37 ms·
The aggregate demands of the administration are confusing and contradictory. They seem to be simultaneously asking for: - an end to diversity initiatives - a
by kweingar 1y 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 1y agoNothing 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 1y agoIt’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 1y agoHmmm, is this akin to what Russia means, when it says "we do not negotiate with terrorists"?
- insane_dreamer 1y agoTypical mafia technique ensuring perpetual extorsion.
- amatecha 1y agoLike 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-...
- throwaway48476 1y agoIf you don't measure you can just assume all valies are 0.
- saagarjha 1y agoBut assuming it's a large number is not possible, of course.
- throwaway48476 1y agoI assume it's a large number because the fentanyl superlative the Canadian police raided had literal tons of precursors.
- johnnyanmac 1y agoso you understand how much "tons" is with regards to a population of 330m Americans? Now consider that China probably has gigatons and is where all of NA gets most of its supply.
- glacier5674 1y ago[flagged]
- glacier5674 1y ago[dead]
- jiriknesl 1y agoThe demands are simple and not confusing at all. - Stop promoting Democrats' agendas as the ultimate truth; stop bullying people for non-Democratic views - Allow Republicans' agendas to be equally represented Is it really so difficult to understand? Out of many bad things Trump has done, this isn't really bad for anyone except core Democrats voters. The US academia has become hostile to anyone except one particular culture. This should stop.
- allturtles 1y agoConservatives should start their own universities, if they aren't happy with the existing ones. The federal government has no business enforcing conformity to certain ideological demands in private institutions. It's right there in the very first amendment.
- thechao 1y agoConservatives have started their own Universities. No one likes going to those schools, and they end up bankrupt, with students who are functionally uneducated.
- allturtles 1y agoSo, there you go, the market has spoken.
- tmpz22 1y ago> Conservatives should start their own universities They did. Remember Trump University? It got shut down for fraud.
- palmotea 1y agoI don't think Trump University was ever indented to be a real university. Wasn't it basically the Trump-branded version of those late night infomercials promising to teach you how to get rich in real estate? You know, the ones where ultimately they basically just sell you a bunch of tapes for $5000? If you're looking for an actual conservative university, a better example would be a place like Liberty University. I think the problem is starting an institution is hard, it'll only really hit its stride like 100 years after being founded, and it's hard to keep an ideological project on track for such a long period of time.
- nineplay 1y agoThe demands of the administration are the demands of a bully who doesn't want your lunch money, he just wants you to know he can take it away at any time.
- hnburnsy 1y ago"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." Any organization is probably in violation of any number of rules and regulations due to the sheer number of them.
- ilrwbwrkhv 1y agoJust wait till the sniffling Marc Andreessen shows up to explain why this will save his small town brethren.
- Vilian 1y agobecause they can use as excuse to stop the funding nonetheless, it's impossible to 100% comply with contradictory requests
- davorak 1y agoIt could be a feature not a bug. Inventible violations can be used as leverage for future requests/mandates.
- chairmansteve 1y agoThey go after their enemies (liberals, trans, pro palestinians, brown migrants) and help their friends (right wing white people).
- jgyter 1y ago[flagged]
- Always42 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- roxolotl 1y agoI was brought up as an American to believe that most important American value inscribed in the constitution was that the government cannot control your speech. So regardless of what Harvard does or does not do that quote, coming from the government especially, is simply unAmerican on its face.
- lupusreal 1y ago[flagged]
- janalsncm 1y agoWhether or not they should is irrelevant. What is relevant is the government cannot infringe on Harvard’s speech. Also this has nothing to do with immigration. It would be the same situation if everyone at Harvard were 10th generation Americans.
- bloppe 1y agoThere are 2 issues here. The first is that it's not consistent with ending speech control policies. The second is that hostility to American values is actually pretty subjective. For instance, the January 6 insurrectionists were very hostile to American values and used violent terroristic tactics to try to destroy the constitutionally mandated transfer of power. But Trump pardoned them all because it improves his ability to wield violence against America in the future. It's impossible to take any of this document seriously in that light.
- allturtles 1y ago> Do you think Harvard should admit students that are, "hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence Sure, why not? Everything should be open to criticism at our institutions of higher learning. If not there, where? That which is above criticism is dogma. > including students supportive of terrorism and anti-Semitism In Trump administration code, this means "has ever said anything positive about the Palestinian people." So yes, them too.
- whatshisface 1y agoThey want to have the old system (deliberate bias and vehement denials of there being any "bias,") but working for them, and the way to demand that without describing it is to require all of the results and "forbid," by name only, the necessary methods.
- empath75 1y agoWhat the demand is, is institutional fealty to Donald Trump. Trying to interpret it as anything else is going to lead these institutions into poor decision making. Harvard is doing the right thing.
- exe34 1y agoit's pretty clear. it's twitter's policy. neo-Nazi rhetoric must be allowed, empathy must be banned.
- babypuncher 1y agoIt makes sense when you realize that their true position is "free speech for me but not for thee". The contradictions are about censoring speech they disagree with and promoting speech they like.
- hayst4ck 1y agoAuthoritarian governments are arbitrary governments, all decisions are made arbitrarily. Consistency is unnecessary. That's the trouble with choosing power as a guiding principle over reason or consent.
- zanellato19 1y agoConsistency is undesirable, because if everyone is breaking a law, you apply the hammer of justice only if they aren't a friend. It's one of the best ways to look good to certain people as well,because you can claim to be just following the law.
- elliotec 1y agoThis comment and the parent’s are the best retorts I’ve seen yet to the “these people are just stupid” idea we hear all the time. These “rules” are not calculated and brilliant, and that’s the point. They’re controlling at any angle they want.
- Herring 1y agoNo, it's still stupid. High corruption leads to weaker economic performance (eg compare red vs blue states). Nepotism looks like winning right until it sinks your company.
- atoav 1y agoIt all makes sense with a fascist power logic. The goal isn't to implement consistent policy to reach rational targets. The goal is to wield power and slowly errode any opposition with divisive actions that support anybody that is loyal to you. Importantly being loyal doesn't guarantee you will be spared. In these goals consistency is irrelevant, in fact being inconsistent and acting with arbitrary despotism is a feature since it produces more fear. If you ever find any fascist critique of their enemies you will quickly realize that all of which they accuse their enemies of doing, they will do themselves. Decry freedom of speech as no one is "allowed" to say sexist/racist things anymore? Be sure they will go in and ban books, political thoughts and literal words. Hillarys emails? We literally operate our foreign policy in signal groups. Quite frankly I am a bit puzzled by the neutrality with which some Americans try to analyze this absolutely crazy political situation. It is like pondering over the gas mixture in the smoke while your house is on fire, absolutely unhinged.
- philosopher1234 1y agoI’d like to get out while I can, but to what country? Any suggestions? By the way the answer to your question is simple: the American people are fascists, not just the president.
- GoblinSlayer 1y agoCanada.
- atoav 1y agoFirst I think people who recognize there are problems is what is needed now. You leaving makes things worse. Then again, it is understandable not everybody has the luxury to be in circumstances that allow adequate forms of resistance. If you ask about which country, I'd say it depends. It depends on who youaare, what your skills are, which climate zones and cultures you prefer, whether you're willing to learn a new language and so on.
- UncleMeat 1y agoIt makes sense if you understand that they aren't focused on general principles. Diversity is bad when it involves non-whites, women, gay people or research involving these groups. Diversity is good when it involves "race realists." Free speech is bad when students are advocating for divestment initiatives. Free speech is good when a professor calls somebody the n-word online. The goal is white supremacy and antifeminism.
- jgyter 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- anonfordays 1y ago[flagged]
- explodes 1y ago[flagged]
- anonfordays 1y agoUnfortunately, unlike the post above mine, my list is grounded in reality. Again, both sides play this game, both sides claim to have "reality" on their side.
- philosopher1234 1y agoAs loathe as you may be to admit it, there is such a thing as truth. Both sides claiming something doesn’t mean both sides claims are true (or conversely that neither sides claim is true). You don’t seem to be thinking very well.
- gambiting 1y ago>>- a new diversity initiative for diverse points of view I'm sure we both know what this one means though. Forcing the university to hire people who think the earth is flat and that climate change isn't real - for the sake of diversity of course.
- spyder 1y agoand the irony at the beginning of the demanding government letter: "But an investment is not an entitlement."
- nailer 1y ago[flagged]
- ringeryless 1y agoHave you no hesitation, even at this late juncture? Read everyone elses comment above, and try to stretch your critical thinking ability just a bit. Trump is our Caesar, we have ceased to be a constitutional republic, and you defend this with blithely pretending that 2 months of pure power-madness have not been occurring in plain view of the entire world? I suspect that such discourse as we have will not be "permitted" indefinitely.
- nailer 1y agoNo, I have no hesitation. How are you not finding it obvious that the government are trying to end racially based admittance programs?
- allturtles 1y agoBecause I read the letter from the government to Harvard. Did you? Racially-based admittance is only one bullet out of ten. The government isn't demanding specific policy changes, they are demanding cultural and ideological control of the university.
- nailer 1y agoDid you? As you can read, they tackle racial bias immediately and follow up with preventing advocacy for terrorism and racism, then viewpoint divergence. At no point are they arguing for a single viewpoint to exist, they are CONSISTENTLY doing the exact opposite: 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/... The people we must be concerned about that are arguing for a single viewpoint controlling American universities are those like yourself that oppose pluralism.
- immibis 1y agoTo the fascist regime, "diversity" means "hiring black or gay people". Likewise "diverse points of view" means "viewpoints that think it's okay for black and gay people to be hired and for transgender people to pee". And "speech control" means "kicking out people who shout Hitler did nothing wrong in the middle of the library". And "inclusion" means "letting black or gay people study". It's all newspeak.
- davegri 1y agoThe demands only seem inconsistent if you don't look at the actual principle underlying them. Political discourse tends to present opposing ideologies as being about principles like "free speech" or "free markets" - it's really all about power, who has it, and who wants it. In this case its strengthening particular social and economic hierarchies - america vs the rest of the world, and white christians over non-whites or non-christian. What's interesting is that this is not necessarily a struggle between the top of a hierarchy vs the bottom of one, but between two different hierarchies. The democrats support cultural non racial and economic hierarchies, while the republicans support racial international and the same economic hierarchies. So while they both support the rich over the working class, there is a struggle over whether to support racial and international hierarchies. Democrats tend to support globalization, i.e unifying of the power of the top of the economic hierarchy across international boundaries, while eliminating racial and sexual hierarchies as they are seen as "inefficient" from a neoliberal perspective. Republicans are more focused on the "national elite", the rich people that depend on america being a global hegemon specifically, energy industry, military industira-complex, etc..
- TheOtherHobbes 1y agoPlenty of Democratic voters are on board with taxing the rich and flattening those economic hierarchies. The problem has been that the Democratic party is the neoliberal wing of the establishment. Its purpose has been to create the illusion that economic progress is possible while working hard to maintain the economic status quo. Cultural diversity was the distraction and consolation prize. Now the establishment wants full, unquestioned, totalitarian control now and no longer cares about maintaining the illusion of choice. Ultimately it wants a country run on plantation lines with voting rights restricted to wealthy white male property owners, a "Christian" moral narrative (really just racism, greed, supremacism, and sexual opportunism dressed up in bible rags) and no independent sources of intellectual dissent. Which means the bare minimum of public education, no science, no difficult or non-commercial art, no free thought in universities or academia, and as little free travel and contact with the outside world as possible. The most comparable country is North Korea. So the likely end will be a heavily militarised and even more heavily propagandised country, run as a pampered inherited monarchy which tolerates a certain amount of education when it's useful, but is violently hostile to all dissent. It's quite hard to get there from here. The shock-and-awe of the last few months were supposed to establish dominance, but it's not going to happen without resistance. Harvard is one example. There will be more. Ultimately the military will be used to force compliance, and - absent a not entirely unexpected medical event - they'll decide which way this goes.
- dspillett 1y agoIt is easier to understand their thinking when you combine each pair of demands: what they want is reversals, they've just split each into two steps because they think that will be more palatable. It makes it easier to sell to their own base certainly, because they can concentrate on whichever half has the most emotive effect in any given speech, and easier for their base to parrot: they just repeat the half they want and don't need to think about the other. The end to current diversity policies and the start of others combined is a demand for u-turn: stop allowing the things we don't like, start allowing the things you were stopping. Same for speech: stop auditing the speech we want to say, start auditing the speech you were previously allowing. And so on. In the minds of the administration it makes sense, because they think of each item separately where there is conflict and together where there is not. Such cognitive dissonance seems to be their natural state of mind, the seem to seek it. Much like their cries of “but what about tolerance?!”¹ when you mention punching nazis. They want the complete about-turn: LBTQ out, racism/sexism/phobias in. You are supposed to tolerate what they want you to tolerate, and little or nothing else. -------- [1] My answer there has often become “you didn't want tolerance, you specifically voted against continued tolerance, what you voted for won, intolerance is your democratically chosen desire, who am I to deny the will of your people?”.
- fransje26 1y agoActually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. [..] The frightening thing, he reflected for the ten thousandth time [..] was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened -- that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death? [..] It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'
- varelse 1y ago
- chrsw 1y agoI don't think it's confusing. It's classic "my way or the highway" stance. "Free speech for everyone! (except for things I don't like...)".
- reverendsteveii 1y agoYou see the establishment of separate, unwritten classes of things here, right? It will be a case-by-case basis which of these rules is invoked, that way no matter what happens they're "just following the rules we all agreed to" but they get to hand-select which thoughts are compulsory and which are forbidden.
- belter 1y agoCowards are now saying it was a mistake: "Trump Officials Blame Mistake for Setting Off Confrontation With Harvard" - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-letter-mistake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-le...