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

421–430 of 1001 posts

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

#421

Post by settrans »

wnoise wrote: post #408
settrans wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Depends on what you mean by anti-Zionism. It's not a natural congregation point -- even those that don't think Israel should exist don't generally call themselves anti-Zionist. As a label from the outside, it's thus very flexible. A lot of mere criticisms of Israeli actions gets labeled anti-Zionist.

Zionism to me means that the Jews are entitled to self-determination, and that the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of that promise.

Anti-Zionism is the negation of that idea; namely that Jews are not entitled to self-determination and therefore should live at the whims of the countries where they are a minority for their security.

Merely objecting to an Israeli policy or even a Jewish value is not intrinsically antisemitic. But if you criticize only Israel about some issue, and grant a free pass to everyone else on that same issue, that's when things become problematic.

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

#422

Post by ziddoap »

BuckRogers wrote: post #236
esrauch wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did; it explicitly demanding an audit of employees and students political views, the forced hiring of more professors who are sympathetic to the current administration's politics. That doesn't sound authoritarian to you? Can you imagine if Obama had demanded that any university do an ideological purge of its conservative staff and students?

[flagged]

You only used one of the magical thought-stopping phrases.

You're supposed to say that it will help the children too.

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

#423

Post by tootie »

__jl__ wrote: post #233
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…

I think the 9 billion is very misleading. More than half goes to hospitals affiliated with Harvard. I am not sure but I don't think they get anything from the endowment. The impact of loosing this money would be very uneven across different parts of the university and hospitals affiliated with it. The faculty of arts and science would be fine. Yes, some cuts, a hiring freeze etc. The med school and public health scho…

Yeah this isn't purely a question of Harvard's P&L being dependent on subsidies. The money in question is grants attached to specific practices or research. The money isn't just gratuity for Harvard being so great, it's awarded for specific objectives that Harvard was deemed capable of delivering. Cutting off the money isn't going to hurt Harvard, it's going to stop all the programs the grants were funding.

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

#424

Post by tastyface »

blindriver wrote: post #419

The law in the immigration act to disallow people who espouse support for terrorism is a good one. We protect freedom of speech for citizens because we have to. They are part of our country. I don’t believe this extends to foreigners. We should allow only immigrants who do not support terrorism and want to be productive members of society. This isn’t too much to ask. This is not a right or left issue. This is a pro-A…

Define “terrorism.”

The administration, for example, freely uses the word to describe someone with no criminal record and no proven gang affiliations: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrwrrkbnf2e

They also use the word to describe Tesla vandals: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/03/25/us/fbi-task-force-tesla-a...

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

#425

Post by matthewrobertso »

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…

What's your take on the government drone striking American citizens without any sort of trial?

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

#426

Post by spacemadness »

blindriver wrote: post #419

The law in the immigration act to disallow people who espouse support for terrorism is a good one. We protect freedom of speech for citizens because we have to. They are part of our country. I don’t believe this extends to foreigners. We should allow only immigrants who do not support terrorism and want to be productive members of society. This isn’t too much to ask. This is not a right or left issue. This is a pro-A…

Assumption: everything critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza is supporting terrorism. That’s quite the take.

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

#427

Post by lupusreal »

roxolotl wrote: post #347
Always42 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I was brought up as an American to believe that most important American value inscribed in the constitution was that the government cannot control your speech. So regardless of what Harvard does or does not do that quote, coming from the government especially, is simply unAmerican on its face.

[flagged]

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

#428

Post by jajuuka »

settrans wrote: post #294
breadwinner wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If anything negative you can say about Israel is equated to antisemitism then Israel gets a free pass. I am not arguing this. Everyone is free to criticize Israel; when it becomes antisemitic is when you hold Jews to a different standard than you hold everyone else. > but Israel's response was out of proportion Why do you say this? What would a proportionate response have looked like to an attempt to conquer your c…

>I am not arguing this. Everyone is free to criticize Israel; when it becomes antisemitic is when you hold Jews to a different standard than you hold everyone else.

What different standard is being applied?

>Why do you say this? What would a proportionate response have looked like to an attempt to conquer your country by firing 5,000 rockets while 6,000 people invaded and murdered everyone they could find? Bear in mind, that immediately afterwards, Hamas leaders promised to repeat October 7th again and again until Israel was annihilated.

A proportionate response is not denying food, water, and medical aid to civilians. It's not destroying every school and hospital in the region. It's not committing genocide. You look at the situation as a zero sum game where only Israelis or Palestinians can live. Hamas is not all Palestinians and destroying their homes and families does not make them righteous or productive.

Maybe taking some effort to address the issues that have created the circumstances of the attack in the first place would be the better option. Like giving Palestinians either their own country or at least equal status in Israel. Maybe not taking their land and settling it. One cannot maintain inequality and peace. 50,000 Palestinians lost their lives for 1,000 Israelis. Does that seem proportionate to you?

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

#429

Post by arp242 »

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-...

So pick one or the other: having a broad representation from many walks of life is important or it's not. You can't mix or match depending on which group you like.

And that is what I'm commenting on. I'm not a fan of Trump's "war on DEI" but if it was applied with some consistency I could take it as a genuine difference in viewpoints. That would be okay. But the movement is railing hard and vitriolic against anything with even a whiff of "DEI" while applying wildly different standards to themselves. This is hard to take as a genuine difference in viewpoints.

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

#430

Post by [deleted] »

alabastervlog wrote: post #151
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 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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN