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

Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#161

Post by thecrumb »

MR_Bulldops wrote: post #127
repeekad wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$9 billion dollars from the federal government to Harvard equates to nearly $30 per American, that is an ignorant amount of money for a single academic institution, surely the world isn't so black and white that we can have a conversation about how much money is leaking out of our tax dollars without it always coming back to "fascism"?

Let's have a conversation about leaking tax dollars. How do you feel about our tax dollars directly enriching the sitting president? How do you feel about our tax dollars leaking into a military parade to celebrate the president's birthday? If you don't address those leaks, how can we be expected to take people like you seriously when you defend authoritarian policy as fiscally responsible?

You forgot the cost of his golf excursions. (there are a surprising number of Trump golf trackers LOL)

https://didtrumpgolftoday.com/

"Est. cost to taxpayers for golf since returning to office: $32,200,000"

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#162

Post by bgarbiak »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #109
bilbo0s wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He still controls the congress, the white house and the supreme court. So he could potentially pull a completely illegal fast one and freeze their accounts. Since rule of law seems on fairly shaky ground right now in any case.

> he could potentially pull a completely illegal fast one and freeze their accounts Harvard (and most institutions and powerful individuals) would be smart to maintain liquid assets and a bank account outside America’s control.

Trump can make that illegal in no time. „No foreign funds” is a well known method of fighting opposition, tried and tested in many soft regimes (looking for a recent example, Hungary comes to mind).

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#163

Post by 9283409232 »

andrepd wrote: post #131
areoform wrote: post #26

If you've read history, this rhymes with certain acts that have happened before under certain regimes. Under a non-authoritarian Government, this type of showboating can be dismissed, but when habeas corpus and the right to due process is suspended — such actions take on a very different cast indeed. It's good that Harvard is fighting this. The more people accede, the more they will accelerate down a path where there…

It was very depressing (if financially understandable) to see other institutions immediately caving in.

What institutions other than Columbia are caving in?

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#164

Post by bilbo0s »

outer_web wrote: post #126
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he could potentially pull a completely illegal fast one and freeze their accounts Harvard (and most institutions and powerful individuals) would be smart to maintain liquid assets and a bank account outside America’s control.

Maybe their endowment is held in treasurys they should start selling off...

LOL

I like the way you think!

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#165

Post by allturtles »

repeekad wrote: post #83
areoform wrote: post #26

If you've read history, this rhymes with certain acts that have happened before under certain regimes. Under a non-authoritarian Government, this type of showboating can be dismissed, but when habeas corpus and the right to due process is suspended — such actions take on a very different cast indeed. It's good that Harvard is fighting this. The more people accede, the more they will accelerate down a path where there…

$9 billion dollars from the federal government to Harvard equates to nearly $30 per American, that is an ignorant amount of money for a single academic institution, surely the world isn't so black and white that we can have a conversation about how much money is leaking out of our tax dollars without it always coming back to "fascism"?

The dispute between Harvard and the Trump has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. You can read the government letter and see for yourself, none of it is about Harvard spending research money irresponsibly. It is an attempt to assert deep government control over the institution's policies and ideologies. So your comment reads as an attempt to distract from the real issues at hand, which I (and I think many others here) consider existential for the survival of the rule of law in the U.S.

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#166

Post by jltsiren »

Whoppertime wrote: post #28

It seems like the government has a soft Monopsony. There are many universities willing to sell research, but the government is the biggest buyer and controls the research grant market

Universities don't sell or do research. They provide facilities, equipment, services, and sometimes funding for research. The actual research is done by individuals, who are nominally employed by the university but largely independent from it. If a researcher doesn't like a particular university, they can usually take their funding and projects to another university.

When grants are revoked for political reasons, it affects individuals who happen to be affiliated with the university more than the university itself. And it particularly affects people doing STEM research, because humanities and social sciences receive much less external funding. If the decline in public funding is permanent, it makes humanities and social sciences relatively stronger within the university. They are more viable without public subsidies than the more expensive STEM fields.

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#167

Post by chomp »

outer_web wrote: post #115
areoform wrote: post #26

If you've read history, this rhymes with certain acts that have happened before under certain regimes. Under a non-authoritarian Government, this type of showboating can be dismissed, but when habeas corpus and the right to due process is suspended — such actions take on a very different cast indeed. It's good that Harvard is fighting this. The more people accede, the more they will accelerate down a path where there…

Habeas corpus - still in effect unless you're already in El Salvador.

So you acknowledge that it’s a race for the government to get permanent residents on flights as fast as they can to El Salvador before a petition is able to be filed?

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#168

Post by JumpCrisscross »

9283409232 wrote: post #163
andrepd wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was very depressing (if financially understandable) to see other institutions immediately caving in.

What institutions other than Columbia are caving in?

Every law firm.

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#169

Post by arp242 »

So first they demand "Merit-Based Hiring Reform" and "Merit-Based Admissions Reform", and then it continues to demand "Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring".

I can't even engage with these levels of cognitive dissonance. Or bad faith. Or whatever it is.

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#170

Post by outer_web »

rocqua wrote: post #65
janalsncm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Importantly, the Civil Rights Act is a (well-litigated) law, not an ad hoc decree from the executive branch. If the current administration wants to strong arm universities, they should go through Congress.

If they want to abridge freedom of speech, they also need 2/3s of US states.

Or the Supreme Court.
Post reply on HN