part of our everyday lives

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You sound surprised. Of course Harvard won. All of the other schools would have won, too, if they had sued.

Utterly false.

Harvard won because it filed in the district of Massachusetts (where I used to practice law). The district court is extremely liberal and pro-Harvard, consistently siding with Harvard because it is physically present, and many of its graduates are on the bench and/or teaching there as spouses. So it should be no surprise, Allison Burroughs, the judge deciding this matter, is a Barack Obama appointee. She also decided against Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which was ultimately affirmed by the First Circuit and reversed by the SCOTUS. In other words, she should have recused herself on this round. All legal thinkers think this.

So what will happen here, as it did with Students for Fair Admissions, is that the First Circuit will affirm, and that SCOTUS will reverse.

So nothing to see here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard may have won in court yesterday, but that ruling only protects current grants. Going forward, agencies can simply choose not to award new money. Over time, losing access to fresh grants will hurt far more than the short-term win they just secured.

+1

Harvard won but Trump doesn’t care about laws. The money will still be impounded and then they won’t get new grants either. I’m not sure why people are celebrating this so much - it may be a legal victory, but it’s not going to translate to an actual victory.