Live data from Hacker News

Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

harvard.edu

821–830 of 1001 posts

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

#821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Diversity is bad when it involves Whites, men, straight people or research involving these groups. If you think that's what the "other side" is saying, then you've completely misunderstood what the diversity idea is about. You can't compare one idea with the misrepresentation of the opposing idea. That's just making things up.

It even has a name: strawman argument. And it's so popular!

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

#822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment and the parent’s are the best retorts I’ve seen yet to the “these people are just stupid” idea we hear all the time. These “rules” are not calculated and brilliant, and that’s the point. They’re controlling at any angle they want.

No, it's still stupid. High corruption leads to weaker economic performance (eg compare red vs blue states). Nepotism looks like winning right until it sinks your company.

Not stupid, just careless. Trump has fuck-you money, he doesn't care about the rest of the country. He wants means of extortion so people have to lick his boots to get a reprieve.

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

#823
post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah I guess this is what happens to censored viewpoints. Most people have only heard a caricature of it. The world is really a lot more interesting if you try to understand everyone’s actual perspective. It also becomes much more coherent. Nobody is evil, they just have different interests and viewpoints. In what I’ve seen of “race realist” writings online, they tend to be very anti Israel. So to associate the admin…

> Nobody is evil, they just have different interests and viewpoints.

If you're arguing a fairy-tale definition of "evil" as an inherent property were people do evil for evil's sake, or simply can't help it, sure - almost nobody is "evil", if having actual, realistic motivations automatically disqualifies "evil".

I think evil can still be a useful, moral concept, if you give up the need for it to be absolute and objective, while accepting the ambiguity that comes with it. Still, it's likely possible for a lot of people to agree what constitutes evil, especially when seeing examples.

I would certainly like to keep considering things, actions and sometimes even people, to be "evil", _especially_ after considering their motivations, views and justifications.

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

#825

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…

I don't think it's confusing. It's classic "my way or the highway" stance. "Free speech for everyone! (except for things I don't like...)".

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

#826
post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except homeland has been Egypt before it was Palestine. And Jews lived in both places peacefully after the Arabs established peace. Antisemitism is not what you want to make it out to be. It is as much a hatred against Arabs as it is against Jews, as Zionist Christians want to fill the land with Jews just so the end of the world is near, without any consideration for what happens to the Arab natives of the region.

Arabs never ‘established peace’ - historians largely agree that Islam was spread through conquest. Under Arab colonisation Jewish people either lived as Dhimmis, which are second class citizens, or were subject to outright violence (you can find many incidences of this before 1948), or both.

Yes, peace happens after conquest. Colonization never occurred. And if you want to know what happened to the Jews after Arabs conquered, listen to this historian speak: https://youtu.be/9bBlv0hfj5c?si=JVi7tMYTPwBI97gT

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

#828

Whats the problem.. just get your pal Soros to give you the money instead.. With $36T debt, Federal Government cannot continue splashing out money like there is no tomorrow

If they were concerned with spending, they’d just cut the spending.

They’re making the spending conditional on Harvard following their ideological instructions.

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

#829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LoL - why it makes any sense to do this for universities and not billionaires is beyond me, but I'm sure half the country can explain it to me like I'm 5.

The current admin is openly anti-intellectual. Edit: "We need to attack the universities in this country" "The professors are the enemy" Specific clip https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/1ichg58/ya... If you want the full speech it's on YT so if you reply with "context" you should back that up

I'd agree with you that the current admin is anti-intellectual, but this speech is not a smoking gun.

For those who need spoonfed, here is the full speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FR65Cifnhw

It's JD Vance's keynote speech at the 2021 National Conservatism conference. The speech, which I've just skimread, is mostly well-worn US conservative complaints about US higher education. He also talks about red-pilling because he's down with the kids, and he adds Jesus sprinkles in case you forgot he's Christian.

The speech is dull but it's bookended with two spicy statements, both of which you mostly quoted. The latter statement is not his words but a quote from Nixon.

Opening statement: «So much of what we want to accomplish, so much of what we want to do in this movement in this country, I think are fundamentally dependent on going through a set of very hostile institutions - specifically the universities which control the knowledge in our society, which control what we call truth and what we call falsity, that provides research that gives credibility to some of the most ridiculous ideas that exist in our country and so I'm excited to close this conference with this particular set of remarks, because I think if any of us want to do the things that we want to do for our country, and for the people who live in it, we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.»

Closing statement: «I really want to end this on an inspirational note [...] and the person whose quote I ultimately had to land on was the great prophet and statesman Richard Milhous Nixon [...] there is a season for everything in this country and I think in this movement of National Conservatism, what we need more than inspiration is we need wisdom, and there is a wisdom in what Richard Nixon said approximately 40-50 years ago. He said, and I quote: "the professors are the enemy".»

EDIT: And for the context of the Nixon quote, it comes from a private conversation Nixon had with Henry Kissinger in the Oval Office on December 14, 1972, recordings of which were released in 2008: «Henry remember... we're gonna be around and outlive our enemies. And also, never forget, the press is the enemy. The press is the enemy. The press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy. The professors are the enemy. The professors are the enemy. Write that on a blackboard 100 times and never forget it.». It's worth noting that Nixon was already keeping an "enemies list": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_Enemies_List

Post reply on HN