8 ms·

Can someone ELI5 the power networks involved here? I didn't expect to see Harvard getting smacked around or humiliated like this. Between Harvard, Yale, and p

by neilv 1y ago

Can someone ELI5 the power networks involved here? I didn't expect to see Harvard getting smacked around or humiliated like this. Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government. And that key figures in government were interested in maintaining and benefiting from that influence. And a lot of that influence seemed aligned with national interests. (For example, getting things done with prestige connections, domestically and internationally. And the international diplomatic goodwill, when children of the world's wealthy and powerful go to prestigious schools in the US.) Is some other faction at work now, or is it the same people as before? Are the power networks changing? If the distribution of power is changing, is it partly due to someone willing to sacrifice national power from which all parties benefited (and everyone else wasn't expecting that, or wasn't ready to defend against that from within)? Better questions?

philistine 1y ago
You're overthinking this. The university is vocal about keeping its independence. That's enough to warrant retaliation from this president.
- Alupis 1y ago
  Or, perhaps more simply, the days of the "Good Ol' Boys" who all went to the same power school and use that as a way to influence politics are over? I'm reminded of the infamous George Carlin bit "It's a big club, and you ain’t in it"[1]. Maybe not anymore... and that's a most likely a good thing. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/964648-but-there-s-a-reason-there-s-a-reason-there-s-a-reason https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/964648-but-there-s-a-reason...
  - rat87 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - Alupis 1y ago
      Can multiple things not be true at the same time? Or is it one of those "our" billionaires type of thing?
      - j_maffe 1y ago
        No it's the fact that it's the exact same phenomenon of a rich club getting their way it just happens to be another rich club. There's nothing to celebrate here as you did in your previous comment.
      - UncleMeat 1y ago
        Multiple things can be true at the same time. But they aren't, in this case. Trump and his ilk are attacking academia because they think that universities are all woke. There's no other reasoning required. Leaders within his community have said this in public very clearly. The goal is to destroy academia.
        LargeWu 1y ago
        And attacking Harvard, specifically, because they won't bend the knee. There's not really anything more to it than that. Trump is a petty, small man who cares only about enriching himself and punishing his perceived enemies.
      - truthyTables 1y ago
        Sure, in writing anything can be true. Superman fought Lex Luthor in Action Comics #NN and on and on Most people just default to faith in their native political and religious traditions. So yeah “our guy is better than their guy” and fuck your individual self, you’re on the one true team normalization, becomes the default by sure lack of will of enough people to rock the boat even gently through public debate and discussion. I mean this crowd can circumlocute an endless set of rhetorical perspectives. Ground truth is this group is outnumbered by Trump #1 and all kinds of other tribal group thinks.
  - dandellion 1y ago
    Going by Occam's razor, grandparent's hypothesis is more likely to be correct than yours.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - onetimeusename 1y ago
    Harvard is not an old money university anymore, none of those schools really are. Old money in the sense you are thinking of it is a liability for Harvard especially since the SFFA lawsuit. There isn't a record that tracks that sort of thing so I would point to admissions statistics generally. You may find old money there but there is no backdoor to let them in easily and that's not the vast majority of students so I would not refer to those schools that way.
- HideousKojima 1y ago
  [flagged]
- outside1234 1y ago
  It's also the pinnacle university, at least in optics. It is like getting Zuck to kneel and donate $1M. Once he did that, everyone else donated a $1M and peaced out.
archagon 1y ago
The Project 2025 people and the Yarvinists agree that elite universities like Harvard are spreading the “woke mind virus” and must be destroyed. They consider their movements a revolution, not an iteration on the status quo.
- zombiwoof 1y ago
  Project 2025 is about uneducated people now having power and trying to stop other people from becoming educated
  - HenryBemis 1y ago
    I downloaded the file (must still be somewhere in my "Downloads" folder with many other forever-unread PDFs). I would suggest for anyone living in the US, to find and read that because this is (more or less) what will happen in the/your country in the next 3.5 years. (if I remember well it's 150-170 pages - and since I don't live in the US the meme "Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" is spot on).
    - radlad 1y ago
      This is another good resource: https://www.project2025.observer/ https://www.project2025.observer/
    - blitzar 1y ago
      Skip the reading (it's too hard) - watch the documentary version instead, Idiocracy (2006)
      - 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
        Totally different situation. President Camacho found the smartest man in the world to fix his problems.
        blitzar 1y ago
        Good point. In our timeline America found the dumbest man in the world to fix its problems.
helpful_friend 1y ago
Harvard (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the Ivy League) collects a lot of federal money, this comes with certain conditions around treating people fairly without respect to skin color, ethnicity, or religion. A regular corporation with the same fact pattern of discrimination would be looking at a billion+ dollar fine. this is just Harvard losing some special privilges and being expected to act reasonably fairly like any other publicly funded institution. https://substack.com/home/post/p-163976813 https://substack.com/home/post/p-163976813 They're not actually so scientifically productive that we should tolerate discrimination in order to get the fruits of their research.
lupusreal 1y ago
[flagged]
- esafak 1y ago
  Though I would not have guessed, it seems more about China: "Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment. Many of these agitators are foreign students. Harvard’s leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide." https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses-student-and-exchange-visitor-program-certification-pro https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses...
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    Trump cares less about the Uyghar's than the Jews. Though I doubt he could find either Israel or China on a map.
    - duskwuff 1y ago
      Precisely. This administration's concern for the Uyghurs is skin-deep; it's essentially just a justification to punish any unauthorized connections to China. The actual details of the conflict (for instance, that the Uyghurs are ethnically Muslim) aren't relevant to them.
- wat10000 1y ago
  That's part of it, but another large part is that Republicans are hostile to higher education in general, and this serves as a convenient excuse.
- decimalenough 1y ago
  I don't think the Trump admin gives a rat's ass about Jews. It's an excuse for legal action, in the same way that "fentanyl" was the excuse for tariffs on Canada.
tormeh 1y ago
Isn't a lot of the appeal of Trump that he does not owe anything to these power networks? Others in the Republican party may do so, but Trump has the Republican party well under control, and so doesn't have to listen to anyone. Trump has drained the previous swamp and erected a new one, and Harvard never got an invitation.
- simonh 1y ago
  The previous swamp hasn’t gone anywhere, your just not noticing it due to the enormous size of the new one.
nkurz 1y ago
The best source I've seen for understanding the underlying power dynamics at play is the DHS's Press Release: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses-student-and-exchange-visitor-program-certification-pro https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses... Here's the beginning: WASHINGTON – Today, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered DHS to terminate the Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification. This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status. Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment. Many of these agitators are foreign students. Harvard’s leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide. “This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” said Secretary Noem. “It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.” On April 16, 2025, Secretary Noem demanded Harvard provide information about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus. Secretary Noem warned refusal to comply with this lawful order would result in SEVP termination. This action comes after DHS terminated $2.7 million in DHS grants for Harvard last month. Harvard University brazenly refused to provide the required information requested and ignored a follow up request from the Department’s Office of General Council. Secretary Noem is following through on her promise to protect students and prohibit terrorist sympathizers from receiving benefits from the U.S. government. I think a fair answer might be that this immediate action is primarily about Israel, and Harvard's toleration and apparent support of organizations that the US government considers to be terrorists. Harvard has quite consciously taken an antagonistic approach here, and the government feels it is responding in kind. Secondarily, it's about the way that elite schools have aligned themselves with the progressive politics associated with the Democratic party. Harvard is the target here because they are strongest, not necessarily because they are the most liberal. If the government can humble Harvard, they expect that all the weaker institutions will fold without a fight.
alephnerd 1y ago
> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government. Harvard and Yale didn't hire the right lobbyists [0][1][2] The other universities like Dartmouth, MIT, and public university systems did. One of the side effect of being large endowment private universities meant Harvard and Yale remained extremely insular and concentrated on donor relations over government relations. For example, MIT across town remained much more integrated with public-private projects compared to Harvard, and ime Harvard would try to leverage their alumni network where possible, but the Harvard alumni network just isn't as strong as it was 20 or 30 years ago. Also, don't underestimate the Israel-Palestine culture war's impact on campus alumni relationships. Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli campus orgs have continued to bombard me and other alumni to fight political battles against Harvard leadership for their side. Benefits of signing up to both Islamic orgs and Chabad to broaden my horizons back in the day I guess. Alumni from orgs on both sides are fine targeting the entire university, because fundamentally, Harvard is a very isolated experience where loyalty is to your house, a couple clubs, or your grad program - not Harvard as a whole. And because Harvard has a lot of HNW alumni, they always try to meddle in some shape or form - Wen Jiabao's best friend funds the Fairbank Center, Kraft funds and hosts events at Chabad, some al Saud branches fund a couple Islamic clubs, a bunch of alt-right leaning Catholic traditionalists fund the Abigail Adams Institute, etc. It's just inter-elite fratricide at this point because no one truly gives a poo about Harvard. Honestly, Harvard should prevent alumni from funding campus orgs, but they won't do so because donor relations. [0] - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/19/trump-is-bombarding-the-ivy-league-this-college-just-hired-a-staunch-ally-as-its-top-lawyer-00239635 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/19/trump-is-bombarding... [1] - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/09/small-colleges-trump-lobbying-00339175 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/09/small-colleges-trum... [2] - https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2024/05/01/universities-amp-up-their-k-street-presence-00155518 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2024... Edit: I am extremely pro-academic freedom. This move is a HORRIBLE affront to free speech and campus autonomy. My cynicism and disillusionment may sound like I support the move by the administration, but it is the complete opposite.
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  Dartmouth is a smaller target without the name recognition of Harvard, and MIT has stronger ties to the MIC without the strong public image of a liberal institution. Harvard is a test case (what can this admin do) and a symbol almost in its own category for Trump's followers.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government. The simple answer is that they don't. Alumni are often in powerful positions, but even they are, that is very different from the school itself exerting influence.
- neilv 1y ago
  I mean that alumni are invested in the prestige of the alma mater, and in the network they have through that. Also, that some people at the universities are very connected, and can get a lot of people on the phone.
  - 9dev 1y ago
    But why stick your head out? The people you’re referring to got where they are now by being ruthless, egocentric, power-hungry opportunists; these kinds of people don’t risk their careers over some vague sense of gratitude for their Alma mater.
    - lenerdenator 1y ago
      Some might feel like challenging the silverback because, well, they're ruthless, egocentric, power-hungry opportunists. On the other hand this could just be seen as aristocracy battling it out over who's more aristocratic while the rest of us trudge on, so...
      - 9dev 1y ago
        > Some might feel like challenging the silverback That would be about as smart as challenging an actual silverback. Trump, and his administration by extension, are just past their power zenith right now. They ignore the judicial branch, send people to gulags without fair trial, accept 400 million dollar bribes on live TV, fuck over allies, suppress the press, force universities and schools to align with propaganda, lie openly about about government affairs, prioritise personal acclaim over national security, trash the global economy due to an elementary school level understanding of trade relations… This list could go on for quite a while and would still miss critically dangerous and unprecedented acts. The democrats can't find a coherent voice; the republicans have been dismantled and are firmly in MAGA control; the people trust random TikTok influencers more than reputable journalists; judges must fear being imprisoned over doing their job; scientists and activists could get detained, deported, or imprisoned at any time and are fleeing the country. That is the setting. That is what is happening right now. Even on the highest echelons of power, rebelling against this tsunami of corruption, delusion, and destruction is futile. All you get is a demotion, a muzzle, or a sentence. Just look at Marco Rubio; I seriously doubt he believes even a shred of all the bullshit he has to proclaim with a straight face, but he's as trapped in this as the rest of us, whether he's behind his administration or not.
mxuribe 1y ago
I think its a few reasons/things here...(some already noted in some way by others) * Trump does not care or maybe lacks the understanding of the concept of a network and influence with entities outside the U.s. * Trump probably figures that he can use this as sort of leverage against negotiations with non-U.s. entities...but using a blunt instrument instead of nuance, or backchannels. * Trump is foolishly following the guidelines from the architects of project 2025...whether those folks are educated enough to understand value of schools of higher educatioin, or worse, these architects fear having an educated population - regardless if that population are U.S. citizens or folks outside of U.S. * Trump is behaving like a child having a tantrum, and is demolishing the "swamp" of current political arenas, and re-building it for himself/his party...and Harvard and other entities (that typically might be invited) are not invited in the upcoming new world order. * Trump has little desire in any/all of this, and this is simply another stab at pushing the envelope of what the U.s. Executive branch can/can not do...much like a child who pushes boundaries to see how far they can get...and if no one pushes back/challenges (at least in meaningful ways), then they will keep pushing until greater power has been obtained. ...of course, it could be a combination of many of the above at the same time as well...and could be other stuff that i didn't note above too. In other words, welcome to the modern U.S. tyranny. ;-)
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Most of Trump's behavior makes sense when you realize his dealmaking strategy is bullying: 1. Exert maximun possible pressure 2. Strike the best deal possible Reasons only matter in the sense of selecting initial targets. Once into dealmaking, it's anything and everything thrown at an opponent. You can see this in terms of what stops him: equal counterpressure (China) or consequences (US stocks and treasuries being dumped) Similarly, once a deal is struck, reasons again don't matter.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    The problem is that deals made under duress have little lasting value. The bullied party feels little moral compunction to uphold the terms a moment longer than necessary, plus they will naturally be skeptical of the bullying party's commitment to do so in the future.
nashashmi 1y ago
[flagged]
- scandox 1y ago
  Your hatred is clouding your judgement. It is very clear that the issue of the protests is being used by an American government to pursue a much broader agenda. Israel and antisemitism are merely the most convenient instrument. But since you are trapped in (charitably) a prejudicial mind bubble you can only see this as further proof of a tiny group of people somehow controlling everything...
  - JohnMakin 1y ago
    Protesting the actions of the Israeli government is not anti-semitic.
    - scandox 1y ago
      I didn't say he was antisemitic.
      - JohnMakin 1y ago
        I didn't say you said he was. But you did say: > It is very clear that the issue of the protests is being used by an American government to pursue a much broader agenda. Israel and antisemitism are merely the most convenient instrument.
  - nashashmi 1y ago
    You are right that Trump is using the protests to further his agenda! And some are scolding him for doing that! They want him to only focus on the anti Israel protests instead of also pursuing anti woke policies.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    you make a good point regarding pretexts employed with ulterior aims also, I can think of some more charitable ways to engage with the message in question than to dismiss it with unsubstantiated claims that the messenger is 'trapped in a prejudicial mind bubble', and I bet you are smart and can, too
FridayoLeary 1y ago
[flagged]
- michaelhoney 1y ago
  Which conservative ideas do you think aren’t being represented? The current US administration is a criminal enterprise which is actively destroying the nation.
  - CharlieDigital 1y ago
    Precisely. Conservative SCOTUS, Executive, and Legislative.
  - FridayoLeary 1y ago
    It's sad then the majority of voters think that that is still better then the Democrats being in charge.
- varelse 1y ago
  [dead]
- iAMkenough 1y ago
  Conservative ideas are usually unconstitutional and criminal, if the last four months is any indicator of the current state of conservative ideals.
iAMkenough 1y ago
If you speak out against the government, the government will retaliate. Simple as that.
- imoverclocked 1y ago
  You are describing the inability for dissent as normal. In fact, it's considered an international human right. Despite it also being in our constitution, the Trump Administration's actions resemble your comment closely.
  - iAMkenough 1y ago
    I don't disagree. It's where we've ended up, and I don't see any viable solutions to the problem.
    - imoverclocked 1y ago
      Arguably, this is part of the intent. It’s important to see through/past it even if for nothing else than your own personal sanity. Personally, I have found a lot of comfort in local protests; There are a lot of people who really don’t want this regime to stick around.
- malfist 1y ago
  That is not how it is supposed to work in the US.
  - mikrl 1y ago
    There are historical precedents though: >1798 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts >1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 >>notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds
daveguy 1y ago
> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government. Turns out the "deep state" is just some made up bullshit to make people distrustful, angry, and easier to manipulate. > Is some other faction at work now, or is it the same people as before? Are the power networks changing? Nope, it's always been this dynamic. It's made of people after all. But that doesn't work as well to get people lapping up Trumpty Dumpty propaganda.
- bgwalter 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - daveguy 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - bgwalter 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
pfannkuchen 1y ago
One explanation might be that the objects of their influence are nested within agencies. Most presidents let the agencies run mostly unsupervised, it seems like. With the agencies now under heavy fire structurally, they may not be able to do what they would normally do to prevent this kind of thing. I think the whole agency model gives the president way more power than they are meant to have. I guess this exists to serve as a form of blame laundering from the people without term limits to the guy with term limits? But if the president does not play ball, suddenly they have power over things congress would otherwise have power over. Oops.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  The intent of agencies was three-fold: 1. As the US grew and the workload required to govern it grew, Congress' ability to directly and quickly manage the country was outpaced. Consequently, agencies served as the grease between Congress' high-level actions/funding and the low-level implementation. 2. Due to the ever-adversarial nature of Congress, it was recognized that most Congresses operated slowly, and consequently didn't have the capacity to micromanage at the level required for direct control. 3. Circa 1900, civil service reform by the then-progressive wing of the Republican party pushed for greater isolation of the expertise that drove good government outcomes (in civil service employees) from politicians (administrators). The flaw Trump revealed was that the President has too much direct power over the civil service, if he chooses to ignore tradition. This wasn't always the case, and laws that previously restrained the President's ability to fuck with the civil service were substantially relaxed in the 60s - 80s (?).
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - QuarterReptile 1y ago
    Conversely, the flaw of the civil servant plan during Trump 1 was that stonewalling the top of your org chart can really bite you if he sticks around too long or, maybe worse, comes back. In any case, the President will keep having too much power until Congress starts taking theirs back.
computerthings 1y ago
[dead]
soupfordummies 1y ago
It's hard for me to see this as anything more than "they resisted Trump, that pissed him off and now he's further retaliating." Side question I've been wrestling with to whoever feels like commenting: At what point would you look at our current US situation and say "yep, we're now in a dictatorship"
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  Dictatorships require at least some sort of state monopoly on violence. That's how power ultimately works. As of now there's no way for the state to enact such a monopoly in the US.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - lenerdenator 1y ago
      An election only puts a few people in an office. If those people try to exert their will through force (which, I wouldn’t classify cutting Harvard off as using force, just being a jerk) and there can be severe physical consequences done to the state for that action, then I wouldn’t call it a dictatorship at that point.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        The US regulatory system is intertwined with enough of the country that dictatorship can be wrought through its abuse. E.g. if the US court system were more MAGA, Trump would be ignoring the Constitution today (habeas corpus), instead of toeing around the line E.g. Trump silencing media speech by abusing FCC spectrum transfer authority Institutions and the Constitution are what prevent the US from being a dictatorship, and ultimately both of those things rest on elected (indirectly or directly) officials, and therefore free and fair elections.
      - multjoy 1y ago
Animats 1y ago
> Can someone elucidate the power networks involved here? Major players, regarding the Gaza/Hamas issue: - Harvard itself. The administration, not the faculty or students. - The US Eastern Establishment, the Ivy League and its graduates. They once ran the US, and still run finance, but are less influential politically than a few decades ago. - The Netanyahu faction in Israel. Understanding this requires more info about Israeli politics than is worth posting here. Wikipedia has a summary.[1] There are a huge number of factions. Netanyahu leads a coalition. The coalition seems to need an enemy to hold it together. - MAGA. "Project 2025" is the MAGA playbook. Despite some denials, the Trump administration has mostly been following that playbook. - Israel's lobby in the US, starting with AIPAC. American Jews as a group average left of center, but the Israel lobby is hard-right. - Major donors to Harvard. Some are closely associated with the Israel lobby and vocal about it. Others aren't. - The US courts. Anyone can bring a case to court, and courts have to do something about it. - Trump. Minor players: - Fox News. 23 of Trump's appointees came from Fox News. The MAGA base listens to Fox News. - The United Nations. Provides some aid, but hasn't been able to do more than that. - US Congress. Has the real power, but is too divided to do anything with it. - Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. They're the ones most affected, but lack any real power at this point. It's not even suggested that they be represented in international meetings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel
- intended 1y ago
  Fox and the rest of the media network is the main player. They spend the energy required to present an alternative reality for their base, and have insulated their viewers from any discussion on a shared common reality. Furthermore, they are effectively part of the Republican Party. So they create and maintain a political reality which is purpose built to achieve political goals. The underlying assumption of western liberal democracies is that participants can figure things out together. You cannot figure things out when you have one side intentionally creating alternate narratives to stymie conversation and debate, to shore up negotiating power for the leaders of their bloc.
ckemere 1y ago
This is an explanation from my department chair which I've expanded. In the context of a university, there are four main power groups - the alumni, the faculty, the students, and the board of trustees. (Within each group of course are subfactions.) The actual power balance between these groups is never precisely certain (it's an unobservable "latent variable"). Whenever large events happen that involve the university, we get observations that allow us to estimate the latent variable better. In the case of Harvard, I think the current observations are most consistent with the following: the Board of Trustees, faculty, and students have currently aligned in their goals - which we might summarize as (1) maintaining independence from the government and (2) the ability to hold/teach specific "controversial" viewpoints (benefits of diversity, anti-colonialism, potentially other "progressive" concepts). I suspect that within the factions the relative importance of these two goals is not balanced. The fact that the coalition has survived much longer than, e.g., Columbia, is somewhat surprising. My suspicion is that the answer to your question is that the persistent "smacking around" is only in part due to the external factors other replies have mentioned. I think a major piece of the situation can be explained by a change in the power dynamic with the alumni. Under normal circumstances, the faculty presumably hope to maintain long lasting influence over their alumni, which the board of trustees leverage to bring in more money and influence to the university. The current situation suggests that the high-power/high-$$$ portion of the alumni who are in a position to leverage the public conversation about what's going on are not doing it. This implies that the strength of that edge of the power graph is much weaker than it was expected to be. I think it remains to be seen whether this is true. Further observations that would support that would be reduced donations, public complaints, etc. Conversely, increased fundraising and more public support would suggest the opposite. The key point about the university power network is that USUALLY, the best situation is to avoid situations that actually reveal too much information. Everyone would prefer to believe they have more power than they do. Obviously the alumni are composed of factions, and presumably a large fraction of the potential participants are also members of other organizations with latent power networks and participating in this particular situation would involve expending capital in these other networks with potential reduction in power. Some alumni that have spoken up (i.e., Ackman) are clearly unaligned with the current coalition, and this MAY reflect the fact that the wealthy/powerful group of alumni that have sustained Harvard are really unhappy with the current stances of the university and would like it to shift (return?) to a different set of ideologies. But it's also possible that he represents a minority, and the rest are just nervous about getting involved. My conclusion from this analysis is that things will persist as they have, with everyone who might be involved hoping that lawsuits will be successful in resolving the situation with the minimum of their involvement. If this approach is unsuccessful, I think we'll end up in a situation where we get a much better observation of the power balance between alumni, faculty, and board (I think the students rarely have as much power as they think they do!).
Hilift 1y ago
> For example, getting things done with prestige connections, domestically and internationally. And the international diplomatic goodwill What you describe is relatively recent development of US foreign policy. In 1959, John F. Kennedy purchased a copy of The Ugly American for all of his fellow US Senators. After Kennedy was elected, many foreign service programs were initiated to leverage soft power. That was JFK's legacy. Prior to that, the US acted much in the same way as it is today. It came up with Bretton Woods, along with the UK. The people that ran the world were the Averill Harrimans and Prescott Bushes. In 1956, the US basically told the UK it wasn't going to back the Prime Minister (Anthony Eden) with regards to the Suez Canal. That was probably a sobering indication that the UK was going to be a supplicant in the relationship. The US also returned Vietnam to France (as was policy after WW2), which of course precipitated 20 years of war in southeast asia. The end of the WW2, and the discovery of the infiltration of Russian agents in the dead Roosevelt administration put Truman in panic mode. The iron curtain and cold war basically turned foreign policy into a huge power grab after the war to position against a perceived threat. https://www.thehistoryreader.com/us-history/ugly-american-jfk/ https://www.thehistoryreader.com/us-history/ugly-american-jf...
- scrubs 1y ago
  Much thanks for the jfk link. New info. Interesting info to me at least. I will add a little nuance or my take. Balance as always is key. Toxic feminity or hopes/prayers/empathy holism alone is hardly an answer. Would it kill the dems to get some street smarts? No!
  - tenuousemphasis 1y ago
    I know what toxic masculinity is, but what is toxic femininity?
NoImmatureAdHom 1y ago
Many people associated with the University are pretty happy about it getting smacked down. Shameless, wrong, and overtly illegal discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and creed, suppression of free speech, even the compelling of speech have all been de rigeur for Harvard for the past decade. I just wish they would use a scalpel rather than a sledge hammer.
- NoImmatureAdHom 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    On HN they eschew talking about downvotes, friend.
    - NoImmatureAdHom 1y ago
      I know ... but I was so curious!
  - FridayoLeary 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - acdha 1y ago
    It’s a short but sweeping claim without a citation in sight. That’s a recipe for a flame war but it probably won’t lead to a useful discussion since anyone who would respond is simply guessing at what you’re even talking about or whether you actually arrived at that position through research rather than simple partisan loyalty.
    - FridayoLeary 1y ago
tcgv 1y ago
It’s less a shift in power networks and more about Trump using existing presidency tools more aggressively. Harvard didn’t lose influence, it’s being targeted because it's outspoken and symbolic. The immigration authority falls under the executive branch, so the president can act unilaterally, without needing broader support.
onetimeusename 1y ago
I am not entirely sure what you mean but I will disagree with other commenters that there are no factions at war with each other. If you look at the prosecutors who went after Trump in the past few years, they were disproportionately Harvard Law grads. So that is Merrick Garland, Matthew Colangelo, Alvin Bragg, and Jack Smith. I do think that law schools in particular have cultivated a particular political view and are not independent or nonpartisan but I very much disagree with what Trump is doing. I think there are almost certainly factions here. I personally think Trump is targeting Harvard because of the above reason. Overall I think the situation is quite bad but that isn't what you asked.
fuzzfactor 1y ago
If you've been aware of Trump at all since the 1970's he's always been vastly inferior to anyone who takes academic effort seriously. And he knows it, his whole life, a lot better than anyone else, that's way longer than the general public who didn't really become aware of it until the '70's. Even though he went to a prestigious school himself he's not the kind to make an academic pursuit resembling anything like truly sensible Presidents. The complete opposite of the league of actual accomplished Harvard men like Bush and Obama. What a weenie, Trump is probably just jealous and hates himself and everyone else because he'll never measure up to people having average-to-above-average intellect & integrity. Completely on brand to whine like a child with the most amplified voice he's ever had. So that's what he's going to do instead of something worthwhile for the citizens.
nova22033 1y ago
Bill Ackman is mad at Harvard for allowing the Palestine protests. He switched his support to Trump for that one reason. This is the payoff.
- magicalist 1y ago
  > Bill Ackman is mad at Harvard for allowing the Palestine protests. He switched his support to Trump for that one reason Ackman voted for Trump in 2016.
vondur 1y ago
I'm going to guess there may be a great deal many people who are Harvard Alumni who agree with the Trump Administration on this.
neuroelectron 1y ago
[flagged]
- judah 1y ago
  On the contrary, the issue is that Harvard allowed pro-Hamas students to attack and persecute Jewish students. Harvard failed to protect the Jewish students, even rewarded those students who intimidated Jewish students on campus. Pro-Hamas students barged into classrooms with bullhorns. Camped out on campus and prevented Jewish students from reaching their classrooms, forming lines and locking hands outside of classrooms to prevent Jews from attending classes. Harvard recently released a 311-page report detailing these issues[0]. It's for this reason that the federal government is withholding its funding: we don't want to fund open racism and race-based discrimination on American campuses. [0]: https://www.thefp.com/p/harvard-antisemitism-report https://www.thefp.com/p/harvard-antisemitism-report
  - neuroelectron 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - monkaiju 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - Aeolun 1y ago
    > on American campuses Emphasis mine. Clearly it’s fine and dandy to fund it when off american campuses.
  - magicalist 1y ago
    > Harvard recently released a 311-page report detailing these issues[0]. Can you be more specific about what was detailed in the report and where? Because the things you mention aren't in your linked article at all. There were protests that got way too heated, but calling them "pro-Hamas students" has me, uh, doubting your take on this a bit. The highlights called out in your article are wholly different, focused instead on campus behavior that seems drawing back from embracing diversity and is instead alienating whole cultures. > It's for this reason that the federal government is withholding its funding We aren't talking about funding, though? We're talking about denying attendance by any international student.
tveita 1y ago
Disregarding whatever surface-level motivations Trump might have, let's look at some things attacking Harvard accomplishes. 1. Maybe most importantly, attacking academic institutions is part of the fascist coup playbook. [1] That could really be enough motivation on its own - these steps have lead to the desired outcome before, if you follow them closely enough they will probably work again. Just like the seemingly out-of-the-left-field framing of DEI, of all things, as the big Enemy that is corrupting art, science and the American people itself. It seems crazy, but notice how well it's working. 2. It's another vase to throw in the air, forcing you to catch it, cartoon-style. People who care and believe in process will spend time and energy going through the court system to limit the damage done, but the defenders will lag behind, their focus divided, while the attackers can just keep breaking bigger and bigger things, since they not care much what damage they do to people or their country. 3. It lets them target pro-Palestine protesters gradually starting from the most extreme. The genocide in Gaza can go a lot further. It is mutually beneficial for Trump, Netanyahu and Putin to divide both domestic and international outrage between them (see point 2.) By the time the full scale of the atrocities are clear, arresting and prosecuting protesters for "antisemitism" will be routine. And if you're not willing to stand up and protest, and therefore be removed, chances are you won't stick your neck out when they instate "temporary" changes to federal elections - only out of some extreme necessity, of course. [1] https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/higher-education-in-nazi-germany https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/higher-education-i...
supportengineer 1y ago
>> Are the power networks changing? Yes and this can't be overstated. Interests that were previously aligned are now going to fracture. Everything is up for grabs now.
cadamsdotcom 1y ago
@neliv I’d like to encourage you to do a few searches and maybe ask an LLM for that ELI5 - and include what you learned!
- tomhow 1y ago
  I think it's fine to ask these kinds of questions, in the hope that the HN audience may include individuals with particular insights. A response like this has the same ring to it as posting a link to LMGTFY, which is disallowed here.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
jostmey 1y ago
For every person that went through these elite schools, they must have rejected five or more other people. These schools pride themselves on turning people away. Perhaps, they have far more enemies than friends, explaining their seeming lack of influence in this situation
- QuarterReptile 1y ago
  They absolutely prize having large pools of applicants to reject. Admission percentage is a prestigious statistic.
csomar 1y ago
In my opinion the reason why they are getting smacked is because they are powerful. This is textbook 101 dictatorship power grab in action. Harvard in the US is law. If they can't fight this, probably nobody else can or will.
anon291 1y ago
The government controls the migration system independent of Harvard. The prestige networks people perceive as existing are actually just plot devices for Hollywood. Obvious answer is obvious.
eviks 1y ago
> I thought they had influence throughout government. That's "institutional talk", which is not relevant when you have a "mad king".
EasyMark 1y ago
A lot of people don't want to hear it but Trump isn't really a part of the Washington elite and is bringing in his own circle of people from his first pass at being President. Along the way he has picked up various sycophants and of course likes to hob knob with other billionaires. That is the clique you are dealing with, not the traditional washington crowd from Ivy Leagues. Harvard has a history of standing up to Trrump and he doesn't like that and is a very veangeful person, whether he was in the wrong or not. Unless you bend the knee (he can be very "forgiving" then if it benefits him or his ego) you are going to be a target. Mix that with his sociopathy and zero concern over rule of law and it doesn't look good for Harvard or Columbia for the next few years, unless courts move quickly

by neilv 1y ago

philistine 1y ago

You're overthinking this. The university is vocal about keeping its independence. That's enough to warrant retaliation from this president.

Alupis 1y ago
Or, perhaps more simply, the days of the "Good Ol' Boys" who all went to the same power school and use that as a way to influence politics are over? I'm reminded of the infamous George Carlin bit "It's a big club, and you ain’t in it"[1]. Maybe not anymore... and that's a most likely a good thing. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/964648-but-there-s-a-reason-there-s-a-reason-there-s-a-reason https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/964648-but-there-s-a-reason...
- rat87 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Alupis 1y ago
    Can multiple things not be true at the same time? Or is it one of those "our" billionaires type of thing?
    - j_maffe 1y ago
      No it's the fact that it's the exact same phenomenon of a rich club getting their way it just happens to be another rich club. There's nothing to celebrate here as you did in your previous comment.
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      Multiple things can be true at the same time. But they aren't, in this case. Trump and his ilk are attacking academia because they think that universities are all woke. There's no other reasoning required. Leaders within his community have said this in public very clearly. The goal is to destroy academia.
      - LargeWu 1y ago
        And attacking Harvard, specifically, because they won't bend the knee. There's not really anything more to it than that. Trump is a petty, small man who cares only about enriching himself and punishing his perceived enemies.
    - truthyTables 1y ago
      Sure, in writing anything can be true. Superman fought Lex Luthor in Action Comics #NN and on and on Most people just default to faith in their native political and religious traditions. So yeah “our guy is better than their guy” and fuck your individual self, you’re on the one true team normalization, becomes the default by sure lack of will of enough people to rock the boat even gently through public debate and discussion. I mean this crowd can circumlocute an endless set of rhetorical perspectives. Ground truth is this group is outnumbered by Trump #1 and all kinds of other tribal group thinks.
- dandellion 1y ago
  Going by Occam's razor, grandparent's hypothesis is more likely to be correct than yours.
ethbr1 1y ago
[flagged]
- onetimeusename 1y ago
  Harvard is not an old money university anymore, none of those schools really are. Old money in the sense you are thinking of it is a liability for Harvard especially since the SFFA lawsuit. There isn't a record that tracks that sort of thing so I would point to admissions statistics generally. You may find old money there but there is no backdoor to let them in easily and that's not the vast majority of students so I would not refer to those schools that way.
HideousKojima 1y ago
[flagged]
outside1234 1y ago
It's also the pinnacle university, at least in optics. It is like getting Zuck to kneel and donate $1M. Once he did that, everyone else donated a $1M and peaced out.

archagon 1y ago

The Project 2025 people and the Yarvinists agree that elite universities like Harvard are spreading the “woke mind virus” and must be destroyed. They consider their movements a revolution, not an iteration on the status quo.

zombiwoof 1y ago
Project 2025 is about uneducated people now having power and trying to stop other people from becoming educated
- HenryBemis 1y ago
  I downloaded the file (must still be somewhere in my "Downloads" folder with many other forever-unread PDFs). I would suggest for anyone living in the US, to find and read that because this is (more or less) what will happen in the/your country in the next 3.5 years. (if I remember well it's 150-170 pages - and since I don't live in the US the meme "Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" is spot on).
  - radlad 1y ago
    This is another good resource: https://www.project2025.observer/ https://www.project2025.observer/
  - blitzar 1y ago
    Skip the reading (it's too hard) - watch the documentary version instead, Idiocracy (2006)
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
      Totally different situation. President Camacho found the smartest man in the world to fix his problems.
      - blitzar 1y ago
        Good point. In our timeline America found the dumbest man in the world to fix its problems.

helpful_friend 1y ago

Harvard (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the Ivy League) collects a lot of federal money, this comes with certain conditions around treating people fairly without respect to skin color, ethnicity, or religion. A regular corporation with the same fact pattern of discrimination would be looking at a billion+ dollar fine. this is just Harvard losing some special privilges and being expected to act reasonably fairly like any other publicly funded institution. https://substack.com/home/post/p-163976813 https://substack.com/home/post/p-163976813 They're not actually so scientifically productive that we should tolerate discrimination in order to get the fruits of their research.

lupusreal 1y ago

[flagged]

esafak 1y ago
Though I would not have guessed, it seems more about China: "Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment. Many of these agitators are foreign students. Harvard’s leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide." https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses-student-and-exchange-visitor-program-certification-pro https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses...
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Trump cares less about the Uyghar's than the Jews. Though I doubt he could find either Israel or China on a map.
  - duskwuff 1y ago
    Precisely. This administration's concern for the Uyghurs is skin-deep; it's essentially just a justification to punish any unauthorized connections to China. The actual details of the conflict (for instance, that the Uyghurs are ethnically Muslim) aren't relevant to them.
wat10000 1y ago
That's part of it, but another large part is that Republicans are hostile to higher education in general, and this serves as a convenient excuse.
decimalenough 1y ago
I don't think the Trump admin gives a rat's ass about Jews. It's an excuse for legal action, in the same way that "fentanyl" was the excuse for tariffs on Canada.

tormeh 1y ago

Isn't a lot of the appeal of Trump that he does not owe anything to these power networks? Others in the Republican party may do so, but Trump has the Republican party well under control, and so doesn't have to listen to anyone. Trump has drained the previous swamp and erected a new one, and Harvard never got an invitation.

simonh 1y ago
The previous swamp hasn’t gone anywhere, your just not noticing it due to the enormous size of the new one.

nkurz 1y ago

The best source I've seen for understanding the underlying power dynamics at play is the DHS's Press Release: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses-student-and-exchange-visitor-program-certification-pro https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses... Here's the beginning: WASHINGTON – Today, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered DHS to terminate the Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification. This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status. Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment. Many of these agitators are foreign students. Harvard’s leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide. “This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” said Secretary Noem. “It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.” On April 16, 2025, Secretary Noem demanded Harvard provide information about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus. Secretary Noem warned refusal to comply with this lawful order would result in SEVP termination. This action comes after DHS terminated $2.7 million in DHS grants for Harvard last month. Harvard University brazenly refused to provide the required information requested and ignored a follow up request from the Department’s Office of General Council. Secretary Noem is following through on her promise to protect students and prohibit terrorist sympathizers from receiving benefits from the U.S. government. I think a fair answer might be that this immediate action is primarily about Israel, and Harvard's toleration and apparent support of organizations that the US government considers to be terrorists. Harvard has quite consciously taken an antagonistic approach here, and the government feels it is responding in kind. Secondarily, it's about the way that elite schools have aligned themselves with the progressive politics associated with the Democratic party. Harvard is the target here because they are strongest, not necessarily because they are the most liberal. If the government can humble Harvard, they expect that all the weaker institutions will fold without a fight.

alephnerd 1y ago

> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government. Harvard and Yale didn't hire the right lobbyists [0][1][2] The other universities like Dartmouth, MIT, and public university systems did. One of the side effect of being large endowment private universities meant Harvard and Yale remained extremely insular and concentrated on donor relations over government relations. For example, MIT across town remained much more integrated with public-private projects compared to Harvard, and ime Harvard would try to leverage their alumni network where possible, but the Harvard alumni network just isn't as strong as it was 20 or 30 years ago. Also, don't underestimate the Israel-Palestine culture war's impact on campus alumni relationships. Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli campus orgs have continued to bombard me and other alumni to fight political battles against Harvard leadership for their side. Benefits of signing up to both Islamic orgs and Chabad to broaden my horizons back in the day I guess. Alumni from orgs on both sides are fine targeting the entire university, because fundamentally, Harvard is a very isolated experience where loyalty is to your house, a couple clubs, or your grad program - not Harvard as a whole. And because Harvard has a lot of HNW alumni, they always try to meddle in some shape or form - Wen Jiabao's best friend funds the Fairbank Center, Kraft funds and hosts events at Chabad, some al Saud branches fund a couple Islamic clubs, a bunch of alt-right leaning Catholic traditionalists fund the Abigail Adams Institute, etc. It's just inter-elite fratricide at this point because no one truly gives a poo about Harvard. Honestly, Harvard should prevent alumni from funding campus orgs, but they won't do so because donor relations. [0] - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/19/trump-is-bombarding-the-ivy-league-this-college-just-hired-a-staunch-ally-as-its-top-lawyer-00239635 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/19/trump-is-bombarding... [1] - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/09/small-colleges-trump-lobbying-00339175 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/09/small-colleges-trum... [2] - https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2024/05/01/universities-amp-up-their-k-street-presence-00155518 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2024... Edit: I am extremely pro-academic freedom. This move is a HORRIBLE affront to free speech and campus autonomy. My cynicism and disillusionment may sound like I support the move by the administration, but it is the complete opposite.

Jtsummers 1y ago
Dartmouth is a smaller target without the name recognition of Harvard, and MIT has stronger ties to the MIC without the strong public image of a liberal institution. Harvard is a test case (what can this admin do) and a symbol almost in its own category for Trump's followers.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government. The simple answer is that they don't. Alumni are often in powerful positions, but even they are, that is very different from the school itself exerting influence.

neilv 1y ago
I mean that alumni are invested in the prestige of the alma mater, and in the network they have through that. Also, that some people at the universities are very connected, and can get a lot of people on the phone.
- 9dev 1y ago
  But why stick your head out? The people you’re referring to got where they are now by being ruthless, egocentric, power-hungry opportunists; these kinds of people don’t risk their careers over some vague sense of gratitude for their Alma mater.
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    Some might feel like challenging the silverback because, well, they're ruthless, egocentric, power-hungry opportunists. On the other hand this could just be seen as aristocracy battling it out over who's more aristocratic while the rest of us trudge on, so...
    - 9dev 1y ago
      > Some might feel like challenging the silverback That would be about as smart as challenging an actual silverback. Trump, and his administration by extension, are just past their power zenith right now. They ignore the judicial branch, send people to gulags without fair trial, accept 400 million dollar bribes on live TV, fuck over allies, suppress the press, force universities and schools to align with propaganda, lie openly about about government affairs, prioritise personal acclaim over national security, trash the global economy due to an elementary school level understanding of trade relations… This list could go on for quite a while and would still miss critically dangerous and unprecedented acts. The democrats can't find a coherent voice; the republicans have been dismantled and are firmly in MAGA control; the people trust random TikTok influencers more than reputable journalists; judges must fear being imprisoned over doing their job; scientists and activists could get detained, deported, or imprisoned at any time and are fleeing the country. That is the setting. That is what is happening right now. Even on the highest echelons of power, rebelling against this tsunami of corruption, delusion, and destruction is futile. All you get is a demotion, a muzzle, or a sentence. Just look at Marco Rubio; I seriously doubt he believes even a shred of all the bullshit he has to proclaim with a straight face, but he's as trapped in this as the rest of us, whether he's behind his administration or not.

mxuribe 1y ago

I think its a few reasons/things here...(some already noted in some way by others) * Trump does not care or maybe lacks the understanding of the concept of a network and influence with entities outside the U.s. * Trump probably figures that he can use this as sort of leverage against negotiations with non-U.s. entities...but using a blunt instrument instead of nuance, or backchannels. * Trump is foolishly following the guidelines from the architects of project 2025...whether those folks are educated enough to understand value of schools of higher educatioin, or worse, these architects fear having an educated population - regardless if that population are U.S. citizens or folks outside of U.S. * Trump is behaving like a child having a tantrum, and is demolishing the "swamp" of current political arenas, and re-building it for himself/his party...and Harvard and other entities (that typically might be invited) are not invited in the upcoming new world order. * Trump has little desire in any/all of this, and this is simply another stab at pushing the envelope of what the U.s. Executive branch can/can not do...much like a child who pushes boundaries to see how far they can get...and if no one pushes back/challenges (at least in meaningful ways), then they will keep pushing until greater power has been obtained. ...of course, it could be a combination of many of the above at the same time as well...and could be other stuff that i didn't note above too. In other words, welcome to the modern U.S. tyranny. ;-)

ethbr1 1y ago
Most of Trump's behavior makes sense when you realize his dealmaking strategy is bullying: 1. Exert maximun possible pressure 2. Strike the best deal possible Reasons only matter in the sense of selecting initial targets. Once into dealmaking, it's anything and everything thrown at an opponent. You can see this in terms of what stops him: equal counterpressure (China) or consequences (US stocks and treasuries being dumped) Similarly, once a deal is struck, reasons again don't matter.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  The problem is that deals made under duress have little lasting value. The bullied party feels little moral compunction to uphold the terms a moment longer than necessary, plus they will naturally be skeptical of the bullying party's commitment to do so in the future.

nashashmi 1y ago

[flagged]

scandox 1y ago
Your hatred is clouding your judgement. It is very clear that the issue of the protests is being used by an American government to pursue a much broader agenda. Israel and antisemitism are merely the most convenient instrument. But since you are trapped in (charitably) a prejudicial mind bubble you can only see this as further proof of a tiny group of people somehow controlling everything...
- JohnMakin 1y ago
  Protesting the actions of the Israeli government is not anti-semitic.
  - scandox 1y ago
    I didn't say he was antisemitic.
    - JohnMakin 1y ago
      I didn't say you said he was. But you did say: > It is very clear that the issue of the protests is being used by an American government to pursue a much broader agenda. Israel and antisemitism are merely the most convenient instrument.
- nashashmi 1y ago
  You are right that Trump is using the protests to further his agenda! And some are scolding him for doing that! They want him to only focus on the anti Israel protests instead of also pursuing anti woke policies.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  you make a good point regarding pretexts employed with ulterior aims also, I can think of some more charitable ways to engage with the message in question than to dismiss it with unsubstantiated claims that the messenger is 'trapped in a prejudicial mind bubble', and I bet you are smart and can, too

FridayoLeary 1y ago

[flagged]

michaelhoney 1y ago
Which conservative ideas do you think aren’t being represented? The current US administration is a criminal enterprise which is actively destroying the nation.
- CharlieDigital 1y ago
  Precisely. Conservative SCOTUS, Executive, and Legislative.
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
  It's sad then the majority of voters think that that is still better then the Democrats being in charge.
varelse 1y ago
[dead]
iAMkenough 1y ago
Conservative ideas are usually unconstitutional and criminal, if the last four months is any indicator of the current state of conservative ideals.

iAMkenough 1y ago

If you speak out against the government, the government will retaliate. Simple as that.

imoverclocked 1y ago
You are describing the inability for dissent as normal. In fact, it's considered an international human right. Despite it also being in our constitution, the Trump Administration's actions resemble your comment closely.
- iAMkenough 1y ago
  I don't disagree. It's where we've ended up, and I don't see any viable solutions to the problem.
  - imoverclocked 1y ago
    Arguably, this is part of the intent. It’s important to see through/past it even if for nothing else than your own personal sanity. Personally, I have found a lot of comfort in local protests; There are a lot of people who really don’t want this regime to stick around.
malfist 1y ago
That is not how it is supposed to work in the US.
- mikrl 1y ago
  There are historical precedents though: >1798 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts >1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 >>notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds

daveguy 1y ago

> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government. Turns out the "deep state" is just some made up bullshit to make people distrustful, angry, and easier to manipulate. > Is some other faction at work now, or is it the same people as before? Are the power networks changing? Nope, it's always been this dynamic. It's made of people after all. But that doesn't work as well to get people lapping up Trumpty Dumpty propaganda.

bgwalter 1y ago
[flagged]
- daveguy 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - bgwalter 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]

pfannkuchen 1y ago

One explanation might be that the objects of their influence are nested within agencies. Most presidents let the agencies run mostly unsupervised, it seems like. With the agencies now under heavy fire structurally, they may not be able to do what they would normally do to prevent this kind of thing. I think the whole agency model gives the president way more power than they are meant to have. I guess this exists to serve as a form of blame laundering from the people without term limits to the guy with term limits? But if the president does not play ball, suddenly they have power over things congress would otherwise have power over. Oops.

ethbr1 1y ago
The intent of agencies was three-fold: 1. As the US grew and the workload required to govern it grew, Congress' ability to directly and quickly manage the country was outpaced. Consequently, agencies served as the grease between Congress' high-level actions/funding and the low-level implementation. 2. Due to the ever-adversarial nature of Congress, it was recognized that most Congresses operated slowly, and consequently didn't have the capacity to micromanage at the level required for direct control. 3. Circa 1900, civil service reform by the then-progressive wing of the Republican party pushed for greater isolation of the expertise that drove good government outcomes (in civil service employees) from politicians (administrators). The flaw Trump revealed was that the President has too much direct power over the civil service, if he chooses to ignore tradition. This wasn't always the case, and laws that previously restrained the President's ability to fuck with the civil service were substantially relaxed in the 60s - 80s (?).
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- QuarterReptile 1y ago
  Conversely, the flaw of the civil servant plan during Trump 1 was that stonewalling the top of your org chart can really bite you if he sticks around too long or, maybe worse, comes back. In any case, the President will keep having too much power until Congress starts taking theirs back.

computerthings 1y ago

[dead]

soupfordummies 1y ago

It's hard for me to see this as anything more than "they resisted Trump, that pissed him off and now he's further retaliating." Side question I've been wrestling with to whoever feels like commenting: At what point would you look at our current US situation and say "yep, we're now in a dictatorship"

lenerdenator 1y ago
Dictatorships require at least some sort of state monopoly on violence. That's how power ultimately works. As of now there's no way for the state to enact such a monopoly in the US.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    An election only puts a few people in an office. If those people try to exert their will through force (which, I wouldn’t classify cutting Harvard off as using force, just being a jerk) and there can be severe physical consequences done to the state for that action, then I wouldn’t call it a dictatorship at that point.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      The US regulatory system is intertwined with enough of the country that dictatorship can be wrought through its abuse. E.g. if the US court system were more MAGA, Trump would be ignoring the Constitution today (habeas corpus), instead of toeing around the line E.g. Trump silencing media speech by abusing FCC spectrum transfer authority Institutions and the Constitution are what prevent the US from being a dictatorship, and ultimately both of those things rest on elected (indirectly or directly) officials, and therefore free and fair elections.
    - multjoy 1y ago

Animats 1y ago

> Can someone elucidate the power networks involved here? Major players, regarding the Gaza/Hamas issue: - Harvard itself. The administration, not the faculty or students. - The US Eastern Establishment, the Ivy League and its graduates. They once ran the US, and still run finance, but are less influential politically than a few decades ago. - The Netanyahu faction in Israel. Understanding this requires more info about Israeli politics than is worth posting here. Wikipedia has a summary.[1] There are a huge number of factions. Netanyahu leads a coalition. The coalition seems to need an enemy to hold it together. - MAGA. "Project 2025" is the MAGA playbook. Despite some denials, the Trump administration has mostly been following that playbook. - Israel's lobby in the US, starting with AIPAC. American Jews as a group average left of center, but the Israel lobby is hard-right. - Major donors to Harvard. Some are closely associated with the Israel lobby and vocal about it. Others aren't. - The US courts. Anyone can bring a case to court, and courts have to do something about it. - Trump. Minor players: - Fox News. 23 of Trump's appointees came from Fox News. The MAGA base listens to Fox News. - The United Nations. Provides some aid, but hasn't been able to do more than that. - US Congress. Has the real power, but is too divided to do anything with it. - Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. They're the ones most affected, but lack any real power at this point. It's not even suggested that they be represented in international meetings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel

intended 1y ago
Fox and the rest of the media network is the main player. They spend the energy required to present an alternative reality for their base, and have insulated their viewers from any discussion on a shared common reality. Furthermore, they are effectively part of the Republican Party. So they create and maintain a political reality which is purpose built to achieve political goals. The underlying assumption of western liberal democracies is that participants can figure things out together. You cannot figure things out when you have one side intentionally creating alternate narratives to stymie conversation and debate, to shore up negotiating power for the leaders of their bloc.

ckemere 1y ago

This is an explanation from my department chair which I've expanded. In the context of a university, there are four main power groups - the alumni, the faculty, the students, and the board of trustees. (Within each group of course are subfactions.) The actual power balance between these groups is never precisely certain (it's an unobservable "latent variable"). Whenever large events happen that involve the university, we get observations that allow us to estimate the latent variable better. In the case of Harvard, I think the current observations are most consistent with the following: the Board of Trustees, faculty, and students have currently aligned in their goals - which we might summarize as (1) maintaining independence from the government and (2) the ability to hold/teach specific "controversial" viewpoints (benefits of diversity, anti-colonialism, potentially other "progressive" concepts). I suspect that within the factions the relative importance of these two goals is not balanced. The fact that the coalition has survived much longer than, e.g., Columbia, is somewhat surprising. My suspicion is that the answer to your question is that the persistent "smacking around" is only in part due to the external factors other replies have mentioned. I think a major piece of the situation can be explained by a change in the power dynamic with the alumni. Under normal circumstances, the faculty presumably hope to maintain long lasting influence over their alumni, which the board of trustees leverage to bring in more money and influence to the university. The current situation suggests that the high-power/high-$$$ portion of the alumni who are in a position to leverage the public conversation about what's going on are not doing it. This implies that the strength of that edge of the power graph is much weaker than it was expected to be. I think it remains to be seen whether this is true. Further observations that would support that would be reduced donations, public complaints, etc. Conversely, increased fundraising and more public support would suggest the opposite. The key point about the university power network is that USUALLY, the best situation is to avoid situations that actually reveal too much information. Everyone would prefer to believe they have more power than they do. Obviously the alumni are composed of factions, and presumably a large fraction of the potential participants are also members of other organizations with latent power networks and participating in this particular situation would involve expending capital in these other networks with potential reduction in power. Some alumni that have spoken up (i.e., Ackman) are clearly unaligned with the current coalition, and this MAY reflect the fact that the wealthy/powerful group of alumni that have sustained Harvard are really unhappy with the current stances of the university and would like it to shift (return?) to a different set of ideologies. But it's also possible that he represents a minority, and the rest are just nervous about getting involved. My conclusion from this analysis is that things will persist as they have, with everyone who might be involved hoping that lawsuits will be successful in resolving the situation with the minimum of their involvement. If this approach is unsuccessful, I think we'll end up in a situation where we get a much better observation of the power balance between alumni, faculty, and board (I think the students rarely have as much power as they think they do!).

Hilift 1y ago

> For example, getting things done with prestige connections, domestically and internationally. And the international diplomatic goodwill What you describe is relatively recent development of US foreign policy. In 1959, John F. Kennedy purchased a copy of The Ugly American for all of his fellow US Senators. After Kennedy was elected, many foreign service programs were initiated to leverage soft power. That was JFK's legacy. Prior to that, the US acted much in the same way as it is today. It came up with Bretton Woods, along with the UK. The people that ran the world were the Averill Harrimans and Prescott Bushes. In 1956, the US basically told the UK it wasn't going to back the Prime Minister (Anthony Eden) with regards to the Suez Canal. That was probably a sobering indication that the UK was going to be a supplicant in the relationship. The US also returned Vietnam to France (as was policy after WW2), which of course precipitated 20 years of war in southeast asia. The end of the WW2, and the discovery of the infiltration of Russian agents in the dead Roosevelt administration put Truman in panic mode. The iron curtain and cold war basically turned foreign policy into a huge power grab after the war to position against a perceived threat. https://www.thehistoryreader.com/us-history/ugly-american-jfk/ https://www.thehistoryreader.com/us-history/ugly-american-jf...

scrubs 1y ago
Much thanks for the jfk link. New info. Interesting info to me at least. I will add a little nuance or my take. Balance as always is key. Toxic feminity or hopes/prayers/empathy holism alone is hardly an answer. Would it kill the dems to get some street smarts? No!
- tenuousemphasis 1y ago
  I know what toxic masculinity is, but what is toxic femininity?

NoImmatureAdHom 1y ago

Many people associated with the University are pretty happy about it getting smacked down. Shameless, wrong, and overtly illegal discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and creed, suppression of free speech, even the compelling of speech have all been de rigeur for Harvard for the past decade. I just wish they would use a scalpel rather than a sledge hammer.

NoImmatureAdHom 1y ago
[flagged]
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  On HN they eschew talking about downvotes, friend.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 1y ago
    I know ... but I was so curious!
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- acdha 1y ago
  It’s a short but sweeping claim without a citation in sight. That’s a recipe for a flame war but it probably won’t lead to a useful discussion since anyone who would respond is simply guessing at what you’re even talking about or whether you actually arrived at that position through research rather than simple partisan loyalty.
  - FridayoLeary 1y ago

tcgv 1y ago

It’s less a shift in power networks and more about Trump using existing presidency tools more aggressively. Harvard didn’t lose influence, it’s being targeted because it's outspoken and symbolic. The immigration authority falls under the executive branch, so the president can act unilaterally, without needing broader support.

onetimeusename 1y ago

I am not entirely sure what you mean but I will disagree with other commenters that there are no factions at war with each other. If you look at the prosecutors who went after Trump in the past few years, they were disproportionately Harvard Law grads. So that is Merrick Garland, Matthew Colangelo, Alvin Bragg, and Jack Smith. I do think that law schools in particular have cultivated a particular political view and are not independent or nonpartisan but I very much disagree with what Trump is doing. I think there are almost certainly factions here. I personally think Trump is targeting Harvard because of the above reason. Overall I think the situation is quite bad but that isn't what you asked.

fuzzfactor 1y ago

If you've been aware of Trump at all since the 1970's he's always been vastly inferior to anyone who takes academic effort seriously. And he knows it, his whole life, a lot better than anyone else, that's way longer than the general public who didn't really become aware of it until the '70's. Even though he went to a prestigious school himself he's not the kind to make an academic pursuit resembling anything like truly sensible Presidents. The complete opposite of the league of actual accomplished Harvard men like Bush and Obama. What a weenie, Trump is probably just jealous and hates himself and everyone else because he'll never measure up to people having average-to-above-average intellect & integrity. Completely on brand to whine like a child with the most amplified voice he's ever had. So that's what he's going to do instead of something worthwhile for the citizens.

nova22033 1y ago

Bill Ackman is mad at Harvard for allowing the Palestine protests. He switched his support to Trump for that one reason. This is the payoff.

magicalist 1y ago
> Bill Ackman is mad at Harvard for allowing the Palestine protests. He switched his support to Trump for that one reason Ackman voted for Trump in 2016.

vondur 1y ago

I'm going to guess there may be a great deal many people who are Harvard Alumni who agree with the Trump Administration on this.

neuroelectron 1y ago

[flagged]

judah 1y ago
On the contrary, the issue is that Harvard allowed pro-Hamas students to attack and persecute Jewish students. Harvard failed to protect the Jewish students, even rewarded those students who intimidated Jewish students on campus. Pro-Hamas students barged into classrooms with bullhorns. Camped out on campus and prevented Jewish students from reaching their classrooms, forming lines and locking hands outside of classrooms to prevent Jews from attending classes. Harvard recently released a 311-page report detailing these issues[0]. It's for this reason that the federal government is withholding its funding: we don't want to fund open racism and race-based discrimination on American campuses. [0]: https://www.thefp.com/p/harvard-antisemitism-report https://www.thefp.com/p/harvard-antisemitism-report
- neuroelectron 1y ago
  [flagged]
- monkaiju 1y ago
  [flagged]
- Aeolun 1y ago
  > on American campuses Emphasis mine. Clearly it’s fine and dandy to fund it when off american campuses.
- magicalist 1y ago
  > Harvard recently released a 311-page report detailing these issues[0]. Can you be more specific about what was detailed in the report and where? Because the things you mention aren't in your linked article at all. There were protests that got way too heated, but calling them "pro-Hamas students" has me, uh, doubting your take on this a bit. The highlights called out in your article are wholly different, focused instead on campus behavior that seems drawing back from embracing diversity and is instead alienating whole cultures. > It's for this reason that the federal government is withholding its funding We aren't talking about funding, though? We're talking about denying attendance by any international student.

tveita 1y ago

Disregarding whatever surface-level motivations Trump might have, let's look at some things attacking Harvard accomplishes. 1. Maybe most importantly, attacking academic institutions is part of the fascist coup playbook. [1] That could really be enough motivation on its own - these steps have lead to the desired outcome before, if you follow them closely enough they will probably work again. Just like the seemingly out-of-the-left-field framing of DEI, of all things, as the big Enemy that is corrupting art, science and the American people itself. It seems crazy, but notice how well it's working. 2. It's another vase to throw in the air, forcing you to catch it, cartoon-style. People who care and believe in process will spend time and energy going through the court system to limit the damage done, but the defenders will lag behind, their focus divided, while the attackers can just keep breaking bigger and bigger things, since they not care much what damage they do to people or their country. 3. It lets them target pro-Palestine protesters gradually starting from the most extreme. The genocide in Gaza can go a lot further. It is mutually beneficial for Trump, Netanyahu and Putin to divide both domestic and international outrage between them (see point 2.) By the time the full scale of the atrocities are clear, arresting and prosecuting protesters for "antisemitism" will be routine. And if you're not willing to stand up and protest, and therefore be removed, chances are you won't stick your neck out when they instate "temporary" changes to federal elections - only out of some extreme necessity, of course. [1] https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/higher-education-in-nazi-germany https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/higher-education-i...

supportengineer 1y ago

>> Are the power networks changing? Yes and this can't be overstated. Interests that were previously aligned are now going to fracture. Everything is up for grabs now.

cadamsdotcom 1y ago

@neliv I’d like to encourage you to do a few searches and maybe ask an LLM for that ELI5 - and include what you learned!

tomhow 1y ago
I think it's fine to ask these kinds of questions, in the hope that the HN audience may include individuals with particular insights. A response like this has the same ring to it as posting a link to LMGTFY, which is disallowed here.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

jostmey 1y ago

For every person that went through these elite schools, they must have rejected five or more other people. These schools pride themselves on turning people away. Perhaps, they have far more enemies than friends, explaining their seeming lack of influence in this situation

QuarterReptile 1y ago
They absolutely prize having large pools of applicants to reject. Admission percentage is a prestigious statistic.

csomar 1y ago

In my opinion the reason why they are getting smacked is because they are powerful. This is textbook 101 dictatorship power grab in action. Harvard in the US is law. If they can't fight this, probably nobody else can or will.

anon291 1y ago

The government controls the migration system independent of Harvard. The prestige networks people perceive as existing are actually just plot devices for Hollywood. Obvious answer is obvious.

eviks 1y ago

> I thought they had influence throughout government. That's "institutional talk", which is not relevant when you have a "mad king".

EasyMark 1y ago

A lot of people don't want to hear it but Trump isn't really a part of the Washington elite and is bringing in his own circle of people from his first pass at being President. Along the way he has picked up various sycophants and of course likes to hob knob with other billionaires. That is the clique you are dealing with, not the traditional washington crowd from Ivy Leagues. Harvard has a history of standing up to Trrump and he doesn't like that and is a very veangeful person, whether he was in the wrong or not. Unless you bend the knee (he can be very "forgiving" then if it benefits him or his ego) you are going to be a target. Mix that with his sociopathy and zero concern over rule of law and it doesn't look good for Harvard or Columbia for the next few years, unless courts move quickly