Live data from Hacker News

A university president makes a case against cowardice

newyorker.com

431–440 of 934 posts

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#431
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?

The right's problem with universities is the same as the left's problem with churches:

1. They are institutions of "indoctrination" by the other side. Faculty are something like 98% registered democrats and many subjects ("X studies") have an explicitly left-leaning bent.

2. They have tax advantages and other significant government subsidies.

3. They exercise significant amounts of ideological control over the narrative for their groups of people.

4. They are exclusionary of people outside the club.

Add to that the fact that universities are getting increasingly expensive and real life outcomes for college-educated people are getting worse. The perceived costs used to come with significant benefits, but the costs are getting higher and the benefits are reducing, so there is less tolerance for giving them favored status.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

This strikes me as someone on the left complaining that they fucked around and now they are finding out. I don’t mean this in a malicious way but the lack of self reflection and perspective is staggering.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#433
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was there another pandemic whose statistics were based on mandatory asymptomatic testing (via PCR tests with deliberately high Ct values)? Was there another pandemic where 94-95% of all deaths involved at least one comorbidity, and 77% involved three or more underlying conditions?

This dying "of Covid" vs "with Covid" debate has long been debunked: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-94-of-indiv... TLDR: Those comorbidities are often complications caused by Covid in the first place – like pneumonia or respiratory failure. Sometimes they also include risk factors that could never be treated as a direct cause of death on their own, like obesity (which also happens to be extremely wi…

Pneumonia and respiratory failure are not comorbidities. Those would be the actual cause of death with COVID given the credit for bring them on.

--- Common comorbidities associated with COVID-19 deaths have been well-documented across various studies and data sources, primarily reflecting conditions that increase vulnerability to severe outcomes. Based on extensive data, especially from the U.S. and other heavily impacted regions, the most frequent comorbidities include:

- *Hypertension (High Blood Pressure):* This tops the list in many analyses. In the U.S., CDC data from March to October 2020 showed 56% of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 had hypertension [1], and it’s consistently cited in mortality stats. A New York City study of 5,700 hospitalized patients in early 2020 reported it in 56.6% of cases [2], while globally, a meta-analysis pegged its prevalence at 32% among all COVID-19 patients and 35% in fatal cases [3].

- *Diabetes:* Another major player, often linked to worse outcomes due to impaired immune response and blood sugar control issues. The same NYC study found it in 33.8% of patients [2], and CDC data noted 41% of hospitalized adults had metabolic diseases, including diabetes [4]. Globally, it ranged from 8.2% in China (early 2020 data) to 17.4% across broader reviews, with higher rates (up to 33%) in severe or fatal cases [5].

- *Cardiovascular Disease:* This includes conditions like coronary heart disease and heart failure. It appeared in 11.7% of cases in a 2020 meta-analysis [3] and was notably prevalent in fatal outcomes—26% of 814 COVID-19 deaths in Romania, for instance [6]. In the U.S., myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure were tied to higher mortality odds in a 2020 study of 31,461 patients [7].

- *Obesity:* A significant risk factor, especially in Western populations. The NYC cohort reported it in 41.7% of patients [2], and a 2021 CDC report flagged it as one of the strongest chronic risk factors for COVID-19 death among hospitalized adults, alongside diabetes with complications [8].

- *Chronic Pulmonary Disease:* Conditions like COPD or asthma showed up in 17.5% of U.S. patients in the 2020 Charlson comorbidity study [7] and were linked to higher mortality risk (e.g., HR 2.68 in China’s early data) [9]. Respiratory failure, often a direct result of COVID-19, complicates this category but underscores lung vulnerability.

- *Renal Disease:* Chronic kidney disease was a standout in multiple reviews, with a hazard ratio of 3.48 for death in a UK study [10]. It’s less prevalent overall (0.8% in some global data) but deadly when present, especially in older patients [3].

- *Cancer:* Malignancies, particularly metastatic ones, increased mortality odds (HR 3.50 in China, 2020) [9]. Prevalence was lower (1.5% globally), but the impact was outsized in fatal cases [11].

Other notable mentions include dementia, liver disease (mild to severe), and immunosuppression, though these were less common. Age amplifies these risks—over 65s with comorbidities faced death rates 4 to 10 times higher than those under 40, per UK data from 2021 [12]. Multimorbidity (multiple conditions) was also a game-changer; over half of fatal cases in some studies had two or more comorbidities, with one U.S. analysis noting an average of 2.6 to 4 additional conditions per death [13].

These patterns held steady from 2020 through 2023, with the CDC reporting that 94-95% of U.S. COVID-19 deaths involved comorbidities [14]. The virus didn’t just exploit these conditions—it often triggered acute complications (e.g., pneumonia, ARDS) that were listed alongside chronic issues, muddying the “cause of death” debate. Still, the data’s clear: these comorbidities didn’t just coexist; they stacked the deck against survival.

### References [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6943e3.htm [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184 [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365650/ [4] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e4.htm [5] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8... [6] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84705-8 [7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7439986/ [8] https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm [9] https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/55/5/2000547 [10] https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1648 [11] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2... [12] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan... [13] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/health_disparitie... [14] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#434
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?

The right's problem with universities is the same as the left's problem with churches: 1. They are institutions of "indoctrination" by the other side. Faculty are something like 98% registered democrats and many subjects ("X studies") have an explicitly left-leaning bent. 2. They have tax advantages and other significant government subsidies. 3. They exercise significant amounts of ideological control over the narrat…

Maybe I just live in a bubble, but I don't think "the left" has acted as strongly against churches as "the right" has against schools.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has the prerogative to filter immigrants based on their views and affiliations. What comes before “filter[ing] immigrants” is due process. Resident aliens have the right to due process which the current US administration is not providing. Alien residents with every right to be here are being removed from the US illegally and mistakenly.

I am not sure there's technically a due process right in the case of immigration visa revocation and the ensuing deportation. There is a due process right in the case of crimes, but getting your visa revoked is not a crime. The best argument I have heard is that visa revocation may be like firing: the US can do it for almost any reason and you can fire someone for no reason, but can't do it for specific prohibited re…

> The best argument I have heard is that visa revocation may be like firing: the US can do it for almost any reason and you can fire someone for no reason, but can't do it for specific prohibited reasons. Speech would probably be one of those bad reasons under the US's civil rights framework.

No, the U.S. has the prerogative to pick and choose foreigners who are allowed to immigrate based on categories that would be impermissible for employers. That includes nationality, e.g. our green card quota system, as well as speech and affiliation. The Supreme Court has upheld deporting communists who are foreign nationals: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/580/.

This is reflected in the statute. Aliens can specifically be excluded for political beliefs and views if the Secretary of State determines that is necessary: "An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest." 8 USC 1182(a)(4)(C)(iii).

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#436
post #342
post #213

Oh hey, Wesleyan on HN! I’m an alumnus (matriculated a year or two after Roth became president). Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point). I’ve had a few opportunities to speak with Roth since the Gaza war started, and I’ve always found him particularly thoughtful about balancing freedom of expressio…

They'll make it through if they bend the knee. Otherwise the regime will destroy them, and the conclusion will be that it's all because of these darned radical leftists.

> They'll make it through if they bend the knee. Otherwise the regime will destroy them, and the conclusion will be that it's all because of these darned radical leftists.

Well, it is, isn't it? They required complete loyalty to the ideology before accepting any faculty: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/ucla-dei-statement.htm...

They shouldn't have gone that far.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> while the present behavior of the illiberal right is abductions and overseas slave camps Can you provide examples of people getting abducted and sent to "overseas slave camps" purely for their speech?

Took me all of 5 seconds to find an example. Tattoos are a form of protected speech: https://archive.is/2025.04.03-041258/https://www.theatlantic...

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#438
post #213

Oh hey, Wesleyan on HN! I’m an alumnus (matriculated a year or two after Roth became president). Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point). I’ve had a few opportunities to speak with Roth since the Gaza war started, and I’ve always found him particularly thoughtful about balancing freedom of expressio…

> Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point).

Arson is not protest. Arson is a VIOLENT type of activism, which is legally classified as terrorism.

Trump (or anybody) shouldn't be allowed to punish folks for speech or peaceful protest. Unfortunately, folks are calling VIOLENT acts like arson and battery "protest", and threats of bodily harm "speech" ("harassment" or "assault" under most US criminal law) -- we should be in favor of the government stepping in to protect people from arson, battery, and assault/ harassment.

> he did not give in to the illiberal demands of the left to chill speech post-2020,

Roth has been president since 2007. What was his response to Nick Christakis's struggle session (plenty of video of that) or Erika Christakis leaving Yale, after she penned an e-mail that students should be able to handle Halloween costumes they find offensive?

The American Left has been illiberal and going after speech for decades; it didn't start post-2020.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> That's because the extent of the illiberal behavior of the radical left was yelling and "cancel culture" while the present behavior of the illiberal right is abductions and overseas slave camps. You can see why people might find having the two equated a little ridiculous, right?

You are correct - one is objectively worse than the other.

The unfortunate truth is that, also, one is a consequence of the other.

Trump is simply doing what his voters wanted[1]. And they voted for him precisely because `of the illiberal behavior of the radical left was yelling and "cancel culture"`.

Had the first thing not happened, then the consequence would have been a fictional story in an alternate timeline.

But here we are, and we don't get to say "Sure, we were assholes to 50% of the population, but your response is worse".

[1] Spoiler - they may not even want it anymore!

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#440
post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right's problem with universities is the same as the left's problem with churches: 1. They are institutions of "indoctrination" by the other side. Faculty are something like 98% registered democrats and many subjects ("X studies") have an explicitly left-leaning bent. 2. They have tax advantages and other significant government subsidies. 3. They exercise significant amounts of ideological control over the narrat…

Maybe I just live in a bubble, but I don't think "the left" has acted as strongly against churches as "the right" has against schools.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN