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

751–760 of 1001 posts

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

#751

Post by thegreatpeter »

hayst4ck wrote: post #465
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…

Authoritarian governments are arbitrary governments, all decisions are made arbitrarily. Consistency is unnecessary. That's the trouble with choosing power as a guiding principle over reason or consent.

[flagged]

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

#752

Post by aleppax »

This is massive. In Europe, we know what real Resistance looks like. And what Harvard just did? That is Resistance, plain and simple.

It breaks my heart to see my country backing the fascist side of history again. But just like before, we won’t stay silent.

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

#754

Post by Fraterkes »

martin82 wrote: post #721
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.)…

[flagged]

Do you have a source? You can have mine: https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/news/comprehensive-review-confirms-...

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

#756

Post by aitchnyu »

zanellato19 wrote: post #591
hayst4ck wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Authoritarian governments are arbitrary governments, all decisions are made arbitrarily. Consistency is unnecessary. That's the trouble with choosing power as a guiding principle over reason or consent.

Consistency is undesirable, because if everyone is breaking a law, you apply the hammer of justice only if they aren't a friend. It's one of the best ways to look good to certain people as well,because you can claim to be just following the law.

Is there any political tool to prevent rampant rule breaking and making the disliked rulebreaker specially vulnerable? Rule breaking is common and apocrypal form of strike involve following the rules to the letter and paralyzing the business. The prevailing principle is "you cant defend yourself by pointing to other rulebreakers" while reality is "its legal if a hundred businessmen do it".

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

#757

Post by jiriknesl »

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.

If the university was founded by the government, it should represent Americans. All of them. Half of Americans are conservative. Approx. half of academia should be conservative.

Harvard is older than both parties. There is no good reason why it should cater to only one half of Americans.

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

#758

Post by eastbound »

giardini wrote: post #656
abirch wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is genius. Next up, Apple could easily convert into a church with its many disciples.

And this is why I believe governments should tax nonprofit organizations!

In France, we ran an NGO whose music festival got a bit big… a million or two of beer sales. Tax office came in and put that part of the NGO under the business rules, ie we paid and received VAT, paid the corporate tax at the normal rate, etc. We ended up putting the entire charity under the business rule because it was more profitable (saving VAT on all providers, while our donations were exempt of VAT).

I’m surprised USA doesn’t have a rule that industrial/commercial sections of any org is liable to all corporate tax laws.

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

#759

Post by Thorrez »

abirch wrote: post #649
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, colleges were originally religious institutions. (Harvard was founded to train clergy [1].) Converting the Corporation to Harvard Church is about the least shenanigany thing I could think of in this tale. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Harvard_University

This is genius. Next up, Apple could easily convert into a church with its many disciples.

Well, a nonprofit cannot have owners. Apple has owners.

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

#760

Post by forty »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #747
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]

I'm not sure what "agree with the Palestinians" would mean. Like they are not happy with being genocided? I think that would be most people's feeling in that situation, though that doesn't show any proximity in belief, value or principle.
Post reply on HN