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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by johnnyanmac »

belorn wrote: post #875
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…

I am strongly reminded of my own governments (Sweden) attempts to introduce diversity programs into the school system, only to have each attempt ending in the court system that then finds the programs as discriminatory. In a few examples where they then went and tried to circumvent the anti-discriminatory laws, those attempts tend to favor the wrong demographic and get canceled shortly after. The very concept of favo…

Sadly America was founded on principles that too 200 years to try and undo. And given the last year alone, they are still stripping rights as we speak. I don't know which fork we turned on that made us so reliable on racism and sexism to function and band together as a country that much of the EU seems to have navigated better. Maybe reconstruction should have had an actual Nuremburg trial instead of "forgiveness" (aka pushing the can down the street until someone could assassinate the one trying to compromise).

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

#962

Post by Ray20 »

EasyMark wrote: post #953
NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "comprehensive mask ban" would presumably include exceptions for people who are immunocompromised, actively sick with an upper-respiratory infection, etc. Steelman, don't straw man.

"presumably" is carrying a lot of water here. For instance women are bleeding out in Texas parking lots because doctors are afraid to give abortions even on women who could potentially die from complications because it's not a sure thing. This is the MAGA mentality

Let's be realistic: how many doctors have ever been held accountable for performing abortions to avoid complications? How do you even imagine a trial against such a doctor? Women are bleeding out in Texas parking lots because doctors wants them to bleed out to make a political stunt.

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

#963

Post by johnnyanmac »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #766
forty wrote: 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 your interest is in killing me on account of how I look and nothing else, I would indeed consider you evil. Your "viewpoints" end where my rights begin.

as for the admin, I don't care about their views. They have a constitution to follow. Which is specifically aobut what the government cannot do to its people. We tolerated KKK and Neonazi rallies under those principles of freedom of speech and assembly. While citizens can counter protest, the government stepping in to quash either of those people is illegal here.

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

#964

Post by johnnyanmac »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #836
forty wrote: 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.

Genocided is certainly the wrong term. It is not on all Palestinians but the government of Gaza did attack Israel. It fired an insane amount of rockets before their latest attack too, but that has already been seen as normalized. Which is ridiculous as well. If oppression justifies these rocket attacks, a lot more than some rhetoric can be justified as well.

I am not learned enough on this topic but:

>the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

I don't know how you say that isn't aa textbook definition of genocide.

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

#965

Post by johnnyanmac »

deepsun wrote: post #682
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.

But I don't understand why 14%? It should be the same as you, 20%. Same goes for religious organizations, but it would be extremely hard to enforce, as they might say "government is interfering us practicing our religion", as practicing religions helps to not pay taxes and protected by the Constitution.

>But I don't understand why 14%? It should be the same as you, 20%.

Taxing donations is really thorny. If people realize that the government is taking money they want to give away... they stop giving away money. It's a self-terminating cliche in action. So you either leave it alone if you want to encourage people stimulating charities, or you make the tax very small.

>Same goes for religious organizations,

I don't fully know. Some attempt at separattion of church and state. The government tries to maintain that except when other boundaries are crossed.

It does sort of fall into the same umbrella though, when regarding tithes.

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

#966

Post by johnnyanmac »

jcalvinowens wrote: post #916
glompers wrote: post #911

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I think the point is that money for many was taxed before the paycheck ever came in. And you have no control over it. Part of your W-2 goes to fund social security, part of it to fund the federal, part of it to fund the state.

Taxing donations is just double dipping on your money. That's how you discourage donating.

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

#967

Post by johnnyanmac »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #729
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.

"funded by my already taxed earnings" Why did you even try that? Blew your whole argument.

why do you disagree? Most people working a job do have taxes taken out. That's why you get a "return" when the IRS realizes they took too much or you provide other means to deduct your taxes.

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

#968

Post by johnnyanmac »

andsoitis wrote: post #726
mmooss wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't care about taxes - they are happy to implement regressive taxes that disproportionately burden the middle class and poor, such as sales taxes, Social Security, etc. They just don't want to pay taxes themselves.

> They don't care about taxes - they are happy to implement regressive taxes that disproportionately burden the middle class and poor, such as sales taxes, Social Security, etc. They just don't want to pay taxes themselves. A very large portion of the country vote Republican, and I would be surprised if they are by and large the most well-off part of the American public.

And you are right... that's why "The Party" instead appeals to "the party" with various single issues (you know all the hot topics) and implement (or perhaps, pretend to implement) those while the real bills "The Party" want are passed under their nosess. "The Party" spends a dollar on "the party" while grabbing hundreds from the vault they all pitched into.

Worked for decades. Not so well when Trump so publicly tanked the economy and snatched one of the 3 untouchable things.

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

#969

Post by johnnyanmac »

soundnote wrote: post #948
adfm wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No skin in the game, but curious to know why any Republican would want to raise taxes. Is this some sort of power play like the tariffs? Feels like they’re ghost riding the economy for the lulz.

Easy, Harvard is essentially a training center for their ideological enemies on top of providing an actual education. They're just putting the boot down and saying stick to teaching instead of implementing and advancing a specific ideology. If taxes are the tools, so be it.

Harvard is a private instutution. If they want to teach underwater basket weaving, there's not much you can do to stop that. Anymore than Trump can raid apple and tell them to start making Androids. I thought a billionaire businessman would understand that much; imagine if Clinton back in the day tried to seize Trump Towers.

And while we long forgotten: don't forget that all of this is illegal. to retract congressionally appropriated funds that were already budgeted. The time to yoink this stuff legally was a month ago.

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

#970

Post by johnnyanmac »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #440
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.…

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.

Why do you expect a billionaire to steal from billionaires? a portion of non-essential stealing comes from respct, and of course these billionaires are all a part of the same club.

The other lens is simple as well: big fish don't go after the other big fish. That just ends in two hurt fish and no food. Trump thought he was going after a small fry and underestimated the response. just because Columbia folded doesn't mean all universities will.

lens #3: this clip explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbWnJGlyMU

He's a bully but if everyone realizes they outnumber (and outmatch him) he loses his power).

Post reply on HN