5 ms·

It boggles my mind that anyone with, apparently and allegedly, such a high tier education, would be against the actions Harvard has been taking this year. They

It boggles my mind that anyone with, apparently and allegedly, such a high tier education, would be against the actions Harvard has been taking this year. They are literally just fighting for basic academic freedoms.

zdragnar 1y ago
Allowing students to (allegedly) be harassed on the basis of their race is what is under contention, not the broader notion of academic freedom.
- JCattheATM 1y ago
  That's the excuse being used, sure.
  - GoatInGrey 1y ago
    Harvard really tarnished it's reputation when the president, under oath, said that calls for the genocide of Jews would comply with their code of conduct "depending on the context". The president did end up resigning a year ago, though they have a lot of work to do to come back from that. While what the Trump admin is doing is wrong, Harvard has given them ample cover for their actions. It would be intellectually lazy to assert, even implicitly, that Harvard has no responsibility over the current state of affairs.
    - JCattheATM 1y ago
      They don't, because the Trump admins actions are completely unwarranted, and completely overkill, and in no way can be defended or supported. That Harvard still has work to do is basically an entirely irrelevant point.
    - matthewdgreen 1y ago
      As a person of Jewish descent I am sickened by the way this administration is twisting the definition of antisemitism to mean things that have nothing to do with antisemitism. Antisemitism is real: devaluing it into bullshit is going to lead to the deaths of millions.
lurk2 1y ago
[flagged]
- j_maffe 1y ago
  To have international students be part of the university and contributing to its research?
  - lurk2 1y ago
    Immigration policy being enforced is not an infringement of academic freedom.
    - j_maffe 1y ago
      When it's targeted solely at one institute for the purpose of hampering it's academic activities as retribution? You're being deliberately obtuse here.
- axus 1y ago
  Freedom of speech and assembly. Visas and academic accreditation shouldn't be leverage against speech the government disagrees with, they should be granted and removed according to a predictable and unbiased process. Really all government actions should follow a predictable and unbiased process, a.k.a "The Law".
  - bilbo0s 1y ago
    Just, throwing this out there, but it seems a distinct possibility that this Administration doesn't hold the same regard towards "Rule of Law" as did previous Administrations. I'm not altogether certain I'd rely on "Rule of Law" to save anyone in the current environment.
    - JCattheATM 1y ago
      That's not just a possibility, that's cold hard fact that's been proven repeatedly in just the last few months.
epolanski 1y ago
People go to Harvard because they want a prestigious career, not because they have an insatiable palate for knowledge that somehow in 2025 they can't satisfy in any other way.
- maest 1y ago
  "Harvard's not a real school, therefore these actions are justified" Even if you were right about Harvard not being a real school (which is a strange thing to claim), your conclusion still doesn't follow. Separately, is there a name for this debating technique? I would like to call it "baiting the assertion". You claim A => B where, in fact, A does not imply B. To distract attention from the faulty logic, however, you pick a highly divisive assertion A. That makes people argue about whether A is correct, instead on focusing on the faulty implication. Here's an example: "Ukraine provoked Russia therefore we should send 0 aid to Ukraine" (I have seen this argument both in the US and non-US discourses.) When this argument is presented, people feel compelled to argue whether Ukraine did or did not provoke Russia. However, this hides the fact that _even if Ukraine did provoke Russia_, if might still make sense to provide aid: - due to humanitarian concerns - because you think the Russian response (even if provoked) is not commensurate - because you think the EU should present a united front - etc However, saying things like "even if you are right <rest of argument>" is a difficult thing to do when A is a very divisive (or glaringly incorrect) statement, which is why this is a common troll argument.
  - lewisleclerc 1y ago
    Thank you for this comment. It got me into researching more about the rhetoric types and think about all the people I've come across who make similar arguments.

zdragnar 1y ago

Allowing students to (allegedly) be harassed on the basis of their race is what is under contention, not the broader notion of academic freedom.

JCattheATM 1y ago
That's the excuse being used, sure.
- GoatInGrey 1y ago
  Harvard really tarnished it's reputation when the president, under oath, said that calls for the genocide of Jews would comply with their code of conduct "depending on the context". The president did end up resigning a year ago, though they have a lot of work to do to come back from that. While what the Trump admin is doing is wrong, Harvard has given them ample cover for their actions. It would be intellectually lazy to assert, even implicitly, that Harvard has no responsibility over the current state of affairs.
  - JCattheATM 1y ago
    They don't, because the Trump admins actions are completely unwarranted, and completely overkill, and in no way can be defended or supported. That Harvard still has work to do is basically an entirely irrelevant point.
  - matthewdgreen 1y ago
    As a person of Jewish descent I am sickened by the way this administration is twisting the definition of antisemitism to mean things that have nothing to do with antisemitism. Antisemitism is real: devaluing it into bullshit is going to lead to the deaths of millions.

lurk2 1y ago

[flagged]

j_maffe 1y ago
To have international students be part of the university and contributing to its research?
- lurk2 1y ago
  Immigration policy being enforced is not an infringement of academic freedom.
  - j_maffe 1y ago
    When it's targeted solely at one institute for the purpose of hampering it's academic activities as retribution? You're being deliberately obtuse here.
axus 1y ago
Freedom of speech and assembly. Visas and academic accreditation shouldn't be leverage against speech the government disagrees with, they should be granted and removed according to a predictable and unbiased process. Really all government actions should follow a predictable and unbiased process, a.k.a "The Law".
- bilbo0s 1y ago
  Just, throwing this out there, but it seems a distinct possibility that this Administration doesn't hold the same regard towards "Rule of Law" as did previous Administrations. I'm not altogether certain I'd rely on "Rule of Law" to save anyone in the current environment.
  - JCattheATM 1y ago
    That's not just a possibility, that's cold hard fact that's been proven repeatedly in just the last few months.

epolanski 1y ago

People go to Harvard because they want a prestigious career, not because they have an insatiable palate for knowledge that somehow in 2025 they can't satisfy in any other way.

maest 1y ago
"Harvard's not a real school, therefore these actions are justified" Even if you were right about Harvard not being a real school (which is a strange thing to claim), your conclusion still doesn't follow. Separately, is there a name for this debating technique? I would like to call it "baiting the assertion". You claim A => B where, in fact, A does not imply B. To distract attention from the faulty logic, however, you pick a highly divisive assertion A. That makes people argue about whether A is correct, instead on focusing on the faulty implication. Here's an example: "Ukraine provoked Russia therefore we should send 0 aid to Ukraine" (I have seen this argument both in the US and non-US discourses.) When this argument is presented, people feel compelled to argue whether Ukraine did or did not provoke Russia. However, this hides the fact that _even if Ukraine did provoke Russia_, if might still make sense to provide aid: - due to humanitarian concerns - because you think the Russian response (even if provoked) is not commensurate - because you think the EU should present a united front - etc However, saying things like "even if you are right <rest of argument>" is a difficult thing to do when A is a very divisive (or glaringly incorrect) statement, which is why this is a common troll argument.
- lewisleclerc 1y ago
  Thank you for this comment. It got me into researching more about the rhetoric types and think about all the people I've come across who make similar arguments.