6 ms·

The memo to Harvard directing them to hire someone approved by the feds and survey staff AND STUDENTS and then implement "Viewpoint Diversity" as it relates to

by duxup 1y ago

The memo to Harvard directing them to hire someone approved by the feds and survey staff AND STUDENTS and then implement "Viewpoint Diversity" as it relates to admissions and hiring as directed by the feds was straight up thought police type stuff.

ecb_penguin 1y ago
[flagged]
- sumeno 1y ago
  Don't recall the federal government doing that at all
  - ecb_penguin 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - sumeno 1y ago
      There's a big difference between private citizens saying things and the federal government punishing speech. Of course, you already know this, you're doing a false equivalency as a transphobic dogwhistle (or whichever bigoted opinion you're upset about having consequences for), which is why you were flagged
      - ecb_penguin 1y ago
        > There's a big difference between private citizens saying things and the federal government punishing speech Nobody said there wasn't a difference. Why do you keep making arguments that nobody is saying?? These things do not exist in a vacuum. The federal response is to limit federal funds. Not receiving billions in taxpayer money is not a punishment when you fail to uphold the basic principles for which that money was awarded. > as a transphobic dogwhistle (or whichever bigoted opinion you're upset about having consequences for), There it is! Took you two comments. Thought terminating cliches are exactly why Harvard needs to lose these funds. It's wild how easy it is for you to absolutely lose your mind. This lack of maturity has no place in education or tech.
    - lurk2 1y ago
      I vouched for your parent comment earlier but have unvouched as this isn’t the standard of discourse that people expect to find here. Consider reviewing the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- atrus 1y ago
  When did the feds send that memo?
  - ecb_penguin 1y ago
    When did I say the feds sent a memo previously? Is it easier to argue points that nobody makes? An organization that receives federal funds is being told they can no longer restrict viewpoints after having done so. What part is confusing you?
  - lurk2 1y ago
    December 1st, 2014. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/faqs-title-ix-single-sex-201412.pdf https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/doc...
AStonesThrow 1y ago
Pope St. John Paul II responded to the minority report in 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_corde_Ecclesiae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_corde_Ecclesiae https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constit...
rayiner 1y ago
It’s not “thought police stuff” to condition receipt of taxpayer money on those things. Harvard can think or say whatever it wants, but that doesn’t mean the federal government must fund it!
- duxup 1y ago
  They’re demanding Harvard hire someone to police staff and students viewpoints, and then adjust admissions and hiring to achieve the government’s desired ratio of viewpoints. That’s exactly thought policing.
- derbOac 1y ago
  Conditioning government support based on "viewpoint" is about as close as you can get to government constraining freedom of speech.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    It’s not “constraining freedom of speech.” It’s declining to subsidize speech with grants. Recall that these are grants issued to specific universities for specific reasons, not generally available services it funds provided to everyone. Why are taxpayers required to allocate his money to organizations that (in the view of elected officials) don’t serve the public interest? On top of that, it’s well accepted that the government can use the threat of revoking federal funds force universities to regulate speech: https://cei.org/blog/obama-administration-undermines-free-speech-and-due-process-in-crusade-against-harassment-and-bullying https://cei.org/blog/obama-administration-undermines-free-sp.... Under Title VI and Title IX, the government can force schools to regulate speech in ways that the government couldn’t regulate directly among private citizens.
    - duxup 1y ago
      Monitoring staff and students viewpoints and directing the school to hire, potentially fire, admit the governments prescribed people based on viewpoints has nothing to do with “declining to subsidize speech”. If you’re a student or even random staff, you’re not likely even asking for a grant, but you are subject to having your viewpoint assessed under the system demanded by the current administration, for no reason other than the federal government demands it. Presumably based on the letter prospective students would have to have their viewpoints assessed to make sure they have the correct viewpoints.
crises-luff-6b 1y ago
[flagged]
- duxup 1y ago
  I don’t understand this kind of “yeah well they’re bad” argument that props up. I don’t buy into your theory but even if I did my objection to the feds actions is just the same. Are you ok with the government policing people’s views and adjusting employment and admissions as long as you don’t like the school? Are you going to be ok with it if another party or politician does? It’s unfortunate but it appears people have no real ideals now, just recriminations that can justify anything.

by duxup 1y ago

ecb_penguin 1y ago

[flagged]

sumeno 1y ago
Don't recall the federal government doing that at all
- ecb_penguin 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - sumeno 1y ago
    There's a big difference between private citizens saying things and the federal government punishing speech. Of course, you already know this, you're doing a false equivalency as a transphobic dogwhistle (or whichever bigoted opinion you're upset about having consequences for), which is why you were flagged
    - ecb_penguin 1y ago
      > There's a big difference between private citizens saying things and the federal government punishing speech Nobody said there wasn't a difference. Why do you keep making arguments that nobody is saying?? These things do not exist in a vacuum. The federal response is to limit federal funds. Not receiving billions in taxpayer money is not a punishment when you fail to uphold the basic principles for which that money was awarded. > as a transphobic dogwhistle (or whichever bigoted opinion you're upset about having consequences for), There it is! Took you two comments. Thought terminating cliches are exactly why Harvard needs to lose these funds. It's wild how easy it is for you to absolutely lose your mind. This lack of maturity has no place in education or tech.
  - lurk2 1y ago
    I vouched for your parent comment earlier but have unvouched as this isn’t the standard of discourse that people expect to find here. Consider reviewing the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
atrus 1y ago
When did the feds send that memo?
- ecb_penguin 1y ago
  When did I say the feds sent a memo previously? Is it easier to argue points that nobody makes? An organization that receives federal funds is being told they can no longer restrict viewpoints after having done so. What part is confusing you?
- lurk2 1y ago
  December 1st, 2014. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/faqs-title-ix-single-sex-201412.pdf https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/doc...

AStonesThrow 1y ago

Pope St. John Paul II responded to the minority report in 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_corde_Ecclesiae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_corde_Ecclesiae https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae.html https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constit...

rayiner 1y ago

It’s not “thought police stuff” to condition receipt of taxpayer money on those things. Harvard can think or say whatever it wants, but that doesn’t mean the federal government must fund it!

duxup 1y ago
They’re demanding Harvard hire someone to police staff and students viewpoints, and then adjust admissions and hiring to achieve the government’s desired ratio of viewpoints. That’s exactly thought policing.
derbOac 1y ago
Conditioning government support based on "viewpoint" is about as close as you can get to government constraining freedom of speech.
- rayiner 1y ago
  It’s not “constraining freedom of speech.” It’s declining to subsidize speech with grants. Recall that these are grants issued to specific universities for specific reasons, not generally available services it funds provided to everyone. Why are taxpayers required to allocate his money to organizations that (in the view of elected officials) don’t serve the public interest? On top of that, it’s well accepted that the government can use the threat of revoking federal funds force universities to regulate speech: https://cei.org/blog/obama-administration-undermines-free-speech-and-due-process-in-crusade-against-harassment-and-bullying https://cei.org/blog/obama-administration-undermines-free-sp.... Under Title VI and Title IX, the government can force schools to regulate speech in ways that the government couldn’t regulate directly among private citizens.
  - duxup 1y ago
    Monitoring staff and students viewpoints and directing the school to hire, potentially fire, admit the governments prescribed people based on viewpoints has nothing to do with “declining to subsidize speech”. If you’re a student or even random staff, you’re not likely even asking for a grant, but you are subject to having your viewpoint assessed under the system demanded by the current administration, for no reason other than the federal government demands it. Presumably based on the letter prospective students would have to have their viewpoints assessed to make sure they have the correct viewpoints.

crises-luff-6b 1y ago

[flagged]

duxup 1y ago
I don’t understand this kind of “yeah well they’re bad” argument that props up. I don’t buy into your theory but even if I did my objection to the feds actions is just the same. Are you ok with the government policing people’s views and adjusting employment and admissions as long as you don’t like the school? Are you going to be ok with it if another party or politician does? It’s unfortunate but it appears people have no real ideals now, just recriminations that can justify anything.