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

791–800 of 1001 posts

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

#791

Post by etchalon »

jiriknesl wrote: post #757
allturtles wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was founded by a government, not the federal government, let alone this government. It was founded before this government existed.

And it's been a private institution for hundreds of years.

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

#792

Post by etchalon »

nailer wrote: post #667
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]

So long as they're their viewpoints.

You don't see letters going out to conservative institutions demanding they hire gender ideology professors or communists.

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

#793

Post by CogitoCogito »

silexia wrote: post #709
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't want this money going to random causes I disagree with.

There certainly is _no_ government spending supported by _all_ Americans, so your position isn't a very practical approach to governance.

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

#794

Post by davegri »

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…

The demands only seem inconsistent if you don't look at the actual principle underlying them. Political discourse tends to present opposing ideologies as being about principles like "free speech" or "free markets" - it's really all about power, who has it, and who wants it.

In this case its strengthening particular social and economic hierarchies - america vs the rest of the world, and white christians over non-whites or non-christian.

What's interesting is that this is not necessarily a struggle between the top of a hierarchy vs the bottom of one, but between two different hierarchies. The democrats support cultural non racial and economic hierarchies, while the republicans support racial international and the same economic hierarchies. So while they both support the rich over the working class, there is a struggle over whether to support racial and international hierarchies. Democrats tend to support globalization, i.e unifying of the power of the top of the economic hierarchy across international boundaries, while eliminating racial and sexual hierarchies as they are seen as "inefficient" from a neoliberal perspective. Republicans are more focused on the "national elite", the rich people that depend on america being a global hegemon specifically, energy industry, military industira-complex, etc..

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

#795

Post by brigandish »

yongjik wrote: post #110
almogo wrote: post #22

No mention of anti-Asian discrimination? It made big rounds in all the American media circles a few years back, and if memory serves, MAGA boarded that train too.

MAGA loves to say how universities screw over poor hard-working Asian students, and then they turn around and defund universities and fire researchers. Their pity on Asians is not sincere, because they detest higher education in the first place. And I'm saying this as an Asian father whose kid is going to a US college this year.

> then they turn around and defund universities

Harvard was one of the universities "screw[ing] over poor, hard-working Asian students", so I'm not sure the criticism holds, especially when the government's letter is asking for merit based admissions reform.

Are there other universities that weren't discriminating against Asians that the government has or has moved to defund?

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

#796

Post by dspillett »

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…

It is easier to understand their thinking when you combine each pair of demands: what they want is reversals, they've just split each into two steps because they think that will be more palatable. It makes it easier to sell to their own base certainly, because they can concentrate on whichever half has the most emotive effect in any given speech, and easier for their base to parrot: they just repeat the half they want and don't need to think about the other.

The end to current diversity policies and the start of others combined is a demand for u-turn: stop allowing the things we don't like, start allowing the things you were stopping.

Same for speech: stop auditing the speech we want to say, start auditing the speech you were previously allowing.

And so on.

In the minds of the administration it makes sense, because they think of each item separately where there is conflict and together where there is not. Such cognitive dissonance seems to be their natural state of mind, the seem to seek it.

Much like their cries of “but what about tolerance?!”¹ when you mention punching nazis. They want the complete about-turn: LBTQ out, racism/sexism/phobias in. You are supposed to tolerate what they want you to tolerate, and little or nothing else.

--------

[1] My answer there has often become “you didn't want tolerance, you specifically voted against continued tolerance, what you voted for won, intolerance is your democratically chosen desire, who am I to deny the will of your people?”.

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

#797

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

tines wrote: post #644
Loughla wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want freedom for themselves. They're free to impose their will on others without judgement. That's the purpose.

I wrote this on another thread recently, reposting here: Things started to make more sense to me once I realized that by nature, human beings hate freedom and love tyranny. Once you accept this, it all falls in place. Deporting citizens to foreign prisons? Sounds great. Incoherent foreign and economic policy? Love it. Freedom of the press? Who needs it! Destruction of democracy? Own the libs! Legalize bribery of fore…

Autocracy, or some form of it, has been the dominant form of governance throughout the history of human civilization. That's not gonna change just because we got Apple watches. Democracy was a really nice experiment, but it's over now.

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

#798

Post by aetimmes »

WeylandYutani wrote: post #679
squigz wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And under the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

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

#799

Post by [deleted] »

os2warpman wrote: post #431
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 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…

[deleted]

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

#800

Post by GoblinSlayer »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #786
atoav wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It all makes sense with a fascist power logic. The goal isn't to implement consistent policy to reach rational targets. The goal is to wield power and slowly errode any opposition with divisive actions that support anybody that is loyal to you. Importantly being loyal doesn't guarantee you will be spared. In these goals consistency is irrelevant, in fact being inconsistent and acting with arbitrary despotism is a fea…

I’d like to get out while I can, but to what country? Any suggestions? By the way the answer to your question is simple: the American people are fascists, not just the president.

Canada.
Post reply on HN