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

871–880 of 934 posts

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#871

Post by Georgelemental »

nashashmi wrote: post #846
Georgelemental wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a university student myself not too long ago. I experienced it personally.

So vague! Experienced what??

Mandatory political indoctrination courses is the biggest thing. But also, having to fund left-wing events with mandatory activities fee. And it was much easier to get funding as a student group if you have the correct political opinions. Finally, if you say the wrong things, you might get reported to a political commissar (this was really rare at my uni though, there were signs everywhere saying how to make a report but in practice people didn’t do it).

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#872

Post by Wumpnot »

mmooss wrote: post #161
clarionbell wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that in the past two decades university admins gave in to various deplatforming causes and enforced codes. If they had stood firm before, the arguments against them wouldn't be nearly as strong. Unfortunately, they didn't. So when they now use the "free speech" argument themselves it rings hollow.

Those policies were designed to promote free speech from vulnerable groups. Political vulnerability has a huge influence on free speech (and freedom), and that's what they have been addressing. (Picking two random groups:) If you are Pakistani and are in a room of all Indian people, and the others say how horrible Pakistanis are and how research shows that Pakistanis are less intelligent or prone to violence, that is…

I think all groups engage in in group preference. If you look at businesses run by Indians in the US, they clearly favor hiring Indians, you see the same with other groups. Same with various East Asians, Jewish people etc.

It isn't just the dominate group, it is everyone.

So simplifying, if you have only 2 groups, one being 30% and the other 70% of the population, it would at first appear the 70% group has an advantage for finding jobs, but in reality they do not, as while they are favored at 70% of jobs, they are also competing against an equivalently larger group of people.

Anyway the implementation of racial preferences in college applications, and DEI has led to a system that systematical favors certain groups, and gaslighting that somehow this isn't the case.

I don't support Trump but liberals denying this reality, along with various other incredibly stupid woke positions, has led to the current situation, where we have a complete and utter imbecile running the country, because hey, at least he doesn't deny reality in regards DIE/social issues.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#873

Post by xvokcarts »

sequoia wrote: post #519
Sloowms wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, there are attacks on universities? Or are we just using that word for any expression of free speech?

I'm referring to threats to pull hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding if certain demands aren't met. But yes, there are also plenty of rhetorical attacks.

Isn't that how funding works? We give you money, you meet demands. How is that an attack?

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#874

Post by soulofmischief »

onetimeusename wrote: post #859
soulofmischief wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the basis for deciding? For one, whether or not they supported abolition. I also will not engage in a debate with a poisoned premise: To be clear , supporting Israel today means supporting genocide. That is the beginning and end of it. You can denounce Israel and still denounce Hamas. You can support an individual Jewish person's right to life and liberty without making the mistake of supporting their genoc…

For the record I am not really defending Israel. I think they routinely violate conventions and illegally expand their territory. They also mistreat non-Jewish people. So it is reasonable to protest against Israel. I am more interested in knowing how someone decides what is moral and immoral, i.e. which causes they choose to support. I have my theories. I have very mixed feelings towards the pro-Palestine protestors…

I apologize for assuming!

I do believe it's clear that if you support the American-Israeli war machine, you support colonialism and Zionism intrinsically. So I don't know if most Americans are Zionist or not, but I do personally know a frightening amount of Zionists.

A confused bunch, as I am originally from the Deep South and most of these Zionists I speak of were shitting on Jews and making light of the Holocaust just a few years ago. It seems paradoxical until you realize the common thread is the support of fascism.

> I note you mentioned abolition, colonialism, and genocide so I think it's not a stretch to say you decide based on anti-Fascism which I'll leave open to definition.

Absolutely. Specifically, I start from the Golden Rule, or a modified version of it, I also back the spirit of the Constitution, which in my mind should have always extended to protect not just white, land-owning Americans, but the entire world, rich and poor, given that the rights it recognizes are considered inalienable for all humans.

I also find solidarity within some of the views of most of our founding fathers, especially regarding basic things such as taxation without representation, even if I don't agree with their views on slavery or certain economic positions.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#875

Post by settrans »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #855
settrans wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a serious argument. You want the Jews to have self determination if and only if they can conjure into existence a magical fairy land free of compromise or can will into existence powers like militarily defeating the Nazis despite lacking even a basic police force. > Only a small percentage of them wanted to pack up and go to Palestine, a far-away place they knew nothing about. And pray tell, what happened…

> You want the Jews to have self determination if and only if they can conjure into existence a magical fairy land free of compromise I think it's much more serious than arguing that they had the right to take over land already inhabited by another group of people, because of events from 2000 years ago. It just doesn't seem to occur to you that the Palestinians also have rights, and shouldn't have been forced to give…

No, you're dodging the point. You're basically saying Jews deserved self-determination only if they could pull off the impossible: either magically prevent fascism, or create a homeland without upsetting anyone. That's not how history works. Zionism wasn't a luxury ideology, it was a response to existential threat. Jews didn't have the option to stay in Europe: Europe made that brutally clear. And yes, the land was inhabited, but so what? Every nationalist movement has had to contend with messy realities. The alternative you're proposing amounts to telling the Jews: stay stateless, stay vulnerable, or wait for miracles. That's not a serious moral position; at best it's an abdication, at worst a double standard against the Jews (i.e. antisemitism).

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#876

Post by rtkwe »

thinkcontext wrote: post #684
rtkwe wrote: post #405

Harvard's rolling over was particularly annoying, they have a 52 billion dollar endowment! If any university could afford to make a stand and lose funding over it it's Harvard. What's the point of this massive pile of money if you never dip into it in exceptional circumstances?

Universities typically only spend about 5% of their endowments per year, since it has to last forever. And much of it comes with restrictions on what it can be spent on, those come from the donors wishes. So money in the endowment that's for the theater department or to support an econ professorship can't be repurposed to support federal funds that supported cancer research.

Yeah they try to make them perpetual by only spending less than their growth each year but with 52 billion you could afford to draw down a billion or two (2.6 billion would be 5%) and that would fund research for years.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#877

Post by mmooss »

Wumpnot wrote: post #872
mmooss wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those policies were designed to promote free speech from vulnerable groups. Political vulnerability has a huge influence on free speech (and freedom), and that's what they have been addressing. (Picking two random groups:) If you are Pakistani and are in a room of all Indian people, and the others say how horrible Pakistanis are and how research shows that Pakistanis are less intelligent or prone to violence, that is…

I think all groups engage in in group preference. If you look at businesses run by Indians in the US, they clearly favor hiring Indians, you see the same with other groups. Same with various East Asians, Jewish people etc. It isn't just the dominate group, it is everyone. So simplifying, if you have only 2 groups, one being 30% and the other 70% of the population, it would at first appear the 70% group has an advanta…

> incredibly stupid

Never a smart thing to write; only a reflection on the author's blindness and arrogance - a toxic combination that is, indeed, what you describe.

> has led to the current situation

> he doesn't deny reality in regards DIE/social issues.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#878

Post by mmooss »

antifa wrote: post #450
mmooss wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all conservative Christians and right wingers think "women and LGBT people ... don't deserve rights". I find that if I approach people that way, it brings out the worst in them - they feel cornered and they fight. There's not much room for discussion when someone dismisses 'crazy antifa terrorists'. Are you going to reason with them? It destroys social trust, which is what the real radicals aim at. If you want to…

> Not all conservative Christians and right wingers think "women and LGBT people ... don't deserve rights Weird how those specific Christians who think women and LGBT are people don't feel discriminated against.

Weird how you keep taking the same approach - so blind to the possibility of social trust that you don't realize I already effectively agreed.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#879

Post by mmooss »

hayst4ck wrote: post #298
mmooss wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. Except the alternatives! No form of government is more effective, competent, just, or free of corruption.

That's false. Everything comes down to good leadership. Monarchies with good leadership very well might have incredibly effective anti-corruption techniques and competency. China is managing a billion people and their infrastructure and tech is incredible. The problems are two fold. The first is vetoing of bad ideas. No leader is right 100% of the time, and when they are wrong, someone must have the power to veto. Th…

> That's false. Everything comes down to good leadership. Monarchies with good leadership very well might have incredibly effective anti-corruption techniques and competency. China is managing a billion people and their infrastructure and tech is incredible.

Can you name a monarchy that is nearly as free, safe, and prosperous as advanced democracies? That is less corrupt? Is China? (No.)

> These things are a result of culture, not a result of the government itself.

How do you explain all the cultures around the world with successful democracies that meet my descriptions? How about Taiwan and (formerly) Hong Kong - same cultures as communist China, far more free, prosperous, non-corrupt, safe ....

There is also the issue of rights. What right does someone have to rule me without my consent? Who the heck are they, other than thugs with guns?

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#880

Post by mmooss »

hnhg wrote: post #344
hayst4ck wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's false. Everything comes down to good leadership. Monarchies with good leadership very well might have incredibly effective anti-corruption techniques and competency. China is managing a billion people and their infrastructure and tech is incredible. The problems are two fold. The first is vetoing of bad ideas. No leader is right 100% of the time, and when they are wrong, someone must have the power to veto. Th…

I think people get confused into thinking that democracy is about voting when it is should be about reducing prolonged concentrations of power, because of the innate tendency for it to be abused and hoarded. So to support your point, if your culture does not support the concept of good "democratic" governance, and no one strives for the institutions and constitutions to support it, you might be better off with a bene…

> I think people get confused into thinking that democracy is about voting when it is should be about reducing prolonged concentrations of power

Voting is the definition and core mechanism of democracy: Government by the consent of the governed, to protect their rights, their lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

What's bizarre is, probably in a place where you have the benefits of centuries of overwhelming success, your extreme attempts to redefine it.

cui bono?, other than dictators. What has worked better than democracy?

> if your culture does not support the concept of good "democratic" governance, and no one strives for the institutions and constitutions to support it, you might be better off with a benevolent dictator, for as long as they last before a not-so-benevolent one.

Which culture? Democracy has been an incredible success all over the world - unprecedented success in history in most places it's taken hold.

Yours are the old propaganda of dictators - our 'culture', that undefined nonsense people cite for their prejudices, isn't compatible. The question is, why do you take up their cause?

They also love that you are sitting on the sidelines distracted, criticizing, rather than acting as a democratic citizen.

Post reply on HN