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

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

Post by gruez »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #438
crazygringo wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, it's eating your seed corn. Spending a billion of it is not just spending a billion. It's spending the many billions it was meant to provide, in interest, over the next decades. It's extraordinarily expensive to spend it directly, as opposed to spending the income it generates. You can certainly do it, in a true emergency. But you certainly don't want to make a habit of it.

> You can certainly do it, in a true emergency. But you certainly don't want to make a habit of it. Harvard's endowment returned 9.6% last year, growing the total by $2.5 billion. In the previous year, the endowment returned 2.9%, though the total endowment decreased as the gain was offset by contributions to operating expenses. [0] In other words, Harvard already operates somewhat from their endowment, and can reali…

>In other words, Harvard already operates somewhat from their endowment, and can realize net endowment gains in spite of that.

The argument isn't that Harvard should never draw from its endowment, like it's saving for retirement or something. The argument is that they shouldn't raid endowments by doing additional withdraws to fund the current shortfall.

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

#512

Post by Loughla »

kashunstva wrote: post #486

From the United States government letter to Harvard: "Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension." So if a student has, say, an immunodeficiency syndrome and wears a mask to protect their health during the riskier seasons of the year, they would face dismissal from the university? (Or worse - whatever that is - according to the letter.)…

They want freedom for themselves. They're free to impose their will on others without judgement. That's the purpose.

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

#513

Post by FloorEgg »

nairteashop wrote: post #241
FloorEgg wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious: what part of the federal government's letter to Harvard seems fascist to you? Is the government asking a university to shift their bias away from skin color diversity to viewpoint diversity fascist? Is there a historical parallel? Or is it just the fact that the government is asking for reform, and any reform request would be considered fascist? If so, do you also consider the DEI reform requests f…

Let's set aside specific terms like "fascist" for now. Below is one of the demands from the government: > the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. Do you fe…

Thank you,

Let me start by saying that I am not American and I am not your enemy. Also, I am genuinely trying to understand the truth about these matters, with an open mind to the possibility that it's messy and complicated and I might not be capable of understanding it. I hope that provides context for what follows.

Honestly, I am not sure if it's okay. It reminds me of the anti-racist movement, in that the action almost feels like it's anti-fascist. It's using a fascist action (use of state power to enforce conformity), to undo a fascist policy (suppression of political opposition and dissent). This reminds me of anti-racism, which uses one type of racism to compensate for a different type of past-racism.

What I find interesting is the very last statement in your post. I am not aware of anything Biden did, but it does seem like Obama did something very similar with the DEI policies forced on universities which came with funding implications for non-compliance. It was a different time, everyone was upset about the great financial crisis of 2008, and on their surface I am sure these policies sounded like a good thing. In the end though these policies were very much a form of facism in that it was a state sponsored effort to suppress political opposition. This probably sounds like I am defending the political views of racists, but really I am defending the political views of people who believe leadership roles should be filled based on the merit of the individual and their ability to take care of those in their charge, and not based on the color of their skin, their gender or sexual preferences.

As I have tried to unpack all this, the perspective that is growing for me is that for the last 20 or so years both administrations have been taking steps towards fascism while hiding their fascist actions behind intentions that sound anti-fascist. If this perspective is even partially correct, it would explain why so much of this has been so confusing for me.

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

#514

Post by iAMkenough »

silexia wrote: post #461
janalsncm wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be true for Harvard, but I don’t think free speech should only be for those who can afford it. I know my school couldn’t if the government came knocking.

Harvard is free to say whatever it wants and operate without government funds. A shocking idea may be for a school to actually use the tuition paid by students to educate them. This is forced speech for all those of us who disagree with Harvard's politics and yet have our tax dollars sent to support it anyways.

Just watch what happens when they exercise their Constiutional right to "say whatever it wants."

Stephen Miller made it clear this morning: "Under this country, under this administration, under President Trump, people who hate America, who threaten our citizens, who rape, who murder, and who support those who rape and murder are going to be ejected from this country."

If the government decides you "hate America" or your business supports some hypothetical rapist/murderer they imagined, you're going to end up ejected from this country without due process.

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

#515

Post by nrclark »

peterbecich wrote: post #506
pqtyw wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this tax only apply to "net investment income"/realized gains? Billionaires technically already have to pay it at a higher rate. And well they generally do? I mean when they personally actually sell stock and or receive dividends and interest.

Agreed. For the revenue tax activists want from billionaires, it would necessitate a wealth tax, which I believe is unconstitutional. The non-profit tax exemption fight is about "income taxes" which billionaires already have to pay (but avoid). So it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

what is unconstitutional about a wealth tax?

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

#516

Post by jgyter »

UncleMeat wrote: post #477
kweingar wrote: post #224

The aggregate demands of the administration are confusing and contradictory. They seem to be simultaneously asking for: - an end to diversity initiatives - a new diversity initiative for diverse points of view - a new policy of not admitting international students with certain points of view - ending speech-control policies - auditing the speech of certain departments and programs - ending discipline of students who…

It makes sense if you understand that they aren't focused on general principles. Diversity is bad when it involves non-whites, women, gay people or research involving these groups. Diversity is good when it involves "race realists." Free speech is bad when students are advocating for divestment initiatives. Free speech is good when a professor calls somebody the n-word online. The goal is white supremacy and antifemi…

[flagged]

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

#517

Post by const_cast »

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.

No, this is not the case. This is a recent and never before seen phenomenon. Please, do not try to downplay it. And, if you do, do not do it dishonestly.

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

#518

Post by jgyter »

chairmansteve wrote: post #301
kweingar wrote: post #224

The aggregate demands of the administration are confusing and contradictory. They seem to be simultaneously asking for: - an end to diversity initiatives - a new diversity initiative for diverse points of view - a new policy of not admitting international students with certain points of view - ending speech-control policies - auditing the speech of certain departments and programs - ending discipline of students who…

They go after their enemies (liberals, trans, pro palestinians, brown migrants) and help their friends (right wing white people).

[flagged]

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

#520

Post by bananalychee »

os2warpman wrote: post #431
porphyra wrote: post #261

Merit-based admission sounds good to me. Harvard is vigorously defending its "right" to continue to deny admissions to highly qualified Asian applicants out of nothing but pure racism, and somehow they are the good guys?

Merit is not easily definable. Standardized tests are bullshit, IQ tests are phrenology, class rankings are not comparable across school districts. Someone who was president of every club at school may be less able than a kid who had to flip burgers in the evenings to help make rent. Merit to a university may mean "someone whose charisma and social connections will bring great repute to the institution" more than "a…

Both standardized tests and IQ highly correlate with success in higher education and career over a lifetime. Harvard's performance and reputation have tanked as a result of its anti-meritocratic policies, and the market is indeed responding, slowly but surely. You are making things up and conjuring nonsensical hypotheticals to deny the evidence that's right in front of our eyes.
Post reply on HN