29 ms·

Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

• 9283409232 2y ago
  Good. Trump is simply trying to see what he can get away with and the answer as it turns out is a lot. Everyone need to stop capitulating to this nonsense. People, universities, companies, all of them.
• pbiggar 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • snapetom 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • outer_web 2y ago
      Hyperbole doesn't help at all. Police the violence, not the speech.
    • pbiggar 2y ago
      I've visited a handful of encampments. Super peaceful, mostly kids educating each other about colonialism and the history of Israel's occupation and apartheid. If you're looking for violence, the attacks on the Palestine encampments at UCLA were by far the most horrific violence on campus of the last year, and that was funded by Jonathan Greenblatt (CEO of the ADL, which is a racist org)
      • snapetom 2y ago
        [flagged]
    • Vilian 2y ago
      Israel is violent against Palestine and receive more guns, why don't these students received a few too?, they are doing the same, or the guns only come after a few thousands of killed innocents?
• Papirola 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • mijoharas 2y ago
    You want to send them to El Salvador?
  • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    > afford Jewish students the same protections as other minorities I’m not really familiar with this dispute. How have they failed to do this?
  • jrapdx3 2y ago
    Certainly seems it ought not to be, but evidently the will to provide "the same protections" is lacking. The unavoidable conclusion is that antisemitism is policy even if it's not official and documented. That truly defies logic considering some of the university's brightest lights have been Jews who've made major contributions to their fields, the school and the country as a whole.
  • cypherpunks01 2y ago
    Harvard said most of the demands were not actually about antisemitism. > Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• dang 2y ago
  Related ongoing thread: Federal Government's letter to Harvard demanding changes [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43684386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43684386
• soup10 2y ago
  Harvard has a 50 billion endowment, what do they need federal funds for. If they value their intellectual independence so much, then cut the cord.
  • nradov 2y ago
    Much of that federal funding is for research, the same as any other R1 university. We all benefit from research findings. Endowments are used for other purposes. There are a few colleges that take no federal funding in order to maintain total independence (mostly for religious reasons). But their research output is virtually zero.
    • itsoktocry 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • MinimalAction 2y ago
        These are important questions, but your skepticism has no roots in firmer grounds. How are you arriving at a ratio of 10:1? Bad faith actor.
      • geodel 2y ago
        You do seem expert in all research fields. You can do on your own.
      • tenacious_tuna 2y ago
        > I'd guess bad-to-good ratio is at least 10 to 1. Should we fix that? Should we fix... what? Your unsubstantiated claim? You didn't even bother to do napkin math about it, you just asked a bunch of leading questions and then claimed inaction by the masses.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • jncfhnb 2y ago
    The federal funds are for doing research that the government wants to fund, not keeping the university’s lights on. This is about terminating a productive partnership, not ending a subsidy handout to schools.
• colechristensen 2y ago
  I would have preferred a much more concise refusal.
  • Vegenoid 2y ago
    I’m not sure if you wanted it shorter for tonal reasons rather than simply for length of time to read, but I think it was pretty concise.
    • colechristensen 2y ago
      It's bad rhetoric. Using stronger, more direct language would have been much more effective at making their point and having their point reach a broader audience. We need leaders who refuse to comply with an authoritarian government and do so with proud defiance. This message was meandering and weak. Harvard has "fuck you money". They should go ahead and make it clear that they know they have this power and are expressing it (not necessarily with the vulgarity, yet)
• carterschonwald 2y ago
  Good. More organizations that have the resources should be putting their foot down.
• droopyEyelids 2y ago
  It’ll be nice if an institution finally decides to oppose some of the recent government overreach. It’s really shocking to see an institution in our country take action that is not in its immediate financial best interest (assuming this letter translates to an action)
  • immibis 2y ago
    It's not just about finances. Trump just announced (possibly accidentally) that he's going to start deporting American citizens to El Salvador gulags: https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-says-the-us-could-deport-homegrown-criminals-to-el-salvador-jail-13348980 https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-says-the-us-could-de... and they've been painting political enemies as criminals. It's pretty much the same situation as Russia/Putin but at an earlier stage of its development, and people want to avoid being the tallest grass that gets mowed. It's good that some institutions are standing up but I don't expect it to go well for them.
    • goatlover 2y ago
      He also said Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor may have committed treason for criticizing him as president after signing an executive order to investigate them.
  • castlecrasher2 2y ago
    [flagged]
• throwaway48476 2y ago
  The government subsidizes a private institution that cuts class sizes. Clearly education isn't their priority, so the subsidy can go.
• PerilousD 2y ago
  I guess that Harvard probably does not need the Feds as much as the Feds need Harvard but I'm glad they are standing up to the Fascists. I'm going to have to see what NYU is doing now.
  • nonethewiser 2y ago
    What does the Federal Gov need Harvard for? Harvard gets 16% of its funding from them - what outweighs that on the aide of the Federal government?
    • ceejayoz 2y ago
      The tax revenues from the $1.3T company that arose from their online yearbook? Lawyers? Doctors? Medical research? Thousands of highly educated graduates annually? 161 Nobel prize winners?
      • nonethewiser 2y ago
        Its not clear what the effect no Harvard would be on those metrics. And all of those are necessarily in Harvards best interest to maintain too. This is compared to a direct payment to sustain operations which the government is saying they may not be in favor of. But its not like Harvard would say ”it may not be in our interest to produce successful people anymore.”
        • ceejayoz 2y ago
          Harvard isn't the first to be targeted, nor will they be the last. The American university system is undeniably impactful on American success over the last century. It would be tough to put any sort of exact number on it, but we can absolutely say "a shitload".
          • nonethewiser 2y ago
            >The American university system is undeniably impactful on American success over the last century. Merit based reforms would only help. What kind of DEI programs did Harvard have 100 years ago?
• rocqua 2y ago
  Harvard just earned some reputation with me. It was already a place with great research. But now, it is also in institution with actual moral fiber.
  • apercu 2y ago
    > actual moral fiber. Maybe? Or maybe they realize that they will lose all future credibility with students, government and NGO's if they bow to the conservative & Christian right? There are two outcomes for the the current American government situation - a slide in to authoritarianism (it's right there in Project 2025), or these wackjobs get voted out because they are destroying global financial stability. If it's the former, Harvard eventually has to cave because literal Nazi's. If it's the latter, Harvard is screwed if they capitulate.
    • duxup 2y ago
      Edited: Yes, I doubt they're cool with the ideas in the letter like the federal government auditing everyone's "viewpoint diversity" and mandating staffing changes to fit what the federal government wants.
      • apercu 2y ago
        I think.... you're agreeing with me?
        • duxup 2y ago
          I am, I misread your response, my bad.
    • throwway120385 2y ago
      The thing is there's really no choice. The version of Harvard we get if they cave is the same as burning it all down. It would be dead as an educational institution and would only serve to foster the same kind of insane doublethink that leads people to ask for "diversity in viewpoints" at the same time they ask for the removal of the viewpoints they disagree with.
• nashashmi 2y ago
  > Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard. So alongside antisemitism, The other demand is for changes in intellect. For some reason this reeks of Christian evangelical movement to purge wokism and anti-Zionism, both of which have run counter to evangelical dogma.
  • nailer 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • nashashmi 2y ago
      Except homeland has been Egypt before it was Palestine. And Jews lived in both places peacefully after the Arabs established peace. Antisemitism is not what you want to make it out to be. It is as much a hatred against Arabs as it is against Jews, as Zionist Christians want to fill the land with Jews just so the end of the world is near, without any consideration for what happens to the Arab natives of the region.
      • nailer 2y ago
        Arabs never ‘established peace’ - historians largely agree that Islam was spread through conquest. Under Arab colonisation Jewish people either lived as Dhimmis, which are second class citizens, or were subject to outright violence (you can find many incidences of this before 1948), or both.
        • nashashmi 2y ago
          Yes, peace happens after conquest. Colonization never occurred. And if you want to know what happened to the Jews after Arabs conquered, listen to this historian speak: https://youtu.be/9bBlv0hfj5c?si=JVi7tMYTPwBI97gT https://youtu.be/9bBlv0hfj5c?si=JVi7tMYTPwBI97gT
          • 2y ago
• hedayet 2y ago
  Presidents and their policies come and go; knowledge stays and grows. As long as educators aren’t selling themselves short, I remain optimistic about the future.
  • killjoywashere 2y ago
    Einstein essentially gave up his professorship at the University of Berlin. How far into the future are you looking? https://www.nytimes.com/1932/10/18/archives/einstein-would-quit-berlin-professorship-scientists-attempt-to.html https://www.nytimes.com/1932/10/18/archives/einstein-would-q...
  • stevenwoo 2y ago
    The current administration have interrupted the pipeline of students to research - current research funded or partially funded by federal government is stopping or will be curtailed and future students will question whether is a rational decision to go into any sort of path that leads to research because it would only be stable for maybe two to three years, assuming a sane, science respecting House, Senate and President were in office and used the regular norms to pass bills and implement programs. I do not see a recovery path from this unless American public gets a similar thrashing like the Great Depression and decides to not elect nut jobs for 50 years. I keep seeing interviews with those who vote for Trump and are hurt by his tariffs or immigration changes and insisting they still support Trump. Those (mostly older) people are going to have to die of natural causes and be replaced by demographic shifts before things change, but the last election showing young men shifting to Trump and this administration trying to suppress the vote of women does not point to this.
• laweijfmvo 2y ago
  the irony of the evil being perpetrated around the world in the name of "antisemitism" is mind boggling
  • A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    In the name of "fighting antisemitism"? It's true, though. It's a convenient tool. "What do you mean you don't want to cede control to us? Don't you want to fight antisemitism?!"
  • georgeburdell 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • myth_drannon 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • skyyler 2y ago
        What organised group of leftists has attacked a group of people based on their ethnicity? Do you have a link you could share?
        • myth_drannon 2y ago
          SJP for example. That's why Khalil and others are deported.
          • skyyler 2y ago
            Can you expand on this? What is SJP? What student did they attack based on ethnicity? Can you send any links?
            • breppp 2y ago
              https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/five-jewish-college-students-report-assaulted-last-month-rcna171727 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/five-jewish-coll...
• almogo 2y ago
  No mention of anti-Asian discrimination? It made big rounds in all the American media circles a few years back, and if memory serves, MAGA boarded that train too.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • kridsdale1 2y ago
    The page acknowledges that Harvard lost that case and will comply with the ruling.
  • overfeed 2y ago
    These "values" are not sincerely held, but tactical. Once they got the SCOTUS win and affirmative action was toast, they quickly moved on from fighting anti-Asian hate to a new fig-leaf/tool to useful for fighting the next ideological battle, which was prominent protests against government policy, which happened to be pro-Palestine, so this is the best tool for the job. The messaging is very similar too, conflating pro-diversity with anti-whiteness, or anti-asian when needed, and now redefining being pro-Palestine as anti-Semitic or pro-Hamas. It's dumb, lacks nuance, but effective when the Fifth estate is pliant, co-opted or otherwise ineffective.
    • jimmydddd 2y ago
      Good points. But they did open themselves up to this by blatantly discriminating against Asian students. I mean, "you have an ulterior motive in arguing against our hugely racist policies" is not a great defense.
    • ThrowawayR2 2y ago
      > "These "values" are not sincerely held, but tactical." By MAGA, yes. Asians themselves haven't forgotten about it nor will they forgive anytime soon.
      • saagarjha 2y ago
• areoform 2y ago
  If you've read history, this rhymes with certain acts that have happened before under certain regimes. Under a non-authoritarian Government, this type of showboating can be dismissed, but when habeas corpus and the right to due process is suspended — such actions take on a very different cast indeed. It's good that Harvard is fighting this. The more people accede, the more they will accelerate down a path where there is no coming back from.
  • ghusto 2y ago
    The point of no return is Trump getting a third term. The parallels are strong there. I was just thinking this morning that we very much needed the USA's help fighting Nazi Germany, but who will we turn to when we're fighting fascists coming from the East _and_ West? (Russia and the USA)
    • School-Cotton 2y ago
      What is your definition of "fascists"? Edit to explain my point, because I'm getting downvoted (which I don't care about, but I _do_ care if people don't understand my point): fascism was a specific ideology/movement in the 20th century that, other than being right-wing and authoritarian, doesn't bear much resemblance to right-wing authoritarianism today: they have different goals, different motives, promote different policies, etc. It seems people just use "fascism" as a synonym for "destructive right-wing populism" or even just "bad". And I agree that things like the MAGA movement, or AfD in Germany, ARE bad, and one could even argue that they are just as bad as historical fascism. But I don't think we should use "fascism" in this way, because it gives ammo to your opponents: the supporters of these right-wing movements can point out that indeed, they are not the same as historical fascism and make you look silly.
      • vel0city 2y ago
        The opening passage of the Wikipedia article: Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right [checks box], authoritarian [ignoring courts decisions, sending people to prisons without any due process; check], and ultranationalist [MAGA, american exceptionalism, etc; check] political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader [do I really need to explain; check], centralized autocracy [feckless GOP congress, EOs left and right; check], militarism, forcible suppression of opposition [J6, anyone? also see Maine and TFA and the law firms being blacklisted and more; check], belief in a natural social hierarchy [pro-life, shrouded in "traditional family values", anti-gay, anti-trans, etc; check], subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race [tariffs, massive deportations without due process, etc; check], and strong regimentation of society and the economy [bathroom bills, tariff policies with exceptions for those who bribe him with million dollar dinner purchases, etc; check]. Tell me how this doesn't fit?
• jmyeet 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • gruez 2y ago
    >3. Testimony before Congress that equated opposition to war crimes to antisemitism [4]. Can you link to a specific line of testimony that supports this allegation? "war crimes" isn't even mentioned in the article. Far too often claims like this devolve into a game of strawman/motte-and-bailey, where each side tries to paint their position as maximally charitable, and accuse the other side of rejecting the maximally charitable position.
• Whoppertime 2y ago
  It seems like the government has a soft Monopsony. There are many universities willing to sell research, but the government is the biggest buyer and controls the research grant market
  • riskassessment 2y ago
    This isn't close to a monopsony but it's more directionally correct than it is wrong. Keep in mind research institutes can be funded by private foundations, state and local governments, industry (e.g. pharma), venture, or even foreign governments. The federal government is undoubtedly the largest buyer though. I do think there are other motivations to rely primarily on federal grants beyond number of dollars. In particular, funding sources other than federal grant money is often looked down on from an academic prestige perspective. Until now federal money came with very few strings attached compared to the perceived loss of objectivity that could occur when receiving money from other sources. The current situation may alter or relax the prevailing view on which sources of research money are perceived of as potentially compromising.
  • jltsiren 2y ago
    Universities don't sell or do research. They provide facilities, equipment, services, and sometimes funding for research. The actual research is done by individuals, who are nominally employed by the university but largely independent from it. If a researcher doesn't like a particular university, they can usually take their funding and projects to another university. When grants are revoked for political reasons, it affects individuals who happen to be affiliated with the university more than the university itself. And it particularly affects people doing STEM research, because humanities and social sciences receive much less external funding. If the decline in public funding is permanent, it makes humanities and social sciences relatively stronger within the university. They are more viable without public subsidies than the more expensive STEM fields.
    • walleeee 2y ago
      Research is often (usually?) the property of the host university, though. Yeah labs are independently managed but the university is in at least one sense, and imo many more, still the institution both doing and selling the work
• mlhpdx 2y ago
  Scathing, and wonderfully so.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• bretpiatt 2y ago
  With their endowment above $50 billion, combined with Federal plus Non-Federal sponsored revenue at 16% of operating budget, it makes sense to me they just forgo Federal funds and operate independently. If all 16% is canceled, then they'd need to draw an additional $1 billion per year from endowment at current budget levels. That would put them above 7% draw so potentially unsustainable for perpetuity, historically they've averaged 11% returns though, so if past performance is a predictor of future, they can cover 100% of Federal gap and still grow the endowment annually with no new donations.
  • gruez 2y ago
    This article lists out why it's not good of an idea as you think. >Universities’ endowments are not as much help as their billion-dollar valuations would suggest. For a start, much of the money is reserved for a particular purpose, funding a specific professorship or research centre, say. Legal covenants often prevent it from being diverted for other purposes. In any case, the income from an endowment is typically used to fund a big share of a university’s operating costs. Eat into the principal and you eat into that revenue stream. >What is more, eating into the principal is difficult. Many endowments, in search of higher income, have invested heavily in illiquid assets, such as private equity, property and venture capital. That is a reasonable strategy for institutions that plan to be around for centuries, but makes it far harder to sell assets to cover a sudden budgetary shortfall. And with markets in turmoil, prices of liquid assets such as stocks and government bonds have gyrated in recent days. Endowments that “decapitalise” now would risk crystallising big losses. More worrying is the fact that the federal government can inflict even more harm aside from cutting off federal funding: >the Trump administration has many other ways to inflict financial pain on universities apart from withholding research funding. It could make it harder for students to tap the government’s financial-aid programmes. It could issue fewer visas to foreign students, who tend to pay full tuition. With Congress’s help, it could amend tax laws in ways that would hurt universities. https://archive.is/siUqm https://archive.is/siUqm
    • forrestthewoods 2y ago
      if a $50,000,000,000 endowment can not be used to smooth things over in times of need or turbulence then the endowment managers need to make changes. You can not possibly convince me that Harvard’s endowment doesn’t trivially have one year of liquidity in it. I’m sure it’s not structured to handle a 7% annual draw down for the next 30 years. But it’s got plenty of time to restructure if needed.
• ghusto 2y ago
  This is the only correct response, but I don't think I'm being overly cynical in thinking they're being opportunistic either. They're quite happy to turn a blind eye to unfashionable political views being silenced, so there's a pinch of hypocrisy in making such a show of standing for openness. All in all though, I'm happy to see this.
  • stemlord 2y ago
    It's my understanding that the issue is not that they're "espousing the right views" but rather that they have the constitutional right as a private institution to espouse whatever views their students and faculty want under the first amendment.
    • devsda 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  • darioush 2y ago
    right, freedom of speech is free as long as it agrees with the viewpoint of who's in power. similar to how history is written by victors but this part is conveniently ignored. it's just facts in the open marketplace of ideas yay!
  • hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    I mean, while this is the only correct response, it could still cost Harvard around $9 billion, which isn't chump change, even for Harvard. And while I agree and have been disgusted with Harvard's slow slide to demanding ideological conformity over the past decade plus (e.g. https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankings https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-f...), I believe they have made some belated changes in the right direction over the past year.
• 1024core 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • tonmoy 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• WalterBright 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • mschuster91 2y ago
    > The Federal government has always attached conditions in exchange for Federal funding and Federal contracts. This is not dictating. It effectively is. Just look up the history of the drinking age - a classic example of the federal government using extortion tactics to override state rights.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • stale2002 2y ago
      I don't think most people would consider "You can't discriminate based on race", to be extortionary. Instead, its a well accepted principle in most of society.
      • mschuster91 2y ago
        I agree on the matter, but pressuring states with financial strings is not the way to go for it. All other democracies on this rock just go and modify their constitution, that's the proper way. Y'all just are so completely gridlocked that this is all but impossible...
    • throwaway48476 2y ago
      Same with speed limits.
    • janalsncm 2y ago
      Which was also a law passed by Congress. Congress passes laws. Should we also say that the president can strike down unconstitutional state laws because the Supreme Court is in the federal government?
      • 2y ago
• legitster 2y ago
  Even if Harvard wanted to comply with the government letter, it's full of so many non-sequiturs and self-conflictions that it reads more like a piece of satire: > The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies, under whatever name > Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity > In particular, Harvard must end support and recognition of those student groups or clubs that engaged in anti-Semitic activity since October 7th, 2023 > Discipline at Harvard must include immediate intervention and stoppage of disruptions or deplatforming, including by the Harvard police when necessary to stop a disruption or deplatforming The letter is a complete joke. Giving it any sort of compliance would be giving validation to a set of rules that are literally impossible to follow by design. There is literally nothing Harvard could do to not be in trouble later. Also buried in the letter is this gem: > Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension. Keep in mind Harvard also runs a medical school! This is Maoist-style social reform through and through.
  • kashunstva 2y ago
    > Keep in mind Harvard also runs a medical school! Aseptic surgical procedures may soon go the way of vaccines.
  • cypherpunks01 2y ago
    Harvard Medical School? Ah yes I've heard of that, it's one of the "Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias" which most fuels antisemitic harassment and reflects ideological capture!
• janalsncm 2y ago
  Good. I think Harvard has faltered a bit recently with academic integrity scandals, but they are still well-respected overall. Them standing up for students is an important signal to other less high-profile schools that they can do the same.
• oldpersonintx 2y ago
  [dead]
• pjmlp 2y ago
  As information, the current administration is doing similar demands to foreign universities, trying to impose the point of view of the world in a president we didn't vote for. Here is an article about the Trump administration demands to our universities. https://www-publico-pt.translate.goog/2025/04/11/ciencia/noticia/leia-perguntas-questionario-ideologico-eua-universidades-portuguesas-2129512?_x_tr_sl=pt-PT&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-publico-pt.translate.goog/2025/04/11/ciencia/not...
  • frm88 2y ago
    Thank you for that link. I knew about letters to parts of the European industry but not to universities. 7. 12. 14. and 15. are mind blowing.
• outside1234 2y ago
  I hope everyone is ready for a general strike because that time is coming up at us rapidly.
  • AlexandrB 2y ago
    General strike when >50% of those who voted wanted this? What world are you living in? Edit: I stand corrected, 49.81%. It doesn't change the point much. Especially when that ~49% includes many "working class"[1] voters. Who's going to participate in this general strike? A bunch of office workers? [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-return-power-fueled-by-hispanic-working-class-voter-support-2024-11-06/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-return-power-fueled-...
    • outside1234 2y ago
      I suspect much less than 50% actually wanted legal residents of the United States disappeared to El Salvador. Also, research tells us that it only takes 3.5% to overthrow a government.
      • AlexandrB 2y ago
        > Also, research tells us that it only takes 3.5% to overthrow a government. You're describing a coup or revolution. Isn't that highly anti-democratic considering this president just won an election? Why should the 50% be under the thumb of the 3.5%?
        • kccoder 2y ago
          > just won an election And just as just, violated his oath to the constitution. How long, precisely, should we allow him to violate his oath and our rights?
        • myko 2y ago
          He is ineligible for the office given his previous insurrection attempt: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio...
• pbreit 2y ago
  Good for Harvard. As idiotic as many of its policies are, this is clearly government infringement of freedom and speech.
  • Jsebast24 2y ago
    That's right. Infringement of freedom and speech should be left in the hands of government funded institutions like Harvard.
• softwaredoug 2y ago
  There really is no incentive to compromise with the Trump Admin on anything. Even if you cave, they just go for more. You need to act like a cornered animal and not expect honest negotiation. OTOH if Trump admin WAS at all rational partners they could be extracting historic changes from these institutions. But they won’t.
• kombine 2y ago
  These people (not only MAGA) perverted the very meaning of antisemitism to the point that it means nothing today. I am saying that as someone who's lost a family member to Holocaust. When I hear someone mention antisemitism today, 90% of the time it is to punish someone's views critical of Israel.
  • pcthrowaway 2y ago
    Same, having descended from Holocaust survivors, what is happening in the U.S. and Palestine right now is chilling to me in its similarity.
  • Latty 2y ago
    Which is, of course, deeply antisemitic of the people claiming antisemitism when they are talking about only criticism of Israel, to equate all Jewish people with the Israeli state.
  • settrans 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • jsheard 2y ago
      > Where are the pro-Palestinian activists who are standing up for the Gazans who have the courage to risk their lives by protesting against Hamas? If you can find me a western government or institution they should be protesting for actively collaborating with Hamas then I'll grant you that hypocrisy. They don't need to because it's already a federal crime to materially support Hamas in any way whatsoever.
      • settrans 2y ago
        If the Palestinians are risking their lives to protest against Hamas in Gaza, why can't the alleged pro-Palestinian protesters demonstrate in support of this viewpoint?
      • nailer 2y ago
        > If you can find me a western government or institution they should be protesting for actively collaborating with Hamas The BBC (which frequently quotes Hamas verbatim without attribution and which has employed many openly racist correspondents), and Associated Press (who rode with Hamas during the Oct 7 massacre). You should already be aware of this.
• greasegum 2y ago
  It's just words, obviously contradicted by many of Harvard's recent actions, but all I can think is what a fucking lay-up. If only Columbia's administration had half a spine they would have responded similarly.
  • bhouston 2y ago
    > all I can think is what a fucking lay-up I am nervous about the US right now. So many cases are going to end up at the Supreme Court that is controlled by conservatives. It may not be the lay-up you think it is. Also what happens if Trump just decides to ignore a court loss as he did with the recent deportation of Kilmar Garcia?
    • janalsncm 2y ago
      I don’t agree with Roberts but he isn’t a hack. For what it’s worth, he also went to Harvard.
      • catlover76 2y ago
        [dead]
      • munchler 2y ago
        I think conservative Harvard graduates are among the most eager to impose their will on Harvard. Look at Harvard grad Elise Stefanik, for example.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • Loughla 2y ago
      It will take a majority of states, and their military backing, forcefully overthrowing Trump. I really hate to be alarmist, but it does feel more and more that we're headed to massive, coordinated state against state violence.
      • 2y ago
• nilni 2y ago
  [dead]
• tomohawk 2y ago
  [dead]
• jakedata 2y ago
  Ooh, I am jealous. A close family member has been branded egregious by various acting members of the current administration. I guess I am going to need to up my game if I want to be able to hold my head high at family gatherings.
• breadwinner 2y ago
  Being anti-Israel should not be conflated with being antisemitic. After all, the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu for a reason. Trump is using “antisemitism” as cover for the imposition of authoritarianism. This comes from Putin's playbook. Putin used denazification as an excuse for invading Ukraine. Trump himself has espoused antisemitism from time to time, see below. John Kelly, Trump’s former White House chief of staff, reiterated his assertion that Trump said, “Hitler did some good things, too,” in a story published Tuesday in The New York Times. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-said-hitler-did-some-good-things-and-wanted-generals-like-the-nazis-former-chief-of-staff-kelly-claims https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-said-hitler-did-... Donald Trump dabbles in Nazi allusions too often for it to be a coincidence. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/politics/trump-nazi-allusions-analysis/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/politics/trump-nazi-allusions... Trump's re-election campaign that featured a symbol used in Nazi Germany. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53098439 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53098439 Trump’s latest flirtation with Nazi symbolism draws criticism https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4677700-trumps-latest-flirtation-with-nazi-symbolism-draws-criticism/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4677700-trumps-latest-... Trump campaign accused of T-shirt design with similarity to Nazi eagle https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/11/fact-check-trump-2020-campaign-shirt-design-similar-nazi-eagle/5414393002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/11/fac... Donald Trump's 'Star of David' Tweet About Hillary Clinton Posted Weeks Earlier on Racist Feed https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-star-david-tweet-about-hillary-clinton-posted-n603161 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-... An order by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office resulted in a purge of books critical of racism but preserved volumes defending white power. Two copies of “Mein Kampf” are still on the shelves but “Memorializing the Holocaust” was removed. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/11/us/politics/naval-academy-banned-books.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/11/us/politics/naval-academy...
  • settrans 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • breadwinner 2y ago
• duxup 2y ago
  From the feds documents they describe the federal government as thought police: >Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. Even ICE had a deleted tweet that makes it clear the thought police are active: https://i0.wp.com/www.techdirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/download.png?w=630&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/www.techdirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/0...
  • NoImmatureAdHom 2y ago
    I prefer these thought police to the thought police we had previously. The "diversity" thought police had very strong views about what the only acceptable thoughts were. These people are like, "if we could get it up to 30% that would be a huge victory". Actual diversity in thought at top American universities would be a boon.
    • snowflakez 2y ago
      [dead]
• fortran77 2y ago
  [flagged]
• clivestaples 2y ago
  Likely I'm very naive. But here goes... It seems that taxpayers fund a lot of research. This research is very valuable and lucrative. It finds its way into the hands of those who know how to profit from it. The taxpayer is again screwed paying exorbitant prices for said breakthroughs. Insulin is one area of interest to me and it very much seems to be the case in the diabetes world. This was how NAFTA was sold. Move car manufacturing to Mexico and they will enjoy better living wages while we get more affordable cars. Except that I don't recall cars produced in Mexico ever getting more affordable. I'm sure corporate profits were great. Should probably look into this someday and see if my perception is correct.
  • ipaddr 2y ago
    Between 1935 and today car price inflation is at 2.41% per year while general inflation is 3.56%. You may have not noticed. Since free trade it's been less than 2%. You may not have noticed but it happened.
  • zamadatix 2y ago
    Keep in mind labor is something like 10%-15% of the cost of a new car so even if you cut that down by 80%, including transport, and ignored recouping capital cost to actually move the production lines then you'd still need to move the production in less than 2 years to actually see the price decrease rather than "not move up as fast" at 3% car price inflation of the early 90s. Interestingly there was a dip in the price increase rate of cars at the end of the 90s https://www.in2013dollars.com/New-cars/price-inflation https://www.in2013dollars.com/New-cars/price-inflation but it's too large to have been reasonably attributable to this trade change.
  • jsbg 2y ago
    > Except that I don't recall cars produced in Mexico ever getting more affordable. According to this site[0], new car prices were about 6% higher at the end of NAFTA in 2020 compared with at the start of NAFTA in 1994. Considering inflation on other things was on average much higher and also that more recent cars are significantly safer, more performant, and fuel-efficient—i.e. more provide more value—it does look like cars did effectively get cheaper. [0] https://www.in2013dollars.com/New-cars/price-inflation https://www.in2013dollars.com/New-cars/price-inflation
• nine_k 2y ago
  The university, as a private institution, has every right to hold whatever views and enforce whatever policies it sees fit within itself. The government, on the other hand, has every right to put conditions its counterparty should conform to in order to get money from the government. It's best when the bargaining about such conditions happens with mutual respect and without overreach, but respect and sobriety are in very short supply in the current administration. Even better it is when a university does not need to receive the government money and can run off the gigantic endowment it already has, thus having no need to comply with any such conditions. (It's additionally unfun how the antisemitism is barely mentioned as a problem, in a very muffed way, and any other kind of discrimination based on ethnicity, culture, or religion is not mentioned at all. Is fighting discrimination out of fashion now?..)
  • duxup 2y ago
    The governments conditions are not unlimited. Their proposed "viewpoint diversity" is absurd at face value.
    • nine_k 2y ago
      Indeed. I wish the government side was more reasonable, but it's hard to expect now; they are into running a TV show :(
      • duxup 2y ago
        I think this administration never had the intent to be "reasonable". If they were concerned about out of control diversity efforts, I might even semi agree with them. But this administration and the GOP doesn't value free speech. Despite their complaints they're not the least bit opposed to the government enforcing their viewpoints on people, in fact they just want to do it in spades.
  • skyyler 2y ago
    Do you believe antisemitism is a problem at Harvard? If so, what led you to believe this?
  • 2y ago
• arp242 2y ago
  So first they demand "Merit-Based Hiring Reform" and "Merit-Based Admissions Reform", and then it continues to demand "Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring". I can't even engage with these levels of cognitive dissonance. Or bad faith. Or whatever it is.
  • saalweachter 2y ago
    Never mistake a man's rhetoric for his principles.
  • enaaem 2y ago
    I have never been a "woke" person, but Trump really makes me doubt the meritocracy argument. If Trump was a black woman he would never get away with half the things he is doing now.
    • overfeed 2y ago
      > If Trump was a black woman he would never get away with half the things he is doing now. It sounds like you're aware of the present reality of race and how it impacts how one is treated in America just for being who they are. > I have never been a "woke" person I have news for you! Edit: to be clear, I'm certain you don't match the the adversarially bastardized caricature of what a "woke person" is, but it sounds like match the original, well-meaning definition.
    • baked_beanz 2y ago
      You have come to the realization that systemic racism exists, and it grants privileges to the dominant socioeconomic groups. Congratulations, you are now "woke"! That's what the term originally meant, before it was turned into a strawman for "anything I don't like" by the conservative media machine and weaponized to divide people.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
      > If Trump was a black woman he would never get away with half the things he is doing now If Trump were a black woman (or man), he would have never survived the release of the Hollywood Access tape and therefore would have never gotten elected.
• veny20 2y ago
  Public funds should not be subsidizing wealthy private universities. The end.
  • wnoise 2y ago
    Unless you're speaking about the high overhead rates, that's really the wrong framing. The public funds at issue are buying things like research, or hospital services.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• worik 2y ago
  What an outrageous and incoherent letter So much for academic freedom
  • worik 2y ago
    Awesome response from Alan Garber
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• rationalga 2y ago
  Harvard, as an institution capable of sustaining itself without relying on federal funding, bears a heightened responsibility to champion academic freedom and intellectual independence. Its financial independence positions it to defend these principles more vigorously than universities with fewer resources, which may face similar pressures but lack comparable institutional stability to resist government overreach.
• svilen_dobrev 2y ago
  "Zaporozhian Cossacks write to the Sultan of Turkey" by Ilya Repin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporozhian_Cossacks#/media/File:Ilja_Jefimowitsch_Repin_-_Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks_-_Yorck.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporozhian_Cossacks#/media/Fi...
• xqcgrek2 2y ago
  With their large untaxed endowment, they should be fine without federal funding. Make it so.
  • tzs 2y ago
    They are already are spending billions a year from their endowment, which covers nearly 40% of their operating revenue, which is around the maximum they can sustainably spend. Sustainable spending is the whole point of an endowment. Also endowments are created by a vast number of individual donations which often come with restrictions. For example someone leaves a bunch of money to university to support a professorship. That money and its earnings can only be used for that. Generally the things that are funded by research grants from the government are things that cannot be funded from the endowment.
• kweingar 2y ago
  The aggregate demands of the administration are confusing and contradictory. They seem to be simultaneously asking for: - an end to diversity initiatives - a new diversity initiative for diverse points of view - a new policy of not admitting international students with certain points of view - ending speech-control policies - auditing the speech of certain departments and programs - ending discipline of students who violate policies related to inclusion - disciplining particular students who violated policies related to inclusion
  • aposm 2y ago
    Nothing they do makes sense until you accept that hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug, for them and their base. They know that what they're asking for is impossible to meaningfully comply with...
  • TimorousBestie 2y ago
    It’s a good strategy. Even if Harvard had attempted to satisfy every bullet point, the govt could still retort that their demands were not satisfied.
    • disqard 2y ago
      Hmmm, is this akin to what Russia means, when it says "we do not negotiate with terrorists"?
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
      Typical mafia technique ensuring perpetual extorsion.
    • amatecha 2y ago
      Like the whole initial excuse for the tariffs on imports from Canada "because of fentanyl" despite <1% of fentanyl coming into the US arriving via the Canadian border https://www.npr.org/2025/02/02/nx-s1-5283957/fentanyl-trump-tariffs-china-canada-mexico https://www.npr.org/2025/02/02/nx-s1-5283957/fentanyl-trump-...
• altruios 2y ago
  Governments have a monopoly on violence in exchange for protected and upholding our privileged rights. When any government start disregarding that contract, so too can the populous.
• entropicabyss 2y ago
  [flagged]
• throw7 2y ago
  Lot of bluster from Harvard. Harvard is free to not do what the gov't is requesting, they just don't get the fed money.
• wg0 2y ago
  [flagged]
• TheBlight 2y ago
  [flagged]
• porphyra 2y ago
  Merit-based admission sounds good to me. Harvard is vigorously defending its "right" to continue to deny admissions to highly qualified Asian applicants out of nothing but pure racism, and somehow they are the good guys?
  • thrance 2y ago
    Do you seriously believe MAGA has any interest in fair access to education? Or are you just saying that as a disingenuous talking point?
  • Vilian 2y ago
    because the answer for the racism against admissions from asians is deny admission and deport everyone that isn't us-american
    • renewiltord 2y ago
      [flagged]
  • os2warpman 2y ago
    Merit is not easily definable. Standardized tests are bullshit, IQ tests are phrenology, class rankings are not comparable across school districts. Someone who was president of every club at school may be less able than a kid who had to flip burgers in the evenings to help make rent. Merit to a university may mean "someone whose charisma and social connections will bring great repute to the institution" more than "a child prodigy who will burn out at 27 and end up fixing typewriters in his parent's garage because they actually had an undiagnosed mental illness growing up". Merit may mean "a middling student smart enough to pass who will stick around working as a post-doc temporarily forever because they have no ambition beyond performing slave wage labor in exchange for the cold comfort of the known and familiar". Any definition of merit is going to be irredeemably faulty. Like recruiting sporting talent based solely on stats without considering if the talent is an asshole who will destroy the atmosphere in the clubhouse and immediately get arrested for DUI after being signed. I thought we wanted to let the market decide? The government funding aspect is irrelevant. Nearly every business in the country receives some form of government funding either direct or indirect and they hire based on a wide variety of criteria. I was once hired to a position I would need time to be a productive in because I am a ham radio guy and my boss wanted someone to talk radios with.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• AzzyHN 2y ago
  My father works for a big pharma company, which means they have to listen to the federal government or risk being shut down by the FDA (which would be easy for Trump to do). He uses this an excuse for the company's complacency, and by extension, his own. I'm glad to see some institutions take a stand.
• zoogeny 2y ago
  This is a larger idea, just tangentially related to this particular case. In 2011 there was Occupy Wall Street. It was a movement that argued that many of the financial problems we saw in 2008 were a result of a 1% of wealthy business people who were prioritizing their own wealth over the needs of the populations of the countries they operated within. I mean, they created a financial crisis by inventing obviously risky financial assets based on peoples housing. They knew it was a house of cards that would fall in time but they did it anyway with callous disregard to the inevitable human cost. It was in the wake of that the "wokeness" became a buzzword, seemingly overnight. Suddenly, corporate policies were amended, management teams were upended, advertising campaigns were aligned to this new focus. Women, minorities and marginalized groups were championed and ushered in to key public positions. In a brief 14 years, then entire garbage dump of modern capitalism was placed like a hot potato into the hands of a new naively optimistic crew. This coincided with huge money printing and zero percent interest rate, the likes of which we haven't seen. That new elite grew in wealth, stature and public focus. They became the face of the "system" as if they had created it instead of inheriting it. And now that the zero interest rates are done and suddenly everyone believes in the scary size of the deficit and the ballooning debt, the people sitting in power as we are about to actually feel the crash instead of just kicking it down the road yet again, those people are the target of public ire. I actually see people in these very comments acting as if the looming crash was caused by the DEI departments which formed just a little over a decade ago. And guess who is coming back to claim they will save us from these DEI monsters? The people who created the actual mess in the first place. Yet now, instead of calling for their heads on spikes like the public was in 2011, we are literally begging them to save us from these DEI proponents. Our anger has been redirected away from the wealthy and towards the minorities with such skill I almost admire it. The collective anger at DEI is at such a level that we are willing to cede core rights just to damage them.
  • matwood 2y ago
    This is spot on. The US has enjoyed enormous wealth and prosperity, but it's been mostly captured by the top 1% of private individuals. The GOP has done a masterful job redirecting the blame to China, DEI, immigration, etc... when the real problem is that we have not spread around the prosperity through programs like universal healthcare, free college, and heck, even UBI.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• nickpsecurity 2y ago
  So, many of these universities were taken over in positions of power by people promoting intersectionality which also promotes systematic discrimination (eg DEI) against specific groups. That's a highly-divisive philosophy with no proven benefits that's similar to Marxism which killed 50 million people and wrecked countries. They did this while describing themselves as open-minded institutions commited to everyone's success. In the degree programs, they forced these beliefs on students in "diversity" classes, rewarded those on their side, and canceled or limited people with differing views. Those who make it through the process are more likely to force it on others in government and business, which they often do. Worse, being federally funded means taxpayers are paying for students' indoctrination in intersectionality and systematically discrimination it claimed to oppose. Yeah, I want their funding cut entirely since theyre already rich as can be. I also would like to see those running it take it back to what it used to be. That's a Christian school balancing character and intellectual education. Also, one where many views can be represented with no cancel culture. That is worth federal funding. On top of it, how about these schools with billions in endowments put their money where their mouth is on social issues and start funding high-quality, community colleges and trade schools and Udemy-like programs everywhere? Why do they talk so much and take in so much money but do so little? (Credit to MIT for EdX and Harvard for its open courses.)
  • shadowgovt 2y ago
    > That's a Christian school > That is worth federal funding. ... interesting.
    • nickpsecurity 2y ago
      You left off... "Also, one where many views can be represented with no cancel culture." ...before "that is worth federal funding." Such cherry picking in ways that misrepresent what is said, also common in liberal media, is one reason distrust in liberal politics is at an all-time high. Put the truth of what others said side by side with your own position, like I mentioned intersectionality with my counterpoint. See if your ideas stand up to scrutiny.
• pjfin123 2y ago
  The Federal government making funding to a university contingent on them "reforming" specifically named departments whose foreign policy views the executive branch disagrees with (Israel/Palestine policy) seems like a clear violation of the First Amendment.
  • cma 2y ago
    They are deporting permanent residents for op-eds. One permanent resident was sent to a concentration camp in El Salvator without due process, none over speech yet that I know of but his was for being spuriously labeled a terrorist.
  • nailer 2y ago
    My understanding is that racial discrimination is forbidden under title nine at least.
• Animats 2y ago
  It's a weak response, in that it accepts the Trump Administration's position on antisemitism. This is tied to the broad definition of antisemitism which includes acts by the State of Israel.[1] That definition comes from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. There's a more balanced definition called the Jerusalem Declaration here.[2][3] This will lead to a controversial discussion, so I'll stop here, with the comment that getting involved in religious wars of other countries hasn't gone well for the US. The US has constitutional freedom of religion partly because the drafters of the constitution knew how that had gone in Europe. "Maybe they is not evil. Maybe they is just enemies." - Poul Anderson [1] https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/ https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/ [2] https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/ https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Declaration_on_Antisemitism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Declaration_on_Antis...
  • otterley 2y ago
    Why did the response have to include it? It’s not tactically useful.
• markus_zhang 2y ago
  I do believe the universities have a lot to change for better, but sadly this government is the worst to ask for.
• slowmovintarget 2y ago
  Or, you know, they could follow the bullet points in the government's letter: - foster scholarship over activism - hire based on merit, and review potential employees for plagiarism issues - admit students based on the merit of the candidate - not admit foreign students hostile to values in the U.S. Constitution, openly espousing anti-semitism, or supporting terrorism - abolish ideological litmus tests for faculty, provide a diversity of viewpoints to students - adopt policies for student discipline that disrupt scholarship and normal campus activities including allowing campus police to enforce these rules - implement whistleblower protections - disclose foreign funding Taxpayer money comes with strings attached. Be good enough to deserve it. Not sure about the mask ban... Is that about mask wearing during protests? https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/...
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• Debugreality 2y ago
  I think it's also important to point out the auditing and spying the government is asking the universities to comply with including the whistle blower section and things like - "report all requested immigration and related information to the United States Department of Homeland Security". It appears that because it's easier to bully, punish and disappear individuals than an institution the Trump administration is doing everything it can to find out who these individuals are so they can be targeted.
• skadamat 2y ago
  Re: endowments, really good post on why universities can't just tap into endowments for budget shortfalls: https://medium.com/@myassa_62896/why-you-cant-just-use-the-endowment-760b52e48765 https://medium.com/@myassa_62896/why-you-cant-just-use-the-e...
  • hnburnsy 2y ago
    >It’s more like a patchwork of locked treasure chests, each with its own key and its own label: this one funds scholarships, that one supports cancer research, another pays for upkeep on a library. Explain why direct donations cannot accomplish the same. I suspect that universities want endowment donations because they grow tax free.
    • nrmitchi 2y ago
      My understanding is that a large part of endowments comes from large (really, huge) donations. If I was to donate 9 (or 10) figures to an institution, I would want to make sure it is used to support what I want it to support (cancer research, scholarships, libraries, etc), rather than be used as a general slush fund. It's not entirely about what the organization wants, but also what the donators/sponsors want.
      • hnburnsy 2y ago
        >If I was to donate 9 (or 10) figures to an institution, I would want to make sure it is used to support what I want it to support (cancer research, scholarships, libraries, etc), rather than be used as a general slush fund. You can make that restricted donation outside of the endowment. I thought endowments were for the support of students, not research.
• blindriver 2y ago
  The law in the immigration act to disallow people who espouse support for terrorism is a good one. We protect freedom of speech for citizens because we have to. They are part of our country. I don’t believe this extends to foreigners. We should allow only immigrants who do not support terrorism and want to be productive members of society. This isn’t too much to ask. This is not a right or left issue. This is a pro-America vs con-America issue.
  • tastyface 2y ago
    Define “terrorism.” The administration, for example, freely uses the word to describe someone with no criminal record and no proven gang affiliations: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrwrrkbnf2e https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrwrrkbnf2e They also use the word to describe Tesla vandals: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/03/25/us/fbi-task-force-tesla-attacks-hnk https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/03/25/us/fbi-task-force-tesla-a...
    • blindriver 2y ago
      The US government has determined that the individual belonged to a gang. Also, the government of El Salvador confirmed this. The fact that the lawyer for the person says "there's no evidence" doesn't mean there actually isn't any evidence. It just hasn't been revealed. I believe that setting Teslas on fire is domestic terrorism. They were politically motivated to specifically target a political figure to intimidate other citizens. I think setting ballot boxes on fire is also domestic terrorism.
      • anigbrowl 2y ago
        The fact that the lawyer for the person says "there's no evidence" doesn't mean there actually isn't any evidence. It just hasn't been revealed. This is the law department. Religion is down the hall and around the corner.
      • CoastalCoder 2y ago
        > The US government has determined that the individual belonged to a gang. The executive branch has made that allegation. The person didn't have a trial in the judicial branch. Please look up "habeas corpus", and Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
• alfor 2y ago
  This is welcome change, to they defend admisions discrimination on race, sex is beyond me. They will fold, if federal funding is not enough, they will find other pressure points.
• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  I think the only way for the universities to escape this blackmail trap is to bind together in their response, refuting the Trump's claims that they're not doing enough to "stop antisemitism" (obviously a cover chosen by the WH because it immediately gathers public sympathy), and reject Trump's demands. If they cave in now, it will be used against them again. Take the haircut and wait for either the next presidential elections, or maybe midterms if the GOP gets pummeled because of this and starts standing up to Trump. One thing we've seen about Trump is that he fairly easily reverses course when the right pressure is applied. Granted Harvard's in an easier place than most, but I predict Columbia will come to seriously regret their decision.
• kashunstva 2y ago
  From the United States government letter to Harvard: "Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension." So if a student has, say, an immunodeficiency syndrome and wears a mask to protect their health during the riskier seasons of the year, they would face dismissal from the university? (Or worse - whatever that is - according to the letter.) This is how we know that the Republican party has no interest in freedom as the word is conventionally defined.
  • Loughla 2y ago
    They want freedom for themselves. They're free to impose their will on others without judgement. That's the purpose.
    • tines 2y ago
      I wrote this on another thread recently, reposting here: Things started to make more sense to me once I realized that by nature, human beings hate freedom and love tyranny. Once you accept this, it all falls in place. Deporting citizens to foreign prisons? Sounds great. Incoherent foreign and economic policy? Love it. Freedom of the press? Who needs it! Destruction of democracy? Own the libs! Legalize bribery of foreign officials? Even the playing field! And finally, words don’t need to mean anything because they are simply evocations intended to stir up certain emotions. They are more akin to a hunter’s duck call. The hunter doesn’t speak duck and doesn’t care whether that sounds he’s making have any meaning, he simply makes noise and looks for a result. Not getting the desired result? Just change the noise a little. This is why democracy will eventually fail and autocracy will rise in its place. And no one will ever learn.
      • nsingh2 2y ago
        Seems like this could also be explained by short memories. Most westerners, me included, have never lived through true tyranny, we don't know the signs and probably are just too comfortable coasting along, thinking what we have now won't suddenly disappear [1]. We can read history, but it's nothing compared to actually living through it. And I think most American voters don't know their history, and don't bother to inform themselves either, which makes things much worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_effect
• zugi 2y ago
  > As we do, we will also continue to comply with Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race.” This is already a shift on Harvard's part. When the ruling first came out, they announced they'd be finding ways around the ruling so they could keep doing what they'd been doing (i.e. discriminate against Asians by systematically scoring them low on "personality.")
• hnburnsy 2y ago
  Can someone confirm that if Harvard turned down Pell Grants and Federal student support, they could admit whoever they want? >Private clubs are generally exempt from anti-discrimination laws under certain conditions. For example, being genuinely private and not engaging in business with non-members. However, there are exceptions to these exemptions. For instance, when a club receives significant government benefits or operates as a commercial enterprise.
  • telotortium 2y ago
    They could. Look up Bob Jones College or Hillsdale College, both of which operate without any federal funding. It appears that the elite universities are going to find out the same thing that the small Christian universities found out in the 1970s, which is that the federal government Can control you if they fund you. I believe Bob Jones in particular won a case in front of the Supreme Court giving them the right to racially discriminate in their admissions if they refuse to take any federal funding.
    • hnburnsy 2y ago
      ty
• bedhead 2y ago
  One framework I like to use is, “If this thing didn’t exist today, and someone proposed it, how would people react to it?” I think it’s fair to say that if none of this existed today, and someone proposed that the federal government simply give universities like Harvard seemingly endless billions, it would be laughed out of existence by republicans and democrats alike. All of this is the product of inertia at best, corruption at worst. It’s a different world today and we don’t need our tax dollars going to these places.
  • triceratops 2y ago
    "If thing doesn't exist, gets proposed, gets laughed out of the room, good idea" is your framework? It doesn't sound like a good framework.
  • yencabulator 2y ago
    Wait till you hear of countries where university education is 100% tax funded. And you get money from the government while you're a full-time student.
• i_love_retros 2y ago
  America is starting to seem like the world depicted in V for Vendetta.
• matt3210 2y ago
  problem will only last another 3 years or so
• computerthings 2y ago
  [dead]
• priyadarshy 2y ago
  The wildest thing I read was: > Harvard will immediately report to federal authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security and State Department, any foreign student, including those on visas and with green cards, who commits a conduct violation. Conduct violations at Universities are a pretty broad set of rules at universities and don't necessarily line up with what's legal or not but more with the university's cultural and social norms.
  • cypherpunks01 2y ago
    Another good one, "Reforming Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias .. The programs, schools, and centers of concern include:" > Harvard Divinity School > Graduate School of Education > School of Public Health > Medical School > Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School > Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic (partial list) I must have missed the time when the Medical School racked up a record of egregious antisematism.
    • brigandish 2y ago
      The Crimson, among others, have reported on the allegations. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/4/8/hms-investigation-docs/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/4/8/hms-investigatio...
  • stevenwoo 2y ago
    Some of those international students with their visas revoked apparently only had traffic violations according to what I read in the Texas Tribune. They are going after any level of law breaking in order to match their stated goal of kicking out criminals, since they are having trouble reaching the numbers promised in campaign speeches.
    • searealist 2y ago
      > only had traffic violations according to what I read in the Texas Tribune I don't think that is true. Do you have any examples?
• jmward01 2y ago
  We are well past the point where in a future history class a student will raise their hand and ask 'Why didn't anyone stop them?' followed by 'Why were so many people members of that party?'
  • Vilian 2y ago
    All of the information is saved, it's going to be interesting to study, the first "class" of people to leave are the ones from tech, you know, the backbone of USA services, it's going to be interesting, it's going to be an economy fall that didn't happen in Nazi Germany
• FloorEgg 2y ago
  I initially engaged in these comments by asking questions in good faith in an attempt to better understand what was going on. I was trying to address my own ignorance by asking questions, and I was mostly attacked for it (mass downvoting). I had more luck copying the scenario over to LLMs and asking them the questions. It's disappointing to me, because I come to HN instead of other social media for intellectual discussion and nuanced perspectives. To be attacked for asking questions is frustrating and disheartening. That said, after significant back and forth with the LLMs in an attempt to untangle several key issues, this is the summary I was left with. Somehow I suspect this will be downvoted like the rest of my comments, but I will share it here just in case it helps someone better understand why some right-leaning people may condone the governments letter and also why the letter is so concerning.... Good-Faith Policy Concerns Potentially Addressed in the Letter Title VI Compliance: Seeks to ensure that race, gender, or national origin are not used as explicit criteria in hiring, admissions, or funding decisions. Merit-Based Standards: Advocates for transparent and non-discriminatory evaluation of faculty and students (e.g. ending race-based preferences, enforcing plagiarism rules). Viewpoint Diversity (In Theory): Attempts to correct ideological homogeneity that may stifle academic freedom or lead to one-sided discourse. Antisemitism Response: Responds to documented or alleged incidents of antisemitic harassment post-October 7th, which could fall under Title VI protections if based on shared ethnicity or national origin. Governance Reform: Calls for clearer lines of authority and accountability in complex academic institutions, which is a reasonable administrative concern. Key Issues and Overreaches in the Letter State-Enforced Ideological Engineering: Viewpoint diversity audits and mandated ideological balancing per department move into compelled intellectual conformity, which risks violating academic freedom and free speech. Suspension of Institutional Autonomy: Replaces university-led decision-making with federal oversight, annual audits, and direct hiring/admissions intervention—a level of control inconsistent with traditional norms for private institutions. Targeting of Specific Programs: Selective audits of programs like Middle Eastern Studies or Human Rights centers signal ideological targeting, not neutral application of anti-discrimination principles. Guilt by Association / Collective Punishment: Calls for discipline and de-recognition of entire student groups (e.g., Palestine Solidarity Committee) based on political stances, even absent direct policy violations. Mask Ban and Protest Crackdown: Mandated suspension for mask-wearing and harsh punishments for past protests go beyond civil rights compliance and verge into authoritarian control of student expression. Foreign Student Loyalty Screening: Requiring ideological screening for “American values” and reporting foreign students to DHS raises civil liberties and due process concerns. DEI Abolition Blanket Order: Calls for total shutdown of all DEI offices and functions, regardless of their form or function, eliminating even neutral or inclusive programs not tied to race-based quotas. Summary Judgment The letter does address real legal and policy issues—especially around race- and gender-based preferences, antisemitism, and bureaucratic governance. But it leverages these issues to justify a comprehensive, ideologically driven restructuring of a university. The result is a state-imposed orthodoxy enforced through threats of defunding, loyalty tests, and discipline, extending well beyond what’s required for civil rights compliance.
• jacobs123 2y ago
  > "Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension." Wow. Imagine being sick with something serious like pneumonia and having to decide whether to get everyone around you sick, or risk being suspended from school.
  • yencabulator 2y ago
    I think you mean jailed, tortured and deported.
  • DecoySalamander 2y ago
    If you're seriously ill, you should get treatment, not walk around hoping that a piece of cloth will save others from exposure to whatever it is you're coughing up.
    • otterley 2y ago
      What if they have pollen or other allergies that masks help mitigate? What if there’s a huge forest fire that’s polluting the outside air with acrid smoke?
      • DecoySalamander 2y ago
        There are so many possible scenarios. What if the campus is infested with face-huggers from the award-winning movie Alien? What if there are still Jewish students and faculty members who need to be harassed anonymously? I'll leave those to people more familiar with the subject. And as for the pneumonia scenario, I reiterate that the only sane course of action is to seek treatment, not to walk around public spaces, masked or not.
    • chneu 2y ago
      Except that masks do statistically work in preventing the spread of contagion. Even if it's just 10% it's still worth doing. There are also tons of legit reasons to wear a mask besides being contagious. Anyone defending a mask ban is doing it to support ideology, not practicality. Just say that instead of using really dumb click bait fox news quips.
• at_a_remove 2y ago
  How quickly we forget "Dear Colleague."
• DarkmSparks 2y ago
  TLDR:Harvard will continue to drive towards a modern edukayshun at all costs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
• yes_really 2y ago
  We can debate about specific requests from the Trump administration, but it is pretty clear that Harvard has been horrible. The previous administrations completely failed to fix it. - Harvard has been discriminating against Whites and Asians in admissions for decades. - Harvard deliberately refused to protect Jewish students against intimidation and harassment. Students camped in school property for weeks against Harvard's official rules. They chanted that they would bring islamic terrorism to America ("intifada, intifada, coming to America"), established a self-appointed security system that monitored and recorded Jews, and remained there for almost a month while the school simply refused to remove them. [1] - Harvard's president stated that calling for the genocide of Jews did not necessarily constitute harassment. This is particularly bizarre when contrasted to Harvard's approach to other groups, like when it considers "misgendering" of trans individuals to be harassment. [1] https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/harvard-jewish-students-antisemitism https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/harvard-jew...
  • yes_really 2y ago
    For the people downvoting: can you actually provide arguments for why you think these points are incorrect? If you are downvoting simply because you disagree politically with what I commented, you are going against the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• pmags 2y ago
  I predict a surge of alumni donations in the weeks and months to come, not just at Harvard but also at other institutions that are showing their willingness to stand up against the creeping fascism of the current administration. I think people who value education, academic freedom, and understand the economic and societal role that universities play, were hoping to see one or more of the major institutions stand up for these principles.
  • nailer 2y ago
    But they’re not standing up for freedom. They are admitting and hiring people based on a monoculture.
• briantakita 2y ago
  Harvard received the "worst score ever" clamped at 0.0 in 2023. By the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. The actual score was -10.69. They were particularly oppressive on anyone espousing opinions on the political right...Both leaning toward Individual liberty & stateist inclined. While I believe that freedom of speech is a right not to be infringed on. Their current stance is selective. They have a massive endowment. So Harvard doesn't need subsidies. Since their endowment benefits private parties, Harvard can be funded by private parties. https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankings https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-f...
• dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  [flagged]
• Saul1998zx 2y ago
  [flagged]
• TriangleEdge 2y ago
  Wasn't Harvard's president a woman who wrote her PhD thesis on DEI? I vaguely remember the news about this (fraud or something). If this is what Harvard considers that the person for the job, I think the sense making apparatus of Harvard personnel is specifically tuned to not bend the knee in this case. The instrument would likely fail at the input validation step and not proceed to the sense making portion.
• MPSFounder 2y ago
  They recently closed their Middle Eastern studies department. Absolutely insane tbh. Imagine closing a center of Asian or African studies because the president wants to make his Jewish daughter and some rich donors of his happy. How can we be okay with any of this. They caved there. The only reasoning for this response is it infringes on their sovereignty. But make no mistake, every institution rolled back DEI and other initiatives for this admin. Hoping Alan will do what is right. Reinstate that department. Double down on fighting the admin in court. America will not be held hostage by a wanna-be autocrat, a foreign power or those who swear allegiance to Isra-el over American ideals and education in these United States. Silencing dissent in institutions of learning is tyrannical.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• aleppax 2y ago
  This is massive. In Europe, we know what real Resistance looks like. And what Harvard just did? That is Resistance, plain and simple. It breaks my heart to see my country backing the fascist side of history again. But just like before, we won’t stay silent.
• ZainQasmi 2y ago
  Funny how a foreign country got America to compromise on its core value of free speech that we used to lecture Europeans on.
• fsniper 2y ago
  We are silently watching "Country of the Free" falling at max velocity to the deepest of the darkest pits of fascism, teocrasy, and dictatorship.
• stakhanov 2y ago
  What jumps out at me is the paragraph: "Governance and leadership reforms." in the original letter sent by the government to the university. The other stuff is hard to make sense of, but this part is crystal clear: The authoritarian government is asking the university to restructure itself along more authoritarian lines. ...essentially Trump wants continuity of reporting lines ultimately leading up to him, and going down to the individual faculty member, student, and foreign collaborating partner. That sort of thing could come in handy for all kinds of things in the future, not just the silly demands of the present.
• derelicta 2y ago
  There is no such thing as free speech under the Bourgeois State. When you criticise of the last Western colonies, bourgeois goons disappear you. When you criticise racial and apartheid laws in your home country, bourgeois goons disappeared you. When you resist their power and establish a parallel people's, bourgeois goons WILL disappear you. It's a shame we have forgotten that WE, workers, can be authoritarian too, if only we can organise, educate and militarise ourselves.
• cloud-ranger 2y ago
  Trump is about making money for himself so he can boast. He doesn't care about this. I wonder who's really calling the shots, because, this is just the beginning. At the same time, he feels he can (or he's testing) ignoring court orders. Where this meets in the middle will not be a good place.
• richardatlarge 2y ago
  I found harvard’s letter a poor attempt to articulate just how authoritarian the demands are, and how they undermine the very idea of a university. How leaders of such a prestigious university refuse to place what’s going on in historical context is sad. But it’s educational: now I have a better understanding of how the nazis came to power. not a perfect comparison, but a useful starting point.
• yieldcrv 2y ago
  > For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities yep. stop doing that. your university is nearly half a millennium old, and everything from the last century will be a footnote. you are a networking ground for upper class society, not an upwards mobility machine for the plebians. just go back to your roots and you won't have any of these issues. > These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. privately fund it now that its a proven method. this obviously won't be controversial in the future. if its economically impossible then it won't happen, the end.
• ferahl 2y ago
  W government
• rogermungo 2y ago
  Whats the problem.. just get your pal Soros to give you the money instead.. With $36T debt, Federal Government cannot continue splashing out money like there is no tomorrow
  • qgin 2y ago
    If they were concerned with spending, they’d just cut the spending. They’re making the spending conditional on Harvard following their ideological instructions.
  • otterley 2y ago
    Almost every economist believes there is no serious and immediate problem with our current debt level (which is actually increasing under both Trump administrations, despite their fake expressions of concern). Why do you believe you are right and they are all collectively wrong?
  • chneu 2y ago
    Trump is increasing the debt tho and did in his first term. Republicans only care about debt when it can be used to either bash Democrats or used as a talking point to eliminate something they don't like. Lookup "Starve The Beast". Republicans do not care about the debt. They care that it can be used as a tool. That's it. They run up the debt when they want and then turn around to blame Democrats for the debt they ran up. Nobody is really concerned with the US debt outside of silly wanna-be patriots and the politicians who use it to scare them. Now, one way to make the US debt a much bigger deal is to cause a recession...hmm...wonder if anyone is trying to do that...
• abridgett 2y ago
  If a president flaps his arms on one side of the planet does this cause a hurricane of chaos on the other side of the world? And everywhere else.
• whitecrow90 2y ago
  hats off to Harvard, did they generate the response with chatgdp? so many em dashes lmfao
• yerushalayim 2y ago
  The government's list of requests is reasonable, moral and necessary. It's the taxpayers' prerogative to demand a merit based system that, in conjunction, upholds the values and freedoms they hold dear. The elitist and morally detached Harvard and its fellow privileged, largely useless, institutions can exercise their right to refuse the demands and the money. No need to complicate it further.
• NoImmatureAdHom 2y ago
  I'm a scientist and I've spent a lot of time at Harvard, including working there for years. These demands seem on point to me. I see a lot of uninformed opposition in this thread, but I think most of you all don't have any idea how it actually is at elite universities. - Political tests for employment, or continued employment. The UC system (a public system!) is one of the worst offenders here, but Harvard is really, really bad. - Overt discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion (or lack thereof). The number of academics who aren't even aware that this sort of discrimination is illegal is mind-boggling. I would say 9 months ago it was 80% or more. The number of emails I've received either indicating a candidate isn't viable because of his genitalia or skin color, or telling me this is the reason I didn't get the job is crazy. They literally don't know and don't care. - Compelled speech. This is a bright line we have so far, as a society, successfully succeeded in not crossing. Harvard and other elite universities were crossing it, and the Biden admin's Title IX rules overtly crossed it. A bad look, to put it mildly. - Widespread censorship, to the point where we (social scientists) have developed code to talk about certain things "nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus" hahaha...dear lord. And these aren't small effects. It's not 55% / 45% type scenarios. You have to view the Administration's requests in the light of: Harvard is 95+% Blue Team, and that's largely because they actively filter. There are plenty of people who aren't willing to bend the knee who don't have jobs because of it. Harvard has created an intellectual monoculture. They want "diversity" in the sense that they want people who look different on the outside, but who are all the same on the inside. Asking for monitoring to make sure they're no longer illegally and immorally discriminating in hiring and admission is warranted, indeed it would be kind of crazy to not monitor. They'll just continue racist and sexist hiring otherwise. What's in this letter is a reasonable set of asks in response to a situation that is so off the rails it's hard to describe.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• sam_goody 2y ago
  Off topic, but _why_ is it good that the gov gives hundreds of billions of dollars [if you include grants] to higher ed. I work in a startup where none of the programmers have been to college, and they seem to get along just fine. I volunteer in a youth group that teaches "soft" sciences, and I am sure that groups like ours do a better job at that with a lot less funding. Trade schools cater to the lower income, are much more effective dollar for dollar, and get a lot less federal funds. If that money were to be poured into trade schools instead of universities, it would help create a better middle class. Why should Harvard be so entitled? EDIT: IMO, The reason youth go to college is to have fun. The real reason the parents are willing to pay, is because their children will forge connections with other wealthy families that is worth the money. It may be good for the wealthy that the money stays in their circle, but IMO this is not something the Gov should subsidize.
  • jhp123 2y ago
    the money is for research not education. A lot of modern industry started as academic research. Things like semiconductors, EUV lithography, mRNA vaccines, or AI originate in government-funded academic research. The health effects of smoking and leaded gas were established by academic research, allowing government programs to massively improve our collective health. Climate change has been recognized, diagnosed, and its solutions invented mostly by academic researchers, an effort that may save all industrial civilization.
  • chneu 2y ago
    Nearly everything you use on a daily basis came from university research. Heck, most of what we know about the universe comes from university research. Every piece of technology is because of collaboration between taxpayer funding and universities. It is relatively rare nowadays for a private business to create anything truly new without some form of university support. Or it's built on top of university research. If you like new knowledge you like these types of programs. They make modern life possible. Universities provide staff, equipment and expertise while the government(and often private enterprise) provide the funding.
• Sonnigeszeug 2y ago
  Soooo you want freedom of speech but if you don't like what someone else is doing, you want to censor them? And even the reps don't mind this? How hypocratic do you have to be to want to get rid of the 'Wokeshit' which is freespeech while also advocating for free speech? Btw. the real term for what type of speech radicals and nazis is abusive speech and yes there are good reasons why abusive speech should lead to consequences
• jdthedisciple 2y ago
  The preponderance of academic and philosophical disingenuity — which could only be equally well explained by immensely subpar raw intellect (doubtful on HN) — in this very comment section perfectly illustrates why DJT was elected POTUS. Let me just repeat the basic point: Phenotype diversity != Viewpoint diversity
• user777777 2y ago
  [flagged]
• gurumeditations 2y ago
  Can someone say tyrant? Or is that a thought crime for citizens too now?
• prvc 2y ago
  Do they stand a good chance of clawing back any of that funding by suing the government (which they seem to be hinting at doing)?
• EasyMark 2y ago
  They have more than enough money in their coffers to tell Trump to fk off for a few years.
• montjoy 2y ago
  I don’t think the administration seriously thinks Harvard will accept these terms. This will just be used as more fodder against “liberal elites”. Conservative media will then headline with “Harvard rejects Trumps reforms on DEI” or “Harvard says no to ending anti-semitism”.
• Swelbig345 2y ago
  The world should never forgive Americans for what they let the man they call their president get away with. Sending people to concentration camps, among many other despicable acts. "Wir haben es nicht gewußt".
• Swelbig345 2y ago
  [flagged]
• LMPK 2y ago
  NieI am not able to work 24 hours a day, and in addition on several devices