Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech comes the closest to a true meritocracy. Interestingly, the profs are currently far more concerned with athletic admission boosts than racial, as there’s a high percentage of athletes at a school of 1000.

But even at Caltech I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some differences difference based on sex, given there’s more than double the number of male applicants but the student population is 54% male. So, is that an ok exception? If so, how different from other cases? If not, do we lose something? There has always been at least a case for some form of diversity, but arguing we might as well resort to ditching democratic norms if we can’t agree where to draw the line is like burning down the house when you dislike the paint job.

Was it worth the civil unrest and chaos of the 1960s to stop legal discrimination against blacks?
Sure this isn't nearly as bad but it's still racial discrimination and it's certainly worth destroying harvard over.

I bet if you just lined up test scores and GPA, it wouldn't look as bad between men and women at caltech as the difference between blacks and asians at harvard.
I personally don't think we should have gender preferences either but the gap is not obscene

Here's another thing about places like caltech and mit and women. Do you notice anything they have in common?

Wow, talk about discrimination. You sure seem to be up for it when it suits you. The issue with what you perceive as Asian discrimination is cultural, not racial. It's the culture that generates the "Ivy recipe " of violin, robotics, math team, FBLA, golf/tennis etc. It’s about how the students appear in terms of achievements and interests, not race. Also, the constant ratcheting of intensity and achievement means that these kids may not have developed creative or communication skills. Who knows.

You think that not prioritizing students who excel at the recipe is "racist, " but are fins suggesting black students have lesser scores and are therefore less meritorious than Asian. How much prep did both sets of students do? How much enrichment? Hopkins CTY? Math boosted 3 years ahead to get into magnets only for math curriculum to be review because it was already addressed with private instruction? And who believes standard test are the end all be all of merit? Only the parents who invested in them.

Talk about discrimination. Sheesh.

I remember when people were suspicious of Soviet Bloc athletes. They delivered incredible performances for decades but the rumors of performance enhancing drugs became a known fact. People stopped considering them solely on their stats and simply assumed they were juicing.

Admissions officers are comparing kids who just went high school against kids who went to high school + Hopkins CTY + Russian Math + Kumon + Mathnasium + etc.

All things being equal sometimes a kid with a 1500 from a barebones high school looks more impressive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

All taxpayers will never agree on anything. If the standard for receipt taxpayer funds is agreement from all taxpayers, then nothing would ever be funded from public coffers.

Right. That's why we have elections. Trump won the last election. In no small part because people were turned off to the liberal elite messaging, the racial discrimination against white and asians, the never ending stream of woke ideology coming out of places like Harvard.

If I have learned one thing in the past couple of years is all the same people who say they can't stand racism against Asians had no problem with COVID epithets and violence against Asians and hate meritocracy when Asians actually thrive.

The same people who cry about anti semitism at universities embrace salutes and white supremacists like Stephen miller.

So no...no one is taking you any seriously any more. You've rung a false tune on that bell too many times.

We all who were attacking Asians during Covid, and it wasn’t Trump supporters.

Same with antisemitism. We’ve all seen outright hate and violence the last 1.5 years and it wasn’t coming from MAGA.

Some officers working the nation’s capital during the failed insurrection might disagree about MAGA’s non-violence.

Yeah?

How many cops were attacked during January 6?

How many cops got attacked during BLM?

January 6th was treason but no less violent than BLM.

Wow, you have a short memory and are probably not from around here. (Or never venture in the city from Potomac).

1/6, MAGA attacked hundreds of police, bear spraying them, tasering them, beating them with objects. Please review the footage. 1/6 was violent. Google how many Capitol police members have ptsd from that day.

Much of BLM violence was started by or strongly esclated by police/troops. I remember a vet trying to talk to the troops as a servicemember, and they just sprayed him in the face. Trump's sweep of Lafayette park with rubber bullets. Yes, looters took advantage of chaos and unredt, and protesters sometimes obstructed and did not comply, but the violence was largely by the state.

That's what too many people don't get about BLM protests. They see the cops spraying rubber bullets and assume it was justified due to violence, when in reality there was none. Then the news shows local hoodlums taking advantage of the chaos by looting a CVS miles away and conflates the two events as if that looting (where no police were present) was why the national guard shot at peaceful protesters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard should lode its tax exemption and be taxes like any other entity for defying scouts and WH.

This.

Right after churches start paying up. Unethical MFers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

All taxpayers will never agree on anything. If the standard for receipt taxpayer funds is agreement from all taxpayers, then nothing would ever be funded from public coffers.

Right. That's why we have elections. Trump won the last election. In no small part because people were turned off to the liberal elite messaging, the racial discrimination against white and asians, the never ending stream of woke ideology coming out of places like Harvard.

If I have learned one thing in the past couple of years is all the same people who say they can't stand racism against Asians had no problem with COVID epithets and violence against Asians and hate meritocracy when Asians actually thrive.

The same people who cry about anti semitism at universities embrace salutes and white supremacists like Stephen miller.

So no...no one is taking you any seriously any more. You've rung a false tune on that bell too many times.

We all who were attacking Asians during Covid, and it wasn’t Trump supporters.

Same with antisemitism. We’ve all seen outright hate and violence the last 1.5 years and it wasn’t coming from MAGA.

Some officers working the nation’s capital during the failed insurrection might disagree about MAGA’s non-violence.

Yeah?

How many cops were attacked during January 6?

How many cops got attacked during BLM?

January 6th was treason but no less violent than BLM.

Wow, you have a short memory and are probably not from around here. (Or never venture in the city from Potomac).

1/6, MAGA attacked hundreds of police, bear spraying them, tasering them, beating them with objects. Please review the footage. 1/6 was violent. Google how many Capitol police members have ptsd from that day.

Much of BLM violence was started by or strongly esclated by police/troops. I remember a vet trying to talk to the troops as a servicemember, and they just sprayed him in the face. Trump's sweep of Lafayette park with rubber bullets. Yes, looters took advantage of chaos and unredt, and protesters sometimes obstructed and did not comply, but the violence was largely by the state.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech comes the closest to a true meritocracy. Interestingly, the profs are currently far more concerned with athletic admission boosts than racial, as there’s a high percentage of athletes at a school of 1000.

But even at Caltech I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some differences difference based on sex, given there’s more than double the number of male applicants but the student population is 54% male. So, is that an ok exception? If so, how different from other cases? If not, do we lose something? There has always been at least a case for some form of diversity, but arguing we might as well resort to ditching democratic norms if we can’t agree where to draw the line is like burning down the house when you dislike the paint job.

Was it worth the civil unrest and chaos of the 1960s to stop legal discrimination against blacks?
Sure this isn't nearly as bad but it's still racial discrimination and it's certainly worth destroying harvard over.

I bet if you just lined up test scores and GPA, it wouldn't look as bad between men and women at caltech as the difference between blacks and asians at harvard.
I personally don't think we should have gender preferences either but the gap is not obscene

Here's another thing about places like caltech and mit and women. Do you notice anything they have in common?

Wow, talk about discrimination. You sure seem to be up for it when it suits you. The issue with what you perceive as Asian discrimination is cultural, not racial. It's the culture that generates the "Ivy recipe " of violin, robotics, math team, FBLA, golf/tennis etc. It’s about how the students appear in terms of achievements and interests, not race. Also, the constant ratcheting of intensity and achievement means that these kids may not have developed creative or communication skills. Who knows.

You think that not prioritizing students who excel at the recipe is "racist, " but are fins suggesting black students have lesser scores and are therefore less meritorious than Asian. How much prep did both sets of students do? How much enrichment? Hopkins CTY? Math boosted 3 years ahead to get into magnets only for math curriculum to be review because it was already addressed with private instruction? And who believes standard test are the end all be all of merit? Only the parents who invested in them.

Talk about discrimination. Sheesh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

All taxpayers will never agree on anything. If the standard for receipt taxpayer funds is agreement from all taxpayers, then nothing would ever be funded from public coffers.

Right. That's why we have elections. Trump won the last election. In no small part because people were turned off to the liberal elite messaging, the racial discrimination against white and asians, the never ending stream of woke ideology coming out of places like Harvard.

If I have learned one thing in the past couple of years is all the same people who say they can't stand racism against Asians had no problem with COVID epithets and violence against Asians and hate meritocracy when Asians actually thrive.

The same people who cry about anti semitism at universities embrace salutes and white supremacists like Stephen miller.

So no...no one is taking you any seriously any more. You've rung a false tune on that bell too many times.

We all who were attacking Asians during Covid, and it wasn’t Trump supporters.

Same with antisemitism. We’ve all seen outright hate and violence the last 1.5 years and it wasn’t coming from MAGA.

Some officers working the nation’s capital during the failed insurrection might disagree about MAGA’s non-violence.

Yeah?

How many cops were attacked during January 6?

How many cops got attacked during BLM?

January 6th was treason but no less violent than BLM.

Wow, you have a short memory and are probably not from around here. (Or never venture in the city from Potomac).

1/6, MAGA attacked hundreds of police, bear spraying them, tasering them, beating them with objects. Please review the footage. 1/6 was violent. Google how many Capitol police members have ptsd from that day.

Much of BLM violence was started by or strongly esclated by police/troops. I remember a vet trying to talk to the troops as a servicemember, and they just sprayed him in the face. Trump's sweep of Lafayette park with rubber bullets. Yes, looters took advantage of chaos and unredt, and protesters sometimes obstructed and did not comply, but the violence was largely by the state.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard should lode its tax exemption and be taxes like any other entity for defying scouts and WH.

This.

Anonymous wrote:Harvard should lode its tax exemption and be taxes like any other entity for defying scouts and WH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech comes the closest to a true meritocracy. Interestingly, the profs are currently far more concerned with athletic admission boosts than racial, as there’s a high percentage of athletes at a school of 1000.

But even at Caltech I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some differences difference based on sex, given there’s more than double the number of male applicants but the student population is 54% male. So, is that an ok exception? If so, how different from other cases? If not, do we lose something? There has always been at least a case for some form of diversity, but arguing we might as well resort to ditching democratic norms if we can’t agree where to draw the line is like burning down the house when you dislike the paint job.

Was it worth the civil unrest and chaos of the 1960s to stop legal discrimination against blacks?
Sure this isn't nearly as bad but it's still racial discrimination and it's certainly worth destroying harvard over.

I bet if you just lined up test scores and GPA, it wouldn't look as bad between men and women at caltech as the difference between blacks and asians at harvard.
I personally don't think we should have gender preferences either but the gap is not obscene

Here's another thing about places like caltech and mit and women. Do you notice anything they have in common?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax exempt status next.

It's absurd the Harvard pays no taxes and gets $9B of federal money. Meanwhile their class sizes remain tiny, while they talk about equity and privilege, and play racial discrimination games where a black student has 10x the odds of getting in than an Asian American student with similar stats across all achievement deciles.

Please share a post SCOTUS ruling source for that statistic.

I happen to disfavor affirmative action too, but am often surprised how many rail against that while fine with athletic recruiting. They have the highest admit rates of all, and these are supposed to be academic institutions. Some people are just born more athletic; an average person can’t get recruited with just hard work the way they can get good grades or test scores with just hard work.

They haven't released all their admissions data to the general public. But what days we have shows pretty dramatic racial discrimination. Why are you giving them a pass from stuff they were doing just a few years ago?

Because it wasn't illegal then. 37% Asian for the class of '28 and you're still claiming they are racist against Asians? By the way, most of the Asians who work and study at top institutions, and there are a lot of us, are firmly anti-Trump, because we know better than to think he is on our side.

It was always illegal. The opinion says explicitly:

"For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today. "

It was never legal to discriminate like that.

I don't like trump and I didn't think he is on our side. But I think Harvard was discriminating against Asians and it's weird that you have so much trouble admitting this very obvious fact.

Also, you are either lying or stupid if you are arguing that being overrepresented means you aren't being discriminated against.

I'm not even in favor of race-based affirmative action, though I can understand why others argue for it. However, it is one thing to be in favor of race-blind admissions, and an entirely different thing to get behind a dictator-wanna-be who wants to clamp down on free speech, defund science, start tariff wars, alienate us from former world allies, and impose various other ill-informed and anti-intellectual policies to ruin this country. You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison. And then even, though it was clearly done in error, said administration doubles down and refuse to bring him back. Are you really so fixated on the fact that it was harder for Asians to get into Harvard that you are willing to approve of what this guy is doing to ruin a democracy?

So you don't really like racial discrimination but you can understand the argument for it?

OK, is that any different from saying I don't really support trump but I can understand why they support him.

Similarly, I don't like defunding research and I wish he had simply moved the research from harvard to some flagship state schools but I didn't get elected president. If you don't like it, try not losing so many goddam elections.

If you can tolerate racial discrimination against asians for decades and understand why others argue for it, perhaps you can tolerate the persecution for an institution as privileged as harvard for a few years and bring yourself to understand why people are arguing for their reformation.

In the end, this particular move is not really hurting trump with the constituency he cares about. The working class voters from Minnesota to Pennsylvania do not have a lot of love for harvard. They think of harvard and the liberal elites as part of the problem. And as long as trump can keep the voters, he will control the republican party whether he is president or not.

I can certainly understand the possible good intention of boosting minority applicants in a pool to encourage underrepresented groups as well as low income groups, which is not the same as malice towards Asian people or white people or Jewish people. Just like trying to balance gender ratio at liberal arts colleges is not the same as being anti-female, or trying to balance gender ratio at Caltech is not the same as being anti-male. You can disagree with practice, but instead of just campaigning for admissions reform, you're content to see the best research institutions razed to the ground, and willing to see a whole lot of Asian scientists lose their funding. I also hope you realize that a significant portion of his stakeholders want to stop the "Asian invasion" of tech, medicine, and higher ed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

All taxpayers will never agree on anything. If the standard for receipt taxpayer funds is agreement from all taxpayers, then nothing would ever be funded from public coffers.

Right. That's why we have elections. Trump won the last election. In no small part because people were turned off to the liberal elite messaging, the racial discrimination against white and asians, the never ending stream of woke ideology coming out of places like Harvard.

If I have learned one thing in the past couple of years is all the same people who say they can't stand racism against Asians had no problem with COVID epithets and violence against Asians and hate meritocracy when Asians actually thrive.

The same people who cry about anti semitism at universities embrace salutes and white supremacists like Stephen miller.

So no...no one is taking you any seriously any more. You've rung a false tune on that bell too many times.

We all who were attacking Asians during Covid, and it wasn’t Trump supporters.

Same with antisemitism. We’ve all seen outright hate and violence the last 1.5 years and it wasn’t coming from MAGA.

Some officers working the nation’s capital during the failed insurrection might disagree about MAGA’s non-violence.

Yeah?

How many cops were attacked during January 6?

How many cops got attacked during BLM?

January 6th was treason but no less violent than BLM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax exempt status next.

It's absurd the Harvard pays no taxes and gets $9B of federal money. Meanwhile their class sizes remain tiny, while they talk about equity and privilege, and play racial discrimination games where a black student has 10x the odds of getting in than an Asian American student with similar stats across all achievement deciles.

Please share a post SCOTUS ruling source for that statistic.

I happen to disfavor affirmative action too, but am often surprised how many rail against that while fine with athletic recruiting. They have the highest admit rates of all, and these are supposed to be academic institutions. Some people are just born more athletic; an average person can’t get recruited with just hard work the way they can get good grades or test scores with just hard work.

They haven't released all their admissions data to the general public. But what days we have shows pretty dramatic racial discrimination. Why are you giving them a pass from stuff they were doing just a few years ago?

Because it wasn't illegal then. 37% Asian for the class of '28 and you're still claiming they are racist against Asians? By the way, most of the Asians who work and study at top institutions, and there are a lot of us, are firmly anti-Trump, because we know better than to think he is on our side.

It was always illegal. The opinion says explicitly:

"For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today. "

It was never legal to discriminate like that.

I don't like trump and I didn't think he is on our side. But I think Harvard was discriminating against Asians and it's weird that you have so much trouble admitting this very obvious fact.

Also, you are either lying or stupid if you are arguing that being overrepresented means you aren't being discriminated against.

I'm not even in favor of race-based affirmative action, though I can understand why others argue for it. However, it is one thing to be in favor of race-blind admissions, and an entirely different thing to get behind a dictator-wanna-be who wants to clamp down on free speech, defund science, start tariff wars, alienate us from former world allies, and impose various other ill-informed and anti-intellectual policies to ruin this country. You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison. And then even, though it was clearly done in error, said administration doubles down and refuse to bring him back. Are you really so fixated on the fact that it was harder for Asians to get into Harvard that you are willing to approve of what this guy is doing to ruin a democracy?

So you don't really like racial discrimination but you can understand the argument for it?

OK, is that any different from saying I don't really support trump but I can understand why they support him.

Similarly, I don't like defunding research and I wish he had simply moved the research from harvard to some flagship state schools but I didn't get elected president. If you don't like it, try not losing so many goddam elections.

If you can tolerate racial discrimination against asians for decades and understand why others argue for it, perhaps you can tolerate the persecution for an institution as privileged as harvard for a few years and bring yourself to understand why people are arguing for their reformation.

In the end, this particular move is not really hurting trump with the constituency he cares about. The working class voters from Minnesota to Pennsylvania do not have a lot of love for harvard. They think of harvard and the liberal elites as part of the problem. And as long as trump can keep the voters, he will control the republican party whether he is president or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax exempt status next.

It's absurd the Harvard pays no taxes and gets $9B of federal money. Meanwhile their class sizes remain tiny, while they talk about equity and privilege, and play racial discrimination games where a black student has 10x the odds of getting in than an Asian American student with similar stats across all achievement deciles.

Please share a post SCOTUS ruling source for that statistic.

I happen to disfavor affirmative action too, but am often surprised how many rail against that while fine with athletic recruiting. They have the highest admit rates of all, and these are supposed to be academic institutions. Some people are just born more athletic; an average person can’t get recruited with just hard work the way they can get good grades or test scores with just hard work.

They haven't released all their admissions data to the general public. But what days we have shows pretty dramatic racial discrimination. Why are you giving them a pass from stuff they were doing just a few years ago?

Because it wasn't illegal then. 37% Asian for the class of '28 and you're still claiming they are racist against Asians? By the way, most of the Asians who work and study at top institutions, and there are a lot of us, are firmly anti-Trump, because we know better than to think he is on our side.

It was always illegal. The opinion says explicitly:

"For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today. "

It was never legal to discriminate like that.

I don't like trump and I didn't think he is on our side. But I think Harvard was discriminating against Asians and it's weird that you have so much trouble admitting this very obvious fact.

Also, you are either lying or stupid if you are arguing that being overrepresented means you aren't being discriminated against.

I'm not even in favor of race-based affirmative action, though I can understand why others argue for it. However, it is one thing to be in favor of race-blind admissions, and an entirely different thing to get behind a dictator-wanna-be who wants to clamp down on free speech, defund science, start tariff wars, alienate us from former world allies, and impose various other ill-informed and anti-intellectual policies to ruin this country. You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison. And then even, though it was clearly done in error, said administration doubles down and refuse to bring him back. Are you really so fixated on the fact that it was harder for Asians to get into Harvard that you are willing to approve of what this guy is doing to ruin a democracy?

So you don't really like racial discrimination but you can understand the argument for it?

OK, is that any different from saying I don't really support trump but I can understand why they support him.

Similarly, I don't like defunding research and I wish he had simply moved the research from harvard to some flagship state schools but I didn't get elected president. If you don't like it, try not losing so many goddam elections.

If you can tolerate racial discrimination against asians for decades and understand why others argue for it, perhaps you can tolerate the persecution for an institution as privileged as harvard for a few years and bring yourself to understand why people are arguing for their reformation.

In the end, this particular move is not really hurting trump with the constituency he cares about. The working class voters from Minnesota to Pennsylvania do not have a lot of love for harvard. They think of harvard and the liberal elites as part of the problem. And as long as trump can keep the voters, he will control the republican party whether he is president or not.

DP. Oh, please. You are extrapolating and attributing things PP never said. Also, I think you really do support Trump because he is pandering to your fears and bias.

PP is on the money.

You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison.
--Agreed

Are you agreeing with yourself?
I don't support trump but I doubt you will believe me. There is a category of liberal that believes that anyone that disagrees with them on pretty much anything must support trump. At some point I might start to believe you but I do not yet.

I don't think trump really cares that much about asians but he likes the fact that harvard actually discriminated against asians and intends to use that as a reason to accuse them of all sorts of other things. I mean if they were racist against asians, they are probably anti-semitic too, After all the hatred for model minorities is strongest against the jews. Harvard brought this on itself.

Trump will pay no political price for punishing racist elitist universities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’

The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.

What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.

Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.

I literally quoted from the article.

No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.

Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.

Doesn’t work like that.

All taxpayers will never agree on anything. If the standard for receipt taxpayer funds is agreement from all taxpayers, then nothing would ever be funded from public coffers.

Right. That's why we have elections. Trump won the last election. In no small part because people were turned off to the liberal elite messaging, the racial discrimination against white and asians, the never ending stream of woke ideology coming out of places like Harvard.

If I have learned one thing in the past couple of years is all the same people who say they can't stand racism against Asians had no problem with COVID epithets and violence against Asians and hate meritocracy when Asians actually thrive.

The same people who cry about anti semitism at universities embrace salutes and white supremacists like Stephen miller.

So no...no one is taking you any seriously any more. You've rung a false tune on that bell too many times.

We all who were attacking Asians during Covid, and it wasn’t Trump supporters.

Same with antisemitism. We’ve all seen outright hate and violence the last 1.5 years and it wasn’t coming from MAGA.

Some officers working the nation’s capital during the failed insurrection might disagree about MAGA’s non-violence.

Yeah?

How many cops were attacked during January 6?

How many cops got attacked during BLM?

January 6th was treason but no less violent than BLM.

BS absolute BS you don't geShe's.

DP


write history. Jan 6th 141 members of the Capital Police were attacked. They would have raped women in Congress, they hung gallows. This was an attack on the US government a coup no mental gymnastics will there be anything but. There is no reality there are alternate electors that BS by John Eastman, Hawley & Cruz is utter BS.

ROFLMAO

They would have done what to the women in congress?

Like I said, it was treason but no more violent than the BLM riots.