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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by varelse »

fransje26 wrote: post #813
dspillett wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wan…

Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. [..] The frigh…

[dead]

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

#842

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

arp242 wrote: post #169

So first they demand "Merit-Based Hiring Reform" and "Merit-Based Admissions Reform", and then it continues to demand "Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring". I can't even engage with these levels of cognitive dissonance. Or bad faith. Or whatever it is.

It's not cognitive dissonance, or bad faith. Of course.

If you let Harvard do "merit-based hiring", they'll move a little in the direction of actually complying with employment law, but not much. If you institute a regime such as the one that existed for race and sex for decades (i.e., if you don't have "enough" black people, you need to show how your recruitment pipeline means that's necessarily the case, like not enough get the required type of degree), you'll get much better compliance.

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

#843

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

fisherjeff wrote: post #478
sys32768 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harvard admitted it needs to "...broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community..." This is a no-brainer considering only 2.3% of their faculty identifies as conservative. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/5/22/faculty-survey-...

Well, 2.3% of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences. I would bet that, say, the business school has a slightly different makeup…

We're talking about going from 2.3% to maybe 13%. And this isn't a reflection of attitudes among people who are potentially employed there, it's a reflection of overt, rigid filtering on the basis of political beliefs.

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

#844

Post by stackedinserter »

monero-xmr wrote: post #738
jmye wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y'all have a lot of inner city neighborhoods that have been systematically destroyed over decades due to redlining, Jim Crow laws, lynching their inhabitants or just outright burning them to the ground, or is “but we do it in Europe” maybe frequently as stupid a comment as “but we do it in America” and is best kept to one’s self, if one doesn’t actually understand how it might be applicable? Also, bullshit on IQ test…

If someone has a low IQ and can’t do well on a standardized test, how in the world will they succeed at Harvard? Even if you believe that such tests simply reflect privilege and reveal absolutely nothing regarding innate talent, what difference does it make? It can be a point-of-time snapshot but it still doesn’t mean letting in low-IQ poorly-equipped students to Harvard will help them or anyone else.

Just go sports.

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

#845

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

arrosenberg wrote: post #539
janalsncm wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am against admissions discrimination so I disagree. Conservatives should get into schools based on merit.

Do they ask for your political ideology on the Harvard application?

De facto yes. This is what essays, particularly "diversity statements" are for.

Also, if you're an academic seeking employment, your work and professional connections will make it clear.

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

#846

Post by matthewdgreen »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #820
kristopolous wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When these people use "freedom of speech" all they mean is they want to say their vile Nazi stuff without people complaining.

[flagged]

I was one of the people who briefly tried to take right wing “free speech” arguments at face value, eg when Elon Musk bought Twitter. Almost instantly he began allowing white supremacists and actual declared neo-Nazis back onto the platform, while kicking people off for any speech he didn’t like. I don’t think the claim “the recent right wing enthusiasm for ‘free speech’” does, in fact, selectively benefit Nazis and white supremacists” is actually wrong when you evaluate the effects.

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

#847

Post by CoastalCoder »

blindriver wrote: post #625
tastyface wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define “terrorism.” The administration, for example, freely uses the word to describe someone with no criminal record and no proven gang affiliations: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrwrrkbnf2e They also use the word to describe Tesla vandals: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/03/25/us/fbi-task-force-tesla-a...

The US government has determined that the individual belonged to a gang. Also, the government of El Salvador confirmed this. The fact that the lawyer for the person says "there's no evidence" doesn't mean there actually isn't any evidence. It just hasn't been revealed. I believe that setting Teslas on fire is domestic terrorism. They were politically motivated to specifically target a political figure to intimidate o…

> The US government has determined that the individual belonged to a gang.

The executive branch has made that allegation. The person didn't have a trial in the judicial branch.

Please look up "habeas corpus", and Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

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

#849

Post by alexb_ »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #843
fisherjeff wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, 2.3% of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences. I would bet that, say, the business school has a slightly different makeup…

We're talking about going from 2.3% to maybe 13%. And this isn't a reflection of attitudes among people who are potentially employed there, it's a reflection of overt, rigid filtering on the basis of political beliefs.

Typically, in order to be employed at a college, you have to be smart and aware of the world. This qualification disqualifies basically all conservatives.

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

#850

Post by baegi »

inglor_cz wrote: post #817
const_cast wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives will make observations such as "the most educated people are almost never conservative" and they will conclude that it's not their ideology that may be on shaky grounds, but rather the concept of education itself.

"Most American academia" !== "most educated people" (much less so if taken globally). Many Americans would be seriously surprised by the balance of left and right at continental European universities. It is nowhere near as one-sided. And Asian universities are a completely different world. Generalizing from the extremely lopsided ratios in academia of the Anglosphere to the global educated class is somewhat unreliabl…

From my European pont of view, I think the definitions of left and right have shifted a lot.

Sure, in Europe left and right may be more closely matched in academia, but most "right"-leaning Europeans would not be anywhere near the "right" in US-terms, so your argument is comparing very different things

Post reply on HN