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

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

Post by WeylandYutani »

outer_web wrote: post #121
epolanski wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of no return was January 6th 2021! Once Americans pardoned an attempt by the sitting president to overthrow US democracy the game's over. America desperately needs a huge revision to the powers conceded to individuals and should instead mature to a slower, maybe less effective at times, but stronger democracy that nurtures parliamentary debate and discourse.

It could have been water under the bridge if we simply did not re-elect him. But now we have a second term emboldened by de facto total immunity.

Disagree. Polarisation existed long before Trump. America was going to face this sooner or later. The culture war was always coming.

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

#672

Post by nailer »

jsheard wrote: post #286
settrans wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Where are the pro-Palestinian activists who are standing up for the Gazans who have the courage to risk their lives by protesting against Hamas? If you can find me a western government or institution they should be protesting for actively collaborating with Hamas then I'll grant you that hypocrisy. They don't need to because it's already a federal crime to materially support Hamas in any way whatsoever.

> If you can find me a western government or institution they should be protesting for actively collaborating with Hamas

The BBC (which frequently quotes Hamas verbatim without attribution and which has employed many openly racist correspondents), and Associated Press (who rode with Hamas during the Oct 7 massacre). You should already be aware of this.

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

#673

Post by nailer »

nashashmi wrote: post #15

> 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. So alongside antisemitism, The other demand is for changes in intellect. For some reason this reeks of Christian evangelical movement to purge wokism and anti-Zionism, both of which have run counter to evangelical dogma.

[flagged]

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

#674

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

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%?

If the 50% can't or won't promise me that they won't ship me to El Salvador in a few years, I don't much care about abstract political principles until their power is broken.

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

#675

Post by overrun11 »

andoando wrote: post #527
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.

Most of the wealth being in stock is really tricky. You can't really tax stock ownership, but at the same time stock can be leveraged against business deals (Musk for example bought Twitter with largely stock, without having to sell it first and therefore being subject to tax), and you can take out loans with stock as collateral.

Why does it matter? It eventually gets taxed through estate tax and at a higher rate than income. This obsession with taxing them _now_ only makes sense if the point is to punish the the rich.

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

#676

Post by hansvm »

piker wrote: post #640
viraptor wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They're obviously objective. That doesn't make them good. Think of Harvard's goals, maybe some more complicated version of a combination of:

1. Meritocracy: Give a chance to the students with the best innate chance at real-world success

2. Self-preservation: Give a chance to the students with the best chance at real-world success

3. (implicitly) Don't let too many people in who don't further (1) or (2).

Those measures (SAT, high-school GPA, gender, color, income, ...) are weak predictors of (2). How couldn't they be? We live in a world that encourages feedback loops, making it difficult for the most intelligent and ambitious people to break through class barriers with any reasonable degree of success.

They're not good measures because (a) they're not even particularly strong predictors of goal (2), and (b) they're piss-poor predictors of goal (1).

By way of contrast, a compelling essay is much harder to assign an "objective" score to, but it's a stronger predictor of both (1) and (2) than the rest put together, especially at the top end.

The important thing to keep in mind with all of those though is that they're proxy measurements. We can't directly measure the future, so we come up with tests to try to guess less incorrectly. It doesn't matter which measure you pick; they'll all be "problematic." If you recognize that though, it's easier to move past a shallow thought like whether the measure is objective or not and toward a system that better align's with the university's goals.

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

#677

Post by Zamaamiro »

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 as defined by an administration whose cabinet is composed of Fox News personalities, DUI hires, and some of the least qualified people for the jobs they were given.

This administration has ZERO credibility to define what "merit" is.

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

#678

Post by Zamaamiro »

bananalychee wrote: post #520
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…

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.

> Harvard's performance and reputation have tanked as a result of its anti-meritocratic policies

[Citation needed]

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

#679

Post by WeylandYutani »

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.

Everyone except those who died in the camps.

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

#680

Post by Sabinus »

Loughla wrote: post #509
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?

It will take a majority of states, and their military backing, forcefully overthrowing Trump. I really hate to be alarmist, but it does feel more and more that we're headed to massive, coordinated state against state violence.

Perhaps. The Courts and the Legislature have yet to defend their powers, but the crunch point to do so is approaching. When we get past the stage that they have fully capitulated to Trump then it'll get truly ugly.
Post reply on HN