7 ms·

Federal agencies continue terminating all funding to Harvard

115 points by MaysonL 1y ago

modzu 1y ago
[flagged]
- tmpz22 1y ago
  Don't worry we're increasing defense spending by 13% [1]. I suggest everyone read the linked source, its absolutely chilling. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-Budget-Request.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal...
  - explodes 1y ago
    > For Defense spending, the President proposes an increase of 13 percent to $1.01 trillion for FY 2026; for Homeland Security, the Budget commits a historic $175 billion investment to, at long last, fully secure our border.
  - rpmisms 1y ago
    More chilling that the white house still uses WordPress.
    - defrost 1y ago
      WordPress seems advanced for a government body whose head of health actively promotes for himself and his grandchildren swimming downstream from sewerage to boost the immune system.
    - tmpz22 1y ago
      No. Chilling that despite making massive cuts everywhere (read the source) they put most of the savings into the military budget.
    - igor47 1y ago
      That's really not more chilling. I recommend actually reading the document. There are multi billion dollar cuts to IT programs and CISA/cyber security infrastructure, along with massive cuts to basic research, EPA protections and toxic site cleanup, and basic social services, the list goes on. Instead we're plowing extra money into military spending, but because the defense budget is already so bloated it amounts to a small percentage increase there, and huge percentage decreases in everything else.
      - Auracle 1y ago
        If we’re investing in securing the border with a significant chunk of that defense spending that’ll save us a lot more over time, presuming the democratic presidents of the future don’t proverbially throw the gates open.
        igor47 1y ago
        This is false. A prediction of "securing our border will save money" is false. It really, really is. Check your sources and approach this as a scientist trying to verify your idea, not as a partisan and trying to defend it. You will quickly see that even illegal immigration is not a cost, especially to the federal government. Hell just ask an llm. https://chatgpt.com/share/682b50c5-27ac-8004-b217-dc3748bf1130 https://chatgpt.com/share/682b50c5-27ac-8004-b217-dc3748bf11...
        an_guy 1y ago
        llm, as source, makes your point moot.
  - landl0rd 1y ago
    I voted for Trump. I think the Harvard funding thing is stupid. I don't really want money going to Israel. However, I don't think this is chilling. I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China. And I would prefer to cut most social spending from the federal level and relegate it to the local level. This is pretty consistent with most people on the right. This is not a feature of the magas. Please don't act like it's strange or alien. Obviously social spending cuts will never happen sadly. All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      >The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt. But >I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China
      - landl0rd 1y ago
        Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. Raise defense spending a little. Work hard on bringing down defense costs because we are throwing money at the primes for what.
        Braxton1980 1y ago
        >Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to. However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social programs?" ______ I don't know what primes are
        landl0rd 1y ago
        Defense is existential and welfare is not. Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be. My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Primes are the prime contractors: boeing, northrop, lockheed, rtx. The guys who do a lot of stuff on cost-plus. The guys who systems-integrate most of the smaller manufacturers' stuff.
- jmclnx 1y ago
  So true and we get a front row seat watching the US slide into obscurity and eventually the US Dollar no longer a reserve currency. When that happens eggs will cost $12,000 USD per dozen.
  - FreebasingLLMs 1y ago
    [dead]
  - runlaszlorun 1y ago
    That's when I'll be launching my Eggs as a Service startup.
- mjevans 1y ago
  You might not be aware. After we grew up that word became somewhere vaguely in the same classification of 'radioactive' as the N word people from the 1940s used to use all the time. It kind of tints movies like Idiocracy (a movie I fear increasingly describes a possible future rather than a satirical one) that made a joke out of someone who was only moderately not-smart as just the last 4 letters rather than all 6.
markoman 1y ago
What exactly are the 'unsafe anti-Semitic actions' that Harvard Univ has committed? Is this whole thing about how Harvard hasn't suppressed the free speech rights of its students as they protested the wholesale bombing of Gaza? Its not like Harvard is rife with far-right activists denying the Holocaust and such. I can't imagine that Harvard wouldn't win their case quite roundly. Law firms & universities have to stop bowing to the wanna-be dictator.
- jmclnx 1y ago
  [flagged]
- mapt 1y ago
  [flagged]
- inharvard 1y ago
  [flagged]
- uhhhd 1y ago
  Why not try to do the minimum amount of research before complaining about it online? Here's a complaint from a recent lawsuit by a collection of Jewish Harvard students against the university. It's a good starting point. https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pdf https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pd...
  - uhhhd 1y ago
    If you prefer a summary: Key Allegations: 1. Hostile Environment: The complaint describes a campus atmosphere where pro-Hamas students and faculty have organized demonstrations featuring antisemitic slogans and calls for violence against Jews and Israel. These protests have reportedly disrupted classes and occupied campus spaces, creating an environment of fear and intimidation for Jewish students. 2. Administrative Inaction: Despite numerous complaints and reports of antisemitic incidents, the university administration is accused of failing to take appropriate disciplinary actions against perpetrators. The plaintiffs argue that this inaction amounts to deliberate indifference, exacerbating the hostile environment. 3. Double Standards: The lawsuit claims that Harvard enforces its anti-discrimination policies selectively, protecting other minority groups while neglecting the safety and rights of Jewish students. This alleged inconsistency is presented as evidence of institutional bias. 4. Faculty Conduct: Certain faculty members are accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric in their teachings and public statements, further contributing to the hostile climate on campus. 5. Failure to Uphold Policies: The plaintiffs contend that Harvard has not adhered to its own stated policies on discrimination and harassment, thereby breaching contractual obligations to its students. Legal Claims: • Violation of Title VI: The university is accused of failing to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, as mandated by federal law. • Breach of Contract: By not enforcing its anti-discrimination policies, Harvard is alleged to have breached its contractual commitments to provide a safe educational environment. • Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The plaintiffs argue that the university’s actions, or lack thereof, violate the fundamental expectations of fairness and protection owed to students.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
1270018080 1y ago
One of the organizations that got completely cut off is the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. Which brings together researchers across the country in to find cures to the rarest diseases. And it may just cease to exist, setnences people with rare diseases to die. This administration is responsible for abject evil because a university didn't swear fealty to a genocidal foreign government.
- justanotheratom 1y ago
  [dead]
  - Maxatar 1y ago
    Israel, as per the declaration: https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/anti-semitism-task-force-statement-on-additional-harvard-grants.html https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/anti-semitism-task-force-stat...
    - justanotheratom 1y ago
      I’m confused. the declaration does not say anything about swearing fealty to a genocidal foreign government.
      - Maxatar 1y ago
        I'm sorry that you're confused about this subject.
_zagj 1y ago
Harvard currently has a $52 billion endowment on which it pays no tax: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/26/business/harvard-endowment-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/26/business/harvard-endowmen... Why are progressives not bothered more by this?
- WalterGR 1y ago
  Because they know what an endowment is, how they're used, what a 501(c)(3) nonprofit is, and very generally the tax rules around such nonprofits. I can provide links if you'd like to learn. I'm just on mobile right now and it's a pain. It would help, though, if you could describe in what way people should be bothered.
  - _zagj 1y ago
    > what a 501(c)(3) nonprofit In the case of Harvard and many other institutions, it's a tax-dodge, and nothing more. Same thing with non-profit hospitals whose administrators pay themselves seven-figure salaries.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      Ok and? What does this article have to do with nonprofits in general? Also the board of the nonprofit sets salaries for admin
    - wasabi991011 1y ago
      According to the article you linked: > ... the National Association of College and University Business Officers issues a report on ... where the money [endowments] generate ends up. ... About 48 percent of investment income went to student aid ... about a quarter of the money ... went to academic programs and maintaining facilities. To claim it's a "tax dodge, and nothing more" without elaborating is absurd. I won't argue further with someone more interested in inflammatory statements than actually discussing.
      - _zagj 1y ago
yieldcrv 1y ago
75 years ago, universities were cautious about accepting Federal funds due to this specific possibility. It worked out. Not it isn't. Federal funds comes with strings attached and administrations change. If the usefulness of the work has proven itself now, then other sources can fund it. This won't really be controversial or require grandstanding or debate soon, because it will be the status quo. Yes, its also disruptive to many programs to cut off funding in this way. I think decoupling is for the better. This university daytraded tax free up to a $50bn endowment, for a rainy day. They just need to get liquid and plug the budget gap, which they are starting to do. Donors and other sources can be leveraged too.
- spinarrets 1y ago
  On the flip side, accepting this funding has allowed for a lot of research to progress. Sometimes those strings attached still lead to a net good. Obviously, you should always have a plan for "what if this source of funding goes to zero, suddenly", and be prepared to walk away if needs be. But it's hard to imagine what university research would be like if they didn't accept Federal funding. (Much, much weaker, I'd imagine.)
  - yieldcrv 1y ago
    > If the usefulness of the work has proven itself now, then other sources can fund it.
    - aaomidi 1y ago
      There’s a lot of work that is “useful” but the return on investment is not direct, but rather indirect. For example I don’t remember the detail exactly but this professors insistence to study extremophiles has directly translated to many improvements in medicine.
      - yieldcrv 1y ago
        there are many sources that don't look for profits, its illuminating that both respondents so far assumed that
ArthurStacks 1y ago
[flagged]
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  What evidence do you have of political indoctrination or social activism?
  - uhhhd 1y ago
    That Harvard chose to settle this lawsuit rather than litigate it. https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pdf https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pd...
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      How is that evidence when entities settle suits all the time to avoid the cost and time of litigation?
      - uhhhd 1y ago
        Because the reputational damage to Harvard would probably exceed the minimal cost of litigating this (given its endowment) if they thought they would win. It's not evidence in legal sense, but it's a strong suggestion of culpability. Harvard isn't some kid that was arrested on false charges and settles because they're facing jail time. This is a massive institution with a 50B purse. Litigating this is peanuts for them.
        Braxton1980 1y ago
        >This is a massive institution with a 50B purse. Litigating this is peanuts for them. Companies, large ones, settle all the time even if not at fault to avoid a lengthy trial which damages their reputation. It can have nothing to do with culpability. 3% of civil cases reach a verdict. https://arizonabusinesslawyeraz.com/when-to-litigate-and-when-to-settle/ https://arizonabusinesslawyeraz.com/when-to-litigate-and-whe... Settlements are also a known fixed cost controlled by the business instead of a jury. Considering how Republicans are attacking Harvard I would say the desire to get this out the public spotlight as fast as possible is important
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Herring 1y ago
“Differing political opinions” is a dealbreaker for liberals, but NOT for conservatives. And conservatives don’t know this, they just love to take advantage - a Supreme Court seat here, a presidency there… One fine day liberals will wake up and decide they’ve had enough, and conservatives will be so surprised.
waltercool 1y ago
[dead]

115 points by MaysonL 1y ago

modzu 1y ago

[flagged]

tmpz22 1y ago
Don't worry we're increasing defense spending by 13% [1]. I suggest everyone read the linked source, its absolutely chilling. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-Budget-Request.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal...
- explodes 1y ago
  > For Defense spending, the President proposes an increase of 13 percent to $1.01 trillion for FY 2026; for Homeland Security, the Budget commits a historic $175 billion investment to, at long last, fully secure our border.
- rpmisms 1y ago
  More chilling that the white house still uses WordPress.
  - defrost 1y ago
    WordPress seems advanced for a government body whose head of health actively promotes for himself and his grandchildren swimming downstream from sewerage to boost the immune system.
  - tmpz22 1y ago
    No. Chilling that despite making massive cuts everywhere (read the source) they put most of the savings into the military budget.
  - igor47 1y ago
    That's really not more chilling. I recommend actually reading the document. There are multi billion dollar cuts to IT programs and CISA/cyber security infrastructure, along with massive cuts to basic research, EPA protections and toxic site cleanup, and basic social services, the list goes on. Instead we're plowing extra money into military spending, but because the defense budget is already so bloated it amounts to a small percentage increase there, and huge percentage decreases in everything else.
    - Auracle 1y ago
      If we’re investing in securing the border with a significant chunk of that defense spending that’ll save us a lot more over time, presuming the democratic presidents of the future don’t proverbially throw the gates open.
      - igor47 1y ago
        This is false. A prediction of "securing our border will save money" is false. It really, really is. Check your sources and approach this as a scientist trying to verify your idea, not as a partisan and trying to defend it. You will quickly see that even illegal immigration is not a cost, especially to the federal government. Hell just ask an llm. https://chatgpt.com/share/682b50c5-27ac-8004-b217-dc3748bf1130 https://chatgpt.com/share/682b50c5-27ac-8004-b217-dc3748bf11...
        an_guy 1y ago
        llm, as source, makes your point moot.
- landl0rd 1y ago
  I voted for Trump. I think the Harvard funding thing is stupid. I don't really want money going to Israel. However, I don't think this is chilling. I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China. And I would prefer to cut most social spending from the federal level and relegate it to the local level. This is pretty consistent with most people on the right. This is not a feature of the magas. Please don't act like it's strange or alien. Obviously social spending cuts will never happen sadly. All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    >The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt. But >I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China
    - landl0rd 1y ago
      Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. Raise defense spending a little. Work hard on bringing down defense costs because we are throwing money at the primes for what.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        >Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to. However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social programs?" ______ I don't know what primes are
        landl0rd 1y ago
        Defense is existential and welfare is not. Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be. My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Primes are the prime contractors: boeing, northrop, lockheed, rtx. The guys who do a lot of stuff on cost-plus. The guys who systems-integrate most of the smaller manufacturers' stuff.
jmclnx 1y ago
So true and we get a front row seat watching the US slide into obscurity and eventually the US Dollar no longer a reserve currency. When that happens eggs will cost $12,000 USD per dozen.
- FreebasingLLMs 1y ago
  [dead]
- runlaszlorun 1y ago
  That's when I'll be launching my Eggs as a Service startup.
mjevans 1y ago
You might not be aware. After we grew up that word became somewhere vaguely in the same classification of 'radioactive' as the N word people from the 1940s used to use all the time. It kind of tints movies like Idiocracy (a movie I fear increasingly describes a possible future rather than a satirical one) that made a joke out of someone who was only moderately not-smart as just the last 4 letters rather than all 6.

markoman 1y ago

What exactly are the 'unsafe anti-Semitic actions' that Harvard Univ has committed? Is this whole thing about how Harvard hasn't suppressed the free speech rights of its students as they protested the wholesale bombing of Gaza? Its not like Harvard is rife with far-right activists denying the Holocaust and such. I can't imagine that Harvard wouldn't win their case quite roundly. Law firms & universities have to stop bowing to the wanna-be dictator.

jmclnx 1y ago
[flagged]
mapt 1y ago
[flagged]
inharvard 1y ago
[flagged]
uhhhd 1y ago
Why not try to do the minimum amount of research before complaining about it online? Here's a complaint from a recent lawsuit by a collection of Jewish Harvard students against the university. It's a good starting point. https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pdf https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pd...
- uhhhd 1y ago
  If you prefer a summary: Key Allegations: 1. Hostile Environment: The complaint describes a campus atmosphere where pro-Hamas students and faculty have organized demonstrations featuring antisemitic slogans and calls for violence against Jews and Israel. These protests have reportedly disrupted classes and occupied campus spaces, creating an environment of fear and intimidation for Jewish students. 2. Administrative Inaction: Despite numerous complaints and reports of antisemitic incidents, the university administration is accused of failing to take appropriate disciplinary actions against perpetrators. The plaintiffs argue that this inaction amounts to deliberate indifference, exacerbating the hostile environment. 3. Double Standards: The lawsuit claims that Harvard enforces its anti-discrimination policies selectively, protecting other minority groups while neglecting the safety and rights of Jewish students. This alleged inconsistency is presented as evidence of institutional bias. 4. Faculty Conduct: Certain faculty members are accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric in their teachings and public statements, further contributing to the hostile climate on campus. 5. Failure to Uphold Policies: The plaintiffs contend that Harvard has not adhered to its own stated policies on discrimination and harassment, thereby breaching contractual obligations to its students. Legal Claims: • Violation of Title VI: The university is accused of failing to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, as mandated by federal law. • Breach of Contract: By not enforcing its anti-discrimination policies, Harvard is alleged to have breached its contractual commitments to provide a safe educational environment. • Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The plaintiffs argue that the university’s actions, or lack thereof, violate the fundamental expectations of fairness and protection owed to students.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

1270018080 1y ago

One of the organizations that got completely cut off is the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. Which brings together researchers across the country in to find cures to the rarest diseases. And it may just cease to exist, setnences people with rare diseases to die. This administration is responsible for abject evil because a university didn't swear fealty to a genocidal foreign government.

justanotheratom 1y ago
[dead]
- Maxatar 1y ago
  Israel, as per the declaration: https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/anti-semitism-task-force-statement-on-additional-harvard-grants.html https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/anti-semitism-task-force-stat...
  - justanotheratom 1y ago
    I’m confused. the declaration does not say anything about swearing fealty to a genocidal foreign government.
    - Maxatar 1y ago
      I'm sorry that you're confused about this subject.

_zagj 1y ago

Harvard currently has a $52 billion endowment on which it pays no tax: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/26/business/harvard-endowment-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/26/business/harvard-endowmen... Why are progressives not bothered more by this?

WalterGR 1y ago
Because they know what an endowment is, how they're used, what a 501(c)(3) nonprofit is, and very generally the tax rules around such nonprofits. I can provide links if you'd like to learn. I'm just on mobile right now and it's a pain. It would help, though, if you could describe in what way people should be bothered.
- _zagj 1y ago
  > what a 501(c)(3) nonprofit In the case of Harvard and many other institutions, it's a tax-dodge, and nothing more. Same thing with non-profit hospitals whose administrators pay themselves seven-figure salaries.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    Ok and? What does this article have to do with nonprofits in general? Also the board of the nonprofit sets salaries for admin
  - wasabi991011 1y ago
    According to the article you linked: > ... the National Association of College and University Business Officers issues a report on ... where the money [endowments] generate ends up. ... About 48 percent of investment income went to student aid ... about a quarter of the money ... went to academic programs and maintaining facilities. To claim it's a "tax dodge, and nothing more" without elaborating is absurd. I won't argue further with someone more interested in inflammatory statements than actually discussing.
    - _zagj 1y ago

yieldcrv 1y ago

75 years ago, universities were cautious about accepting Federal funds due to this specific possibility. It worked out. Not it isn't. Federal funds comes with strings attached and administrations change. If the usefulness of the work has proven itself now, then other sources can fund it. This won't really be controversial or require grandstanding or debate soon, because it will be the status quo. Yes, its also disruptive to many programs to cut off funding in this way. I think decoupling is for the better. This university daytraded tax free up to a $50bn endowment, for a rainy day. They just need to get liquid and plug the budget gap, which they are starting to do. Donors and other sources can be leveraged too.

spinarrets 1y ago
On the flip side, accepting this funding has allowed for a lot of research to progress. Sometimes those strings attached still lead to a net good. Obviously, you should always have a plan for "what if this source of funding goes to zero, suddenly", and be prepared to walk away if needs be. But it's hard to imagine what university research would be like if they didn't accept Federal funding. (Much, much weaker, I'd imagine.)
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  > If the usefulness of the work has proven itself now, then other sources can fund it.
  - aaomidi 1y ago
    There’s a lot of work that is “useful” but the return on investment is not direct, but rather indirect. For example I don’t remember the detail exactly but this professors insistence to study extremophiles has directly translated to many improvements in medicine.
    - yieldcrv 1y ago
      there are many sources that don't look for profits, its illuminating that both respondents so far assumed that

ArthurStacks 1y ago

[flagged]

Braxton1980 1y ago
What evidence do you have of political indoctrination or social activism?
- uhhhd 1y ago
  That Harvard chose to settle this lawsuit rather than litigate it. https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pdf https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pd...
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    How is that evidence when entities settle suits all the time to avoid the cost and time of litigation?
    - uhhhd 1y ago
      Because the reputational damage to Harvard would probably exceed the minimal cost of litigating this (given its endowment) if they thought they would win. It's not evidence in legal sense, but it's a strong suggestion of culpability. Harvard isn't some kid that was arrested on false charges and settles because they're facing jail time. This is a massive institution with a 50B purse. Litigating this is peanuts for them.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        >This is a massive institution with a 50B purse. Litigating this is peanuts for them. Companies, large ones, settle all the time even if not at fault to avoid a lengthy trial which damages their reputation. It can have nothing to do with culpability. 3% of civil cases reach a verdict. https://arizonabusinesslawyeraz.com/when-to-litigate-and-when-to-settle/ https://arizonabusinesslawyeraz.com/when-to-litigate-and-whe... Settlements are also a known fixed cost controlled by the business instead of a jury. Considering how Republicans are attacking Harvard I would say the desire to get this out the public spotlight as fast as possible is important

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Herring 1y ago

“Differing political opinions” is a dealbreaker for liberals, but NOT for conservatives. And conservatives don’t know this, they just love to take advantage - a Supreme Court seat here, a presidency there… One fine day liberals will wake up and decide they’ve had enough, and conservatives will be so surprised.

waltercool 1y ago

[dead]