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

891–900 of 1001 posts

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

#891

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

duxup wrote: post #119

From the feds documents they describe the federal government as thought police: >Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be indi…

I prefer these thought police to the thought police we had previously.

The "diversity" thought police had very strong views about what the only acceptable thoughts were. These people are like, "if we could get it up to 30% that would be a huge victory". Actual diversity in thought at top American universities would be a boon.

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

#892

Post by belorn »

kenjackson wrote: post #647
impossiblefork wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standardized test reliably predict academic success. IQ tests similarly. Here in Sweden, if you do well enough on the entrance exam, we simply let you in, even to the best universities. This means that people other than hoop-jumpers have a chance.

Academic success isn’t what Harvard cares about. They want leaders, not kids who are great at “school”. Put it this way they’d much rather have Roberts or Obama as alumni than your typical 1600 SAT quant. Whats the best metric to find the people they are looking to educate?

If that is their goal, should they even be classified as a university? Formal education that the government regulate has different goals from non-formal and informal education. If the goal is to be a primer for leaders, then they can be that without mixing it with formal education.

If we want the selection process of future leaders to be government regulated under formal education, then we should have a discussion on how such system should look like. The current system is a bit like the old fraternal groups, with the admission system being relocated to the university admission board. There should be better way to select future leaders.

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

#893

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

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…

[flagged]

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

#894

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

newAccount2025 wrote: post #863
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Defending all speech however deplorable would be consistent and defensible. The administration isn’t doing that. They are targeting speech they don’t like. Don’t speak out against our genocide in Gaza or be deported/expelled. Don’t share your pronouns or lose your job. Etc.

HAMAS is a designated terrorist organization. It is the U.S. government's job to keep out foreigners who overtly do things like support terrorist organizations, do human trafficking, etc.

It's quite simple, IMHO, and not a free speech issue. Americans don't owe entry to everyone who shows up at their borders, nor do they owe them a full suite of rights and legal protections once they're admitted.

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

#895

Post by stevenwoo »

priyadarshy wrote: post #573

The wildest thing I read was: > Harvard will immediately report to federal authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security and State Department, any foreign student, including those on visas and with green cards, who commits a conduct violation. Conduct violations at Universities are a pretty broad set of rules at universities and don't necessarily line up with what's legal or not but more with the univers…

Some of those international students with their visas revoked apparently only had traffic violations according to what I read in the Texas Tribune. They are going after any level of law breaking in order to match their stated goal of kicking out criminals, since they are having trouble reaching the numbers promised in campaign speeches.

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

#896

Post by munchler »

janalsncm wrote: post #369
bhouston wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all I can think is what a fucking lay-up I am nervous about the US right now. So many cases are going to end up at the Supreme Court that is controlled by conservatives. It may not be the lay-up you think it is. Also what happens if Trump just decides to ignore a court loss as he did with the recent deportation of Kilmar Garcia?

I don’t agree with Roberts but he isn’t a hack. For what it’s worth, he also went to Harvard.

I think conservative Harvard graduates are among the most eager to impose their will on Harvard. Look at Harvard grad Elise Stefanik, for example.

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

#897

Post by munchler »

Loughla wrote: post #509
bhouston wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all I can think is what a fucking lay-up I am nervous about the US right now. So many cases are going to end up at the Supreme Court that is controlled by conservatives. It may not be the lay-up you think it is. Also what happens if Trump just decides to ignore a court loss as he did with the recent deportation of Kilmar Garcia?

It will take a majority of states, and their military backing, forcefully overthrowing Trump. I really hate to be alarmist, but it does feel more and more that we're headed to massive, coordinated state against state violence.

From a geographic standpoint, the conflict isn’t state vs. state this time around, though, it’s rural vs. urban. Blue cities in red states. Red counties in blue states. Not very conducive to conventional military conflict.

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

#898

Post by insane_dreamer »

koolba wrote: post #834
insane_dreamer wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Trump was a black woman he would never get away with half the things he is doing now If Trump were a black woman (or man), he would have never survived the release of the Hollywood Access tape and therefore would have never gotten elected.

Yes a black man can only (politically) get away with something less risque like smoking crack cocaine on video during an FBI sting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/local/fbi-video-of-unde... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry

Pretty bad false equivalency. Barry was barred from running and went to federal prison. Yes, he was eligible to run (and was re-elected) but only _after_ he served his sentence. Did I miss the part where Trump went to jail?

You also can't compare a mayoral election with a presidential one.

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

#899

Post by Sonnigeszeug »

Soooo you want freedom of speech but if you don't like what someone else is doing, you want to censor them?

And even the reps don't mind this?

How hypocratic do you have to be to want to get rid of the 'Wokeshit' which is freespeech while also advocating for free speech?

Btw. the real term for what type of speech radicals and nazis is abusive speech and yes there are good reasons why abusive speech should lead to consequences

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

#900

Post by aisenik »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #893
fransje26 wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Could you please cite some examples? This reads like a bunch of strawmen set up by someone aggrieved by trans rights and racial equality.
Post reply on HN