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

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701

Post by viraptor »

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 objective measures (don't depend on the person applying them), created subjectively (people choosing criteria based on their preferences/ideas), and chosen subjectively (people deciding which ones they want to rely on more). I meant objective originally, as in many people claim the whole process is objective.

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

#702

Post by casey2 »

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?

It really isn't. Harvard used to be a special cultural institution now it's just another research institute. Whoopee, nothing can be special, everything has to all be the same gray sludge cause otherwise it isn't """fair"""

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

#703

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

ghusto wrote: post #33

This is the only correct response, but I don't think I'm being overly cynical in thinking they're being opportunistic either. They're quite happy to turn a blind eye to unfashionable political views being silenced, so there's a pinch of hypocrisy in making such a show of standing for openness. All in all though, I'm happy to see this.

I mean, while this is the only correct response, it could still cost Harvard around $9 billion, which isn't chump change, even for Harvard.

And while I agree and have been disgusted with Harvard's slow slide to demanding ideological conformity over the past decade plus (e.g. https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-f...), I believe they have made some belated changes in the right direction over the past year.

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

#706

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

ziddoap wrote: post #254
brendoelfrendo wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're Stephen Miller, who insists that no mistake was made: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrobxubic23 And, more recently, Bukele and Trump insisted that they would not return a "terrorist" to the United States: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrwrrkbnf2e It's clear that the administration does not consider collateral damage a bug, but a feature; it confirms that as long as they insis…

Well one thing is for sure: it's not a coincidence that after they determined that it was impossible to get him back, they've changed the narrative to "no mistake was made" (and begun throwing around the magic word "terrorist" which justifies all sorts of things).

> after they determined that it was impossible to get him back

This phrasing buys into the Trump admin's narrative.

They did not determine that it was impossible to get him back. They have chosen to not pursue it. They refuse to define the agreement between the US and El Salvador sufficiently for anyone to know what is or is not possible through that path. They also seem to refuse to use political or financial influence to go beyond whatever that agreement may define.

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

#707

Post by silexia »

rurp wrote: post #568
silexia wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Somehow I doubt you would apply these same principles to someone who doesn't believe in police and objects to their taxes being used to fund them.

Republicans won the presidency and both branches of the legislature. The people voted for their money to no longer be spent foolishly.

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

#708

Post by silexia »

tacticalturtle wrote: post #494
silexia wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I posted this deep in another part of this discussion - but the majority of the money being discussed here isn’t really for Harvard or educating its students - the largest portion are for NIH grants funding to Boston area hospitals, most of which have affiliations with Harvard Medical School. > The Crimson analyzed the proposed Trump administration funding cuts and estimated that the five hospitals’ multi-year commit…

I don't want the government to fund any of that. The government should be far far smaller. The bigger the government is, the less rights you have.

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

#709

Post by silexia »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #479
silexia wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s a very odd perspective. Could you explain how government research funding constitutes forced speech? If an individual who receives a government tax credit (say EITC) speaks out contrary to your politics, is the government allowed to withhold that credit too?

My money is taken from me at gunpoint by government forces I cannot resist without facing life in prison. I don't want this money going to random causes I disagree with. The government should be far smaller or we cannot have rights as the government will intrude on us more and more.

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

#710

Post by silexia »

jakeydus wrote: post #476
silexia wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's just how government works, buddy. I disagree with my tax dollars being spent to shoot wild horses and fund Lockheed-Martin, but here we are. It's not forced speech, because you have representatives who (in a working system) you could ask to fight against tax dollars being spent on something you dislike. You have a voice, you just don't get to have the only voice .

The majority of Americans elected Republicans specifically based on their platform of eliminating waste and corruption like these funds that go to Harvard and directly fund anti Asian discrimination. The President is simply following through on his mandate. Why do you oppose democracy?
Post reply on HN