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

271–280 of 1001 posts

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

#271

Post by thrance »

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"?

Instead it will go straight to military contractors, yay!

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

#272

Post by ren_engineer »

areoform wrote: post #139
outer_web wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 judge you are quoting literally worked in FDR's admin when they were deporting millions of Mexicans, regardless of whether they were born in the US. They didn't get due process

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

#273

Post by WalterBright »

mschuster91 wrote: post #42
WalterBright wrote: post #35

[flagged]

> The Federal government has always attached conditions in exchange for Federal funding and Federal contracts. This is not dictating. It effectively is. Just look up the history of the drinking age - a classic example of the federal government using extortion tactics to override state rights.

I meant this in the form of the Federal government handing out contracts and funding to private businesses, not state government.

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

#275

Post by squigz »

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…

> the more they will accelerate down a path where there is no coming back from.

Why do you say this? At practically every point in history where a government or dictator goes too far, we've come back from it.

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

#276

Post by AzzyHN »

My father works for a big pharma company, which means they have to listen to the federal government or risk being shut down by the FDA (which would be easy for Trump to do).

He uses this an excuse for the company's complacency, and by extension, his own. I'm glad to see some institutions take a stand.

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

#277

Post by jsbg »

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…

> Except that I don't recall cars produced in Mexico ever getting more affordable.

According to this site[0], new car prices were about 6% higher at the end of NAFTA in 2020 compared with at the start of NAFTA in 1994. Considering inflation on other things was on average much higher and also that more recent cars are significantly safer, more performant, and fuel-efficient—i.e. more provide more value—it does look like cars did effectively get cheaper.

[0] https://www.in2013dollars.com/New-cars/price-inflation

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

#278

Post by mariusor »

School-Cotton wrote: post #59
ghusto wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of no return is Trump getting a third term. The parallels are strong there. I was just thinking this morning that we very much needed the USA's help fighting Nazi Germany, but who will we turn to when we're fighting fascists coming from the East _and_ West? (Russia and the USA)

What is your definition of "fascists"? Edit to explain my point, because I'm getting downvoted (which I don't care about, but I _do_ care if people don't understand my point): fascism was a specific ideology/movement in the 20th century that, other than being right-wing and authoritarian, doesn't bear much resemblance to right-wing authoritarianism today: they have different goals, different motives, promote differen…

I feel like most people that are using the term deliberately, are doing so based on reasoning close to Umberto Eco's "Ur-fascism" essay: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...

If you want something more modern, someone made a tracker: https://www.realtimefascism.com/

The tracker uses "the 14 characteristics of fascism identified by Dr. Lawrence Britt" (which is slightly different): https://osbcontent.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/PC-00466.pdf

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

#279

Post by nine_k »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #191
nine_k wrote: post #152

The university, as a private institution, has every right to hold whatever views and enforce whatever policies it sees fit within itself. The government, on the other hand, has every right to put conditions its counterparty should conform to in order to get money from the government. It's best when the bargaining about such conditions happens with mutual respect and without overreach, but respect and sobriety are in…

Do we really believe there is a rooted undercurrent of antisemitism at Harvard of all places? Or is this just anti-zionist expansion straw manning? I'm sorry but the continuously faithless positioning of the Trump administration right now makes me believe the antisemitic accusations are a pretext.

[flagged]

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

#280

Post by __loam »

oldprogrammer2 wrote: post #146
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"?

Yeah, his reasoning is suspect to a lot of folks, but I’m not sure why everyone is so comfortable with the consolidation of wealth at these elite institutions.

There's definitely a conversation we can have about the cost and accessibility of higher education in this country. I don't think that conversation should include an administration that is unilaterally and arbitrarily canceling international student visas, threatening to withhold research funding that was already allocated by congress, and turning back foreign scientists at the border for things they said in private conversation that the government only knows about after a warrantless search.
Post reply on HN