Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Scare tactic. He's literally threatening the school with the top law professors (and students) in the land. They will win, since this is such a horribly dangerous precedent.
Elle Woods is gonna wipe the floor with him.
He has the Supreme Court on his side.
Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that Harvard University has made some concessions such as quietly closing down its DEI office.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Harvard and the View From Hillsdale” published in the Wall Street Journal on April 18, 2025, discusses how Hillsdale College doesn’t take federal money. You really need to read up some more before making sweeping assertions.
Fair enough. Replace Hillsdale College with Liberty University, or the Federalist Society, or whatever. The point still stands, despite your pedantics. Obviously.
Apples and Oranges my dim little tool. Hillsdale is a LAC and doesn't need research contracts. Just like the NESCAC except for Tufts can just happily cruise along. Federal money is about 2-3% of the budget at top SLACs, they don't need it and while they would miss it it has no bearing on their operations. The OP ed by the Hillsdale president fails in the fact of objective comparison.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
That is incorrect. Read the precedent below. Hopefully the lawyers that Harvard is producing know their case law, unlike DCUM.
Bob Jones University (BJU) had its tax-exempt status revoked by the IRS in the 1970s due to its racially discriminatory admissions policies. This action was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), which established that tax-exempt status can be denied to organizations that violate public policy, including racial discrimination. However, the university later regained its tax-exempt status after dropping the ban on interracial dating in 2000.
Please identify the Harvard policy that, under Bob Jones, justifies revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status.
Anonymous wrote:“ I was trying to not hurt your feelings, but yes, per the report, more Muslims felt discriminated against than Jews. Shrug.. you wanted us to read the report, and that's what it stated. So, where's Trump regarding the anti-Muslim sentiments. Oh that's right.. he's not in the pockets of rich Muslims, unlike the wealthy Jews, and he's always hated Muslims, anyways.”
The rich Muslims must be sending their $$$ to the terrorists and Islamists. If they would contribute more money to our country and its institutions, perhaps they would have more clout.
Anonymous wrote:“ I was trying to not hurt your feelings, but yes, per the report, more Muslims felt discriminated against than Jews. Shrug.. you wanted us to read the report, and that's what it stated. So, where's Trump regarding the anti-Muslim sentiments. Oh that's right.. he's not in the pockets of rich Muslims, unlike the wealthy Jews, and he's always hated Muslims, anyways.”
The rich Muslims must be sending their $$$ to the terrorists and Islamists. If they would contribute more money to our country and its institutions, perhaps they would have more clout.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Very good economic news keep it coming!
yea, like price increases. Hooray!
Anonymous wrote:Apples and Oranges my dim little tool. Hillsdale is a LAC and doesn't need research contracts. Just like the NESCAC except for Tufts can just happily cruise along. Federal money is about 2-3% of the budget at top SLACs, they don't need it and while they would miss it it has no bearing on their operations. The OP ed by the Hillsdale president fails in the fact of objective comparison.