Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A university president makes a case against cowardice

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 934 posts

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#241

Post by insane_dreamer »

alephnerd wrote: post #11
carbocation wrote: post #7

So far the fight/not fight decisions can be predicted in advanced based on whether an institution has a medical center with NIH grants.

And if they hire the right alumni lobbyists - major reason why you don't hear about Dartmouth in the news [0] despite a similarly active student activism scene. Most other private universities could have easily managed the relationship, but a mix of inertia and vindictiveness from certain alumni (eg. Ackman) messed it up. Mind you, Dartmouth is also kind of unique in that their alumni relations team actually TRY to m…

Dartmouth's time may still come. Brown is apparently about to be targeted next. Trump is clearly not done yet.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#242

Post by brokeAstronomer »

rfrey wrote: post #233
Quarrelsome wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

democracy is bad but its still better than more autocratic systems because it encourages change which keeps succession well-oiled and also acts as a vent for tyranny to curtail its worst excesses. This applies as much to politics as it does a school board.

Having judges and university trustees hired on merit rather than campaigning to be elected does not make a system autocratic.

Being super rich != merit. This is what seems to be happening in practice.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#243

Post by rayiner »

sequoia wrote: post #49

A lot of Americans support these attacks on universities. Why do people harbour this much animosity towards these institutions? Is there anything they could have done differently in the past decade or two to have broader sympathy now, or is people's ambivalence towards elite universities 100% irrational?

It was the progressive push of theoretically neutral institutions taking stands on moral politics. People who were fine with universities being staffed with liberals, but neutral in practice, realized their tax dollars were subsidizing institutions that were actively taking a side in national politics.

For example, universities burned a lot of political capital, and opened themselves up to a great deal of legal liability, with aggressively pursing affirmative action policies. When you depend on public grants, it’s probably a bad idea to publicly discriminate against the racial group that comprises the majority of taxpayers.

As to what universities should have done, the answer is “just dribble.” Universities should be places that are just as eager to research effective approaches to mass deportations as all the DEI stuff they do.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#245

Post by School-Cotton »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #230
tialaramex wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. The enthusiasm of Americans for adding yet more elected roles rather than, say, having anything done by anybody competent is part of how they got here. The only place elections are even a plausible choice is political office - with an election and as close as you can to universal suffrage now the idiots running things are everybody's fault, although Americans even mana…

democracy is bad but its still better than more autocratic systems because it encourages change which keeps succession well-oiled and also acts as a vent for tyranny to curtail its worst excesses. This applies as much to politics as it does a school board.

Democracy doesn’t entail having tons of minor roles being elected. That’s actually completely unique to the US, as far as I know. A lot of the positions that are elected in the US would be neutral civil servants in any other democratic country I can think of.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#246

Post by judahmeek »

rfrey wrote: post #233
Quarrelsome wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

democracy is bad but its still better than more autocratic systems because it encourages change which keeps succession well-oiled and also acts as a vent for tyranny to curtail its worst excesses. This applies as much to politics as it does a school board.

Having judges and university trustees hired on merit rather than campaigning to be elected does not make a system autocratic.

What better merit is there than public approval for positions like that?

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#247

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #224
justonceokay wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have multiple family members that are frustrated with higher learning because their children came out of the system more liberal-minded than when they entered. In this politically divided climate they feel like the university system “stole” their children from them. In reality I don’t think people’s political opinions change very much and they are just mad that their children individuated.

> In reality I don’t think people’s political opinions change very much and they are just mad that their children individuated. I think this probably the case as well. If I look back at how my own views shifted, the shift very likely would’ve happened regardless of if I’d attended university, assuming everything else was the same. It wasn’t the university that resulted in the shift as much as it was my getting out of…

But the most likely life experiences to do that are ones that put a person in touch with new ideas and new situations. Universities are much better positioned to generate such experiences than, say, most jobs. To some degree, those that have attempted to be at least nominally more diverse (economically/racially/...) are also the sorts of places where students are more likely to meet other people who are not like them in some important ways, and this has always been the sort of experience that preferentially tilts most people towards liberal/progressive ideas.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#248

Post by fn-mote »

Gothmog69 wrote: post #147
sequoia wrote: post #49

A lot of Americans support these attacks on universities. Why do people harbour this much animosity towards these institutions? Is there anything they could have done differently in the past decade or two to have broader sympathy now, or is people's ambivalence towards elite universities 100% irrational?

They could have not been so partisan ( https://readlion.com/93-of-college-profs-political-donations... ), supported rational discourse ( https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2025-college-free-spe... ) , not used race to discriminate on certain out groups ( https://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/issue/discriminatio... ). Just for starters

>> Is there anything they could have done differently in the past decade or two to have broader sympathy now

> not used race to discriminate on certain out groups ( https://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/issue/discriminatio... )

Since we have documentation of discrimination in university admissions for over a century, I don't think this particular issue produces "broader sympathy now".

In fact, I will be speechless if I ever learn the new administration policies do not lead to even higher levels of, but I suppose different, discrimination. Check back in 6 months.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#249

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

lmm wrote: post #193
mrtesthah wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billionaires shifted the overton window by pouring money into extreme right-wing media outlets and social media platforms. Every other existing institution now appears "left-wing" by comparison. That's not universities' fault.

Not true, at least on social issues, which is what the universities are getting burned for. Policy positions that were mainstream in 2000 are now painted as far-right.

> Policy positions that were mainstream in 2000 are now painted as far-right.

Such as?

Post reply on HN