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

391–400 of 1001 posts

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

#391

Post by ajross »

SoftTalker wrote: post #303
alabastervlog wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He may issue an EO against them similar to the ones he's successfully used to bring major law firms he doesn't like to heel: ban consideration of former Harvard employees (... maybe also graduates?) for Federal jobs, revoke clearances held by anyone employed by Harvard, and ban them from Federal property. Maybe with some other creative terms thrown in to mess with universities in particular.

That is always a risk of working for the government. Your job exists more or less at the whims of the currently governing administration.

That has essentially never been a risk for a non-appointed government employee in the United States of America, at least for the past century or so. We Don't Politicize the Bureaucracy. And that was at least in part the secret sauce to our generational success, that we could immunize the workings of the government from the pique and emotion of its leadership.

Or we didn't. Now we do. Kinda sucks.

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

#392

Post by matwood »

nonethewiser wrote: post #95
PerilousD wrote: post #13

I guess that Harvard probably does not need the Feds as much as the Feds need Harvard but I'm glad they are standing up to the Fascists. I'm going to have to see what NYU is doing now.

What does the Federal Gov need Harvard for? Harvard gets 16% of its funding from them - what outweighs that on the aide of the Federal government?

Until recently, the US brand was where exceptional people wanted to go study and work. If you want to send the world's best and brightest to other countries that's fine, but it will have negative long term impacts on the US.

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

#393

Post by [deleted] »

squigz wrote: post #275
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.

[deleted]

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

#394

Post by nathan_compton »

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.

I've posted here before that this idea that we just have rights is actually problematic, not the least reason for which is that whether we have such rights or not, their mere existence has never and will never actually defend anyone from any violation of them.

Rights are just the concessions that the less powerful have extracted from the powerful by virtue and utilization of power. This perspective has the double benefit not relying on the imaginary and making it clear that if you don't fight for your rights you will not get to keep them. Rights may be God given, but God isn't going to come down and rescue you from a concentration camp if you get put there by an autocrat who doesn't like your "free speech."

All that matters is whether we will personally tolerate abuses against human beings and what we are willing to do to prevent them. If I had my way, talk of rights qua rights would be swept into the dustbin of history with other imaginary stuff like religion in favor of concrete, ideally evidence based, free human discussion about what human beings want from the universe and what we are willing to endure to get it.

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

#395

Post by throwaccount123 »

nine_k wrote: post #279
dclowd9901 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

[flagged]

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

#396

Post by pqtyw »

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…

> historical fascism

I mean.. Mussolini's Italy or 30s Austria weren't exactly Nazi Germany. So while there still might be some way to go the comparison is not that extreme.

Equating Trump with Hitler is of course a stretch. Mussolini however? Well..

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

#397

Post by pesus »

sys32768 wrote: post #377
arp242 wrote: post #169

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.

Harvard admitted it needs to "...broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community..." This is a no-brainer considering only 2.3% of their faculty identifies as conservative. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/5/22/faculty-survey-...

How is this a no brainer? How many of their faculty identity as believers in a flat earth? Are we concerned about that viewpoint being underrepresented as well?

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

#398

Post by nathan_compton »

surge wrote: post #231
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…

[flagged]

If you want to reverse exploitation of cheap labor I suggest you turn to strategies which do not treat human beings like cattle or some kind of infestation to be shipped en mass elsewhere.

An economically viable solution to this problem would be simply force companies to pay all laborers, foreign or domestic, legal or illegal, a living wage, eliminating the benefits of bringing in illegal labor and maintaining a humane society. Furthermore, we should probably only trade with countries which have equal labor protections as our own, so as to ensure that jobs aren't offshored to save money, at least at the expense of human rights.

I'm sorry, I just can't buy that "treat a bunch of people like animals" is the humanist, labor friendly, perspective.

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

#399

Post by catlover76 »

janalsncm wrote: post #369
bhouston wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all I can think is what a fucking lay-up I am nervous about the US right now. So many cases are going to end up at the Supreme Court that is controlled by conservatives. It may not be the lay-up you think it is. Also what happens if Trump just decides to ignore a court loss as he did with the recent deportation of Kilmar Garcia?

I don’t agree with Roberts but he isn’t a hack. For what it’s worth, he also went to Harvard.

[dead]

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

#400

Post by [deleted] »

enaaem wrote: post #250
arp242 wrote: post #169

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.

I have never been a "woke" person, but Trump really makes me doubt the meritocracy argument. If Trump was a black woman he would never get away with half the things he is doing now.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN