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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by acmj »

aoki wrote: post #624
acmj wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People here have little idea about how Harvard works. Harvard is financially vulnerable. It is currently running on a deficiency considering the endowment. And Harvard can't freely use most endowment for personnels anyway. If the government takes away funding, Harvard will have a financial crisis. I guess the leadership made the decision in hope someone could stop the government before bad things happen but when bad…

I mean, we literally just saw what happened at JHU when their USAID funding vanished. Everybody on that soft money got laid off. That’s what makes stands like this hard for admin: you’re risking massive layoffs in the programs that are often the least political to defend the academic freedom of the programs that are often the most political. Columbia made one decision. Harvard is making another. You could make Lord F…

I guess Harvard saw the decision at Columbia made the situation worse [1], so they decided to make a different one.

[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-freezes-all-rese...

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

#662

Post by ajross »

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…

"Congress shall make no law" is not unclear, nor is the idea from the declaration that " all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". There is no spot in the founding philosophy of this nation that makes a home for "rights of citizens" only, and there was copious space to fill that in if they wanted. You made that shit up.

What you're doing is scriptural prestidigitation. It's the equivalent of christians deciding that Satan and the serpent in the garden are the same entity, even though it's very clear that they aren't[1]. You're doing it because it makes your world view seem like less of an incoherent mess, not because it's true.

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

#663

Post by myko »

AlexandrB wrote: post #357
outside1234 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect much less than 50% actually wanted legal residents of the United States disappeared to El Salvador. Also, research tells us that it only takes 3.5% to overthrow a government.

> Also, research tells us that it only takes 3.5% to overthrow a government. You're describing a coup or revolution. Isn't that highly anti-democratic considering this president just won an election? Why should the 50% be under the thumb of the 3.5%?

He is ineligible for the office given his previous insurrection attempt: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/sectio...

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

#664

Post by qwertygnu »

hnburnsy wrote: post #655
robocat wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans Are Floating Plans To Raise the Endowment Tax. Here’s What You Need To Know : https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/11/increasing-endo... Proposed College Endowment Tax Hike: What to Know : https://thecollegeinvestor.com/52851/proposed-college-endowm... College endowments are typically tax-exempt, but a 2017 law imposed a 1.4% tax on investment income for a small group of wealthy private universities.…

>A new proposal seeks to increase the endowment tax rate to 14% That would be great that Harvard pays %14 on investment income on its 50 billion fund, considering I pay a minimum of 20% on my 'way less than $50 billion' in taxable investments, which was funded by my already taxed earnings, where as Harvard gets much of its endowment funds gifted to it.

holy shit dog, you make over $533,000???

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

#665

Post by hnburnsy »

skadamat wrote: post #416

Re: endowments, really good post on why universities can't just tap into endowments for budget shortfalls: https://medium.com/@myassa_62896/why-you-cant-just-use-the-e...

>It’s more like a patchwork of locked treasure chests, each with its own key and its own label: this one funds scholarships, that one supports cancer research, another pays for upkeep on a library.

Explain why direct donations cannot accomplish the same. I suspect that universities want endowment donations because they grow tax free.

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

#666

Post by jmye »

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.

Y'all have a lot of inner city neighborhoods that have been systematically destroyed over decades due to redlining, Jim Crow laws, lynching their inhabitants or just outright burning them to the ground, or is “but we do it in Europe” maybe frequently as stupid a comment as “but we do it in America” and is best kept to one’s self, if one doesn’t actually understand how it might be applicable?

Also, bullshit on IQ tests. They do reliably predict a number of socioeconomic factors, so I suppose they’re a great way to keep the poors out. How very “enlightened” of you.

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

#667

Post by nailer »

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…

[flagged]

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

#668

Post by nailer »

mtalantikite wrote: post #491
enaaem wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As others have pointed out to you, "woke" is just from AAVE, meaning to be awake to the racial prejudices and social injustices of the world. Leadbelly used it at the end of his "Scottsboro Boys" [1] in 1938, and it likely was in use many years before that. Erykah Badu's "Master Teacher" also uses it prominently, which probably helped bring it out of AAVE into more mainstream use [2]. Anyway, that's all to say I find…

> "woke" is just from AAVE, meaning to be awake to the racial prejudices and social injustices of the world.

Yes, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a democracy that serves the people of Korea.

Sometimes expressions have meaning beyond what advocates for the related concepts claim. For example, as I’m sure you are aware, ‘woke’ viewpoints repeatedly advocate for racial discrimination in American universities.

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

#669

Post by nailer »

pjfin123 wrote: post #382

The Federal government making funding to a university contingent on them "reforming" specifically named departments whose foreign policy views the executive branch disagrees with (Israel/Palestine policy) seems like a clear violation of the First Amendment.

My understanding is that racial discrimination is forbidden under title nine at least.

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

#670

Post by tines »

kenjackson wrote: post #660
palmotea wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Harvard just earned some reputation with me. It was already a place with great research. But now, it is also in institution with actual moral fiber. I'm not so sure. The Harvard endowment is huge . I might not be so much "moral fiber" as having enough fuck you money that risks don't matter as much as they do to others.

No. This fight will be much bigger than money. It’s true they have money, but this will be a literal fight of academic freedom against authoritarianism.

I guess the nice thing is, the bad guys picked a fight against Harvard Fucking Law.
Post reply on HN