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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by glompers »

hnburnsy wrote: post #655
robocat wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans Are Floating Plans To Raise the Endowment Tax. Here’s What You Need To Know : https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/11/increasing-endo... Proposed College Endowment Tax Hike: What to Know : https://thecollegeinvestor.com/52851/proposed-college-endowm... College endowments are typically tax-exempt, but a 2017 law imposed a 1.4% tax on investment income for a small group of wealthy private universities.…

>A new proposal seeks to increase the endowment tax rate to 14% That would be great that Harvard pays %14 on investment income on its 50 billion fund, considering I pay a minimum of 20% on my 'way less than $50 billion' in taxable investments, which was funded by my already taxed earnings, where as Harvard gets much of its endowment funds gifted to it.

People already paid their taxes on all of the principal before they donated it to fund education. You and I are not chartered as an educational endowment; things like Roth IRAs exist for us.

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

#912

Post by searealist »

stevenwoo wrote: post #895
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.

> only had traffic violations according to what I read in the Texas Tribune

I don't think that is true. Do you have any examples?

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

#913

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#914

Post by atoav »

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.

First I think people who recognize there are problems is what is needed now. You leaving makes things worse.

Then again, it is understandable not everybody has the luxury to be in circumstances that allow adequate forms of resistance.

If you ask about which country, I'd say it depends. It depends on who youaare, what your skills are, which climate zones and cultures you prefer, whether you're willing to learn a new language and so on.

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

#915

Post by reverendsteveii »

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…

You see the establishment of separate, unwritten classes of things here, right? It will be a case-by-case basis which of these rules is invoked, that way no matter what happens they're "just following the rules we all agreed to" but they get to hand-select which thoughts are compulsory and which are forbidden.

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

#916

Post by jcalvinowens »

glompers wrote: post #911
hnburnsy wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A new proposal seeks to increase the endowment tax rate to 14% That would be great that Harvard pays %14 on investment income on its 50 billion fund, considering I pay a minimum of 20% on my 'way less than $50 billion' in taxable investments, which was funded by my already taxed earnings, where as Harvard gets much of its endowment funds gifted to it.

People already paid their taxes on all of the principal before they donated it to fund education. You and I are not chartered as an educational endowment; things like Roth IRAs exist for us.

> People already paid their taxes on all of the principal before they donated it to fund education

That's not true, the donations are tax exempt (deductible).

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

#917

Post by snowflakez »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #891
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.

[dead]

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

#918

Post by reverendsteveii »

Herring wrote: post #629
elliotec wrote: post #611

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.

They're not selecting to maximize performance, they're selecting to maximize their own control. Pete Hegseth isn't SecDef because he's good at it. He leaks war plans and can't get through a press conference without being seen with a drink in his hand. He's SecDef because he'll do what Trump tells him to do regardless of whether it's legal or a good idea. The tariffs aren't meant to bring manufacturing back. They'd have gradual and consistent and the money raised would be earmarked for developing that industry at home if they were. They're arbitrary because they're the way the people in charge punish countries and companies that don't bend the knee. Everything they're doing is about removing the institution of government with its pesky rules and procedures and bringing everything under the control of one guy who can reward and punish arbitrarily as he sees fit. Overall economic performance simply isn't a factor.

It's changed my outlook a lot to make an arbitrary decision to stop assuming people are stupid when their stated goals don't line up with their actions, and to start assuming the easily predictable results of their actions are their actual goals regardless of what their stated goals are. Once I did that, I started being able to understand and even predict what these previously inscrutable people would do next.

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

#919

Post by jdthedisciple »

The preponderance of academic and philosophical disingenuity — which could only be equally well explained by immensely subpar raw intellect (doubtful on HN) — in this very comment section perfectly illustrates why DJT was elected POTUS.

Let me just repeat the basic point:

Phenotype diversity != Viewpoint diversity

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

#920

Post by jdthedisciple »

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.

If you genuinely cannot distinguish the two then that's about equally as bad as cognitive dissonance:

Phenotype diversity != Viewpoint diversity

The former is what current academia and DEI focus on, the latter is what the administration demands.

Does this simple logic need to be expressed in Rust for HN folks to wrap their mind around it?

Post reply on HN