Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by apercu » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 7:39 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #194

apercu wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> actual moral fiber. Maybe? Or maybe they realize that they will lose all future credibility with students, government and NGO's if they bow to the conservative & Christian right? There are two outcomes for the the current American government situation - a slide in to authoritarianism (it's right there in Project 2025), or these wackjobs get voted out because they are destroying global financial stability. If it's t…

Edited: Yes, I doubt they're cool with the ideas in the letter like the federal government auditing everyone's "viewpoint diversity" and mandating staffing changes to fit what the federal government wants.

I think.... you're agreeing with me?

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

#252

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 7:39 PM UTC

rocqua wrote: post #62

WalterBright wrote: post #35

[flagged]

The federal government cannot attach conditions that limit free speech onto federal funding. There is precedent for the federal government expanding into areas it has no direct constitutional authority over through conditions on funding. But e.g. 'regulating commerce within a state' is not something the constitution explicitly forbids. Whilst 'abridging the freedom of speech' is very much explicitly forbidden.

There are regular legal battles about what public schools can and cannot teach in the schools.

Consider also the Equal Time rule and the Fairness Doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

As I am not a lawyer, I suppose we'll have to see what the courts have to say about it.

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

#253

Post by brendoelfrendo » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 7:39 PM UTC

adamc wrote: post #128

outer_web wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Although the president was caught on mic musing about deporting American citizens.

He didn't get caught doing anything; he said it, openly, during an interview: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrx6b2gxy2f

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

#254

Post by ziddoap » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 7:39 PM UTC

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #239

ziddoap wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just say "oops, sorry, that was a mistake but we can't get that person back" every time you want to disappear someone, and somehow you'll have people claiming that habeas corpus is still alive and well while people get disappeared.

Unless you're Stephen Miller, who insists that no mistake was made: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrobxubic23 And, more recently, Bukele and Trump insisted that they would not return a "terrorist" to the United States: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrwrrkbnf2e It's clear that the administration does not consider collateral damage a bug, but a feature; it confirms that as long as they insis…

Well one thing is for sure: it's not a coincidence that after they determined that it was impossible to get him back, they've changed the narrative to "no mistake was made" (and begun throwing around the magic word "terrorist" which justifies all sorts of things).

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

#255

Post by zamadatix » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 7:39 PM UTC

clivestaples wrote: post #147

Likely I'm very naive. But here goes... It seems that taxpayers fund a lot of research. This research is very valuable and lucrative. It finds its way into the hands of those who know how to profit from it. The taxpayer is again screwed paying exorbitant prices for said breakthroughs. Insulin is one area of interest to me and it very much seems to be the case in the diabetes world. This was how NAFTA was sold. Move c…

Keep in mind labor is something like 10%-15% of the cost of a new car so even if you cut that down by 80%, including transport, and ignored recouping capital cost to actually move the production lines then you'd still need to move the production in less than 2 years to actually see the price decrease rather than "not move up as fast" at 3% car price inflation of the early 90s. Interestingly there was a dip in the price increase rate of cars at the end of the 90s https://www.in2013dollars.com/New-cars/price-inflation but it's too large to have been reasonably attributable to this trade change.

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

#256

Post by outside1234 » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 7:39 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #223

outside1234 wrote: post #48

I hope everyone is ready for a general strike because that time is coming up at us rapidly.

General strike when >50% of those who voted wanted this? What world are you living in? Edit: I stand corrected, 49.81%. It doesn't change the point much. Especially when that ~49% includes many "working class"[1] voters. Who's going to participate in this general strike? A bunch of office workers? [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-return-power-fueled-...

I suspect much less than 50% actually wanted legal residents of the United States disappeared to El Salvador.

Also, research tells us that it only takes 3.5% to overthrow a government.

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

#257

Post by robocat » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 7:39 PM UTC

bretpiatt wrote: post #32

With their endowment above $50 billion, combined with Federal plus Non-Federal sponsored revenue at 16% of operating budget, it makes sense to me they just forgo Federal funds and operate independently. If all 16% is canceled, then they'd need to draw an additional $1 billion per year from endowment at current budget levels. That would put them above 7% draw so potentially unsustainable for perpetuity, historically t…

Republicans Are Floating Plans To Raise the Endowment Tax. Here’s What You Need To Know : https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/11/increasing-endo...

Proposed College Endowment Tax Hike: What to Know : https://thecollegeinvestor.com/52851/proposed-college-endowm...

  College endowments are typically tax-exempt, but a 2017 law imposed a 1.4% tax on investment income for a small group of wealthy private universities. A new proposal seeks to increase the endowment tax rate to 14%

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

#258

Post by breadwinner » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 7:39 PM UTC

settrans wrote: post #232

breadwinner wrote: post #117

Being anti-Israel should not be conflated with being antisemitic. After all, the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu for a reason. Trump is using “antisemitism” as cover for the imposition of authoritarianism. This comes from Putin's playbook. Putin used denazification as an excuse for invading Ukraine. Trump himself has espoused antisemitism from time to time, see below. John Kell…

[flagged]

If anything negative you can say about Israel is equated to antisemitism then Israel gets a free pass. Hamas engaged in terrorism, but Israel's response was out of proportion. Saying that aloud doesn't make one antisemitic. The ICC and UN are not antisemitic organizations for ordering arrest of Netanyahu and condemning Israel's use of excessive force.

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

#259

Post by bilbo0s » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 7:40 PM UTC

georgeburdell wrote: post #77

laweijfmvo wrote: post #21

the irony of the evil being perpetrated around the world in the name of "antisemitism" is mind boggling

[flagged]

Why is it any more necessary to fight "leftists and muslims" than it is to fight righties and MAGAs?

That's the question that the Trump people never seem to acknowledge that the rest of America is asking itself?

What's the difference between muslims bombing whatever and MAGAs shooting up or torching a black church? The rest of us are finding it hard to see the distinction.

In fact, recent events have served to crystalize the dangers posed to the republic by ill considered MAGA policies. And to concentrate minds on the problem of how to extricate ourselves from the crises they have gotten us into in as efficient a manner as possible.

If efficiency is even possible at this point? Maybe "in as minimally painful a manner as possible" is a better way to say it?

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

#260

Post by Muromec » Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 7:40 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #199

areoform wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. The rubicon has already been crossed. If you asked some of the framers of the US constitution - beyond all other factors, unelected powers etc - what was the one defining trait of the government structure they wished to avoid; they'd have replied with arbitrary imprisonment and the suspension of due process. Please don't take my word for it, hear it from the Prosecutor's Prosecutor. The SCOTUS justice, form…

The more fundamental corollary is that the US government does not grant any rights. We have them by default and cede limited power for the benefit of an orderly society. Within such a framework, it should be impossible to disenfranchise people by denying them due process.

>Within such a framework, it should be impossible to disenfranchise people by denying them due process.

Yet, US was systematically disenfranchising people for centuries