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

631–640 of 1001 posts

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

#631

Post by viraptor »

anonfordays wrote: post #592
UncleMeat wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

> Diversity is bad when it involves Whites, men, straight people or research involving these groups.

If you think that's what the "other side" is saying, then you've completely misunderstood what the diversity idea is about. You can't compare one idea with the misrepresentation of the opposing idea. That's just making things up.

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

#633

Post by gosub100 »

Retric wrote: post #616
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billionaires do not get a tax exemption

Billionaires benefit most from the largest tax exceptions. No tricky accounting needed it’s baked blatantly into the tax code. Long term capital gains are specifically lower than short term capital gains. Further gains are only taxed on sale allowing a lifetime of growth to pass to the next generation tax free. They also operate at a scale where many tax breaks become viable. CEO owners aren’t paying themselves nomin…

[flagged]

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

#634

Post by throwaway-blaze »

ajross wrote: post #614
WalterBright wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billionaires do pay income tax on investment income.

Only short term gains are taxed as income. Long term capital gains tax caps at 20%, wildly lower than the top income tax bracket of 37%. And it's always possible to defer short term gains (e.g. put your trading money in an IRA).

IRA contributions are drastically limited to a $7000 cap per year under 50. Whether they should be is another question, and one worth exploring.

Long-term investment is rightly seen as something to be encouraged hence the lower tax rates. You can make the argument that the rate should be more like 0% since the money invested and risked was already taxed most likely...20% is a reasonable value for the market regulating infrastructure provided by gov't entities.

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

#635

Post by BobaFloutist »

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-...

And I bet that the % of their faculty that identify as flat earthers is even more egregious!

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

#636

Post by carlosjobim »

allturtles wrote: post #340
jiriknesl wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The demands are simple and not confusing at all. - Stop promoting Democrats' agendas as the ultimate truth; stop bullying people for non-Democratic views - Allow Republicans' agendas to be equally represented Is it really so difficult to understand? Out of many bad things Trump has done, this isn't really bad for anyone except core Democrats voters. The US academia has become hostile to anyone except one particular c…

Conservatives should start their own universities, if they aren't happy with the existing ones. The federal government has no business enforcing conformity to certain ideological demands in private institutions. It's right there in the very first amendment.

Stanford for example.

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

#637

Post by pmags »

I predict a surge of alumni donations in the weeks and months to come, not just at Harvard but also at other institutions that are showing their willingness to stand up against the creeping fascism of the current administration.

I think people who value education, academic freedom, and understand the economic and societal role that universities play, were hoping to see one or more of the major institutions stand up for these principles.

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

#638

Post by viraptor »

impossiblefork wrote: post #502
os2warpman wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Standardized test reliably predict academic success. IQ tests similarly. Here in Sweden, if you do well enough on the entrance exam, we simply let you in, even to the best universities. This means that people other than hoop-jumpers have a chance.

> Standardized test reliably predict academic success. IQ tests similarly.

So do home addresses. And skin colour. And parent's money. There are issues with all of those for different reasons. People saying IQ is problematic don't mean there's no correlation at all. Just that they can be culture / approach / etc. specific and we shouldn't treat them as an objective measure.

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

#639

Post by cypherpunks01 »

Papirola wrote: post #586

[flagged]

Harvard said most of the demands were not actually about antisemitism.

> Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.

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

#640

Post by piker »

viraptor wrote: post #638
impossiblefork wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standardized test reliably predict academic success. IQ tests similarly. Here in Sweden, if you do well enough on the entrance exam, we simply let you in, even to the best universities. This means that people other than hoop-jumpers have a chance.

> Standardized test reliably predict academic success. IQ tests similarly. So do home addresses. And skin colour. And parent's money. There are issues with all of those for different reasons. People saying IQ is problematic don't mean there's no correlation at all. Just that they can be culture / approach / etc. specific and we shouldn't treat them as an objective measure.

Are you saying these aren’t objective measures or that they’re “problematic”? The distinction is important.
Post reply on HN