Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal agencies continue terminating all funding to Harvard

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 154 posts

Re: Federal agencies continue terminating all funding to Harvard

#81

Post by Braxton1980 »

landl0rd wrote: post #73
Braxton1980 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to. However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social program…

Defense is existential and welfare is not. Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be. My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Primes are the prime contractors: boeing,…

By welfare I was referring to all social programs, medicare, medicad, etc because you mentioned Trump and said "The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt." Which sounds like you were generalizing.

Did you specifically mean welfare run by states? If so then wouldn't that debt be localized to a state and the left is already in control of certain states so that it wouldn't be a future event? Confusing.

Re: Federal agencies continue terminating all funding to Harvard

#82

Post by [deleted] »

landl0rd wrote: post #73
Braxton1980 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to. However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social program…

Defense is existential and welfare is not. Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be. My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Primes are the prime contractors: boeing,…

[deleted]

Re: Federal agencies continue terminating all funding to Harvard

#83

Post by Braxton1980 »

landl0rd wrote: post #73
Braxton1980 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to. However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social program…

Defense is existential and welfare is not. Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be. My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Primes are the prime contractors: boeing,…

>Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not.

Every federal social program is backed by a law giving the federal government that power. The Stafford act and social security act for example.

>Defense must be handled at the national welfare

Why can't defense be per state? If the answer is it's not efficient or coordination then the same could be said for any social program

>My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do

Why? I understand your view I would like to understand why you have it.

>It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first.

Why? Wouldn't it be better to look at the least nessacary line items. Counter example;

I spend $1000 a month on housing, $300 on video games, and $200 on Pokemon plush toys.

If I was overspending would the first change be my housing?

Re: Federal agencies continue terminating all funding to Harvard

#84

Post by Braxton1980 »

uhhhd wrote: post #72
Braxton1980 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These protests were mostly against the state of Israel which isn't a violation of Title IX.I know there were specific instances of Anti-Semitism, which were wrong and should be punished, but is there evidence Harvard didn't take action for those? ----- My concern is that Anti-Zionism is being conflated with Anti-Semitism by the complainants in order to 1. Bolster their case wrongfully by increasing the number of inci…

"I know there were specific instances of Anti-Semitism, which were wrong and should be punished, but is there evidence Harvard didn't take action for those?" That is literally the allegation made in the lawsuit. And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.

>That is literally the allegation made in the lawsuit.

"I'd like to open my case against John Smith for murder your honor. My only piece of evidence that he committed this horrific crime is that he was accused of it. I rest my case"

>And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.

By all who were there or just some? Being the protest was open to all how can you lump all protestors together because of the views of some.

>intentionally obtuse

Because I avoided generalizations?

Re: Federal agencies continue terminating all funding to Harvard

#85

Post by Braxton1980 »

uhhhd wrote: post #74
Braxton1980 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These protests were mostly against the state of Israel which isn't a violation of Title IX.I know there were specific instances of Anti-Semitism, which were wrong and should be punished, but is there evidence Harvard didn't take action for those? ----- My concern is that Anti-Zionism is being conflated with Anti-Semitism by the complainants in order to 1. Bolster their case wrongfully by increasing the number of inci…

References to Israel are not unnecessary details when protestors call for the elimination of the only existing Jewish state. Anti-Zionism isn't criticism of Israel. Its eliminationist rhetoric and plainly bigoted.

>Anti-Zionism isn't criticism of Israel

"opposition to the establishment or support of the state of Israel"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Zionism

>Its eliminationist rhetoric and plainly bigoted.

There are some who think Israel shouldn't exist others who think their government is wrong.

If a person thinks all Israelis should be murdered then that's wrong. This is not the whole representation of Anti-Zionism but you are trying to make it

You can only be bigoted against a person or group of people, not a country or government.

Re: Federal agencies continue terminating all funding to Harvard

#86

Post by Braxton1980 »

firesteelrain wrote: post #80
Braxton1980 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[8,9 dup] checked the course catalog and there are classes on topics that I think most would consider social activism. The CS professor just running a word search is a poor experiment but this doesn't negate your point. [1] The DEI intitive is social activism [2] True but not an official school policy but a professor [3] Independent organization [4] Article on protests and mentions faculty support them [5-6] Accusati…

The computer science professor isn’t some nobody either - long time faculty, graduated in 1968, former Dean. In the case of the curriculum, it suggests an institutional preference for particular ideological narratives Harvard selectively aligned with or tolerated specific activist ideologies while suppressing or distancing themselves from others For DEI (which is just rebranded now honestly), it suggests that Harvard…

>They shouldn’t indoctrinate any students whatsoever

Are there?

>suggests that Harvard pushes only progressive policies

How does Harvard's DEI program suggest they ONLY push progressive policies?

Re: Federal agencies continue terminating all funding to Harvard

#87

Post by Braxton1980 »

firesteelrain wrote: post #80
Braxton1980 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[8,9 dup] checked the course catalog and there are classes on topics that I think most would consider social activism. The CS professor just running a word search is a poor experiment but this doesn't negate your point. [1] The DEI intitive is social activism [2] True but not an official school policy but a professor [3] Independent organization [4] Article on protests and mentions faculty support them [5-6] Accusati…

The computer science professor isn’t some nobody either - long time faculty, graduated in 1968, former Dean. In the case of the curriculum, it suggests an institutional preference for particular ideological narratives Harvard selectively aligned with or tolerated specific activist ideologies while suppressing or distancing themselves from others For DEI (which is just rebranded now honestly), it suggests that Harvard…

>The computer science professor isn’t some nobody either - long time faculty, graduated in 1968, former Dean.

That's nice

"Although acknowledging his experiment’s limitations – “word frequency is an imperfect measure”

The classes exist and he could have confirmed by attending them or checking course material. I was complaining about his lazy method

It doesn't matter I said you proved that point

Re: Federal agencies continue terminating all funding to Harvard

#88

Post by AlotOfReading »

programjames wrote: post #68
AlotOfReading wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

75 years ago was right in the middle of McCarthyism, when universities were not only taking federal GI Bill money hand over fist, but instituting loyalty pledges and political review boards for staff and students. I don't think anyone needed to contemplate theoretical financial levers when they had much more straightforward examples immediately at hand.

Tuition money doesn't fund research, so how is the GI Bill relevant?

It's an example of universities accepting federal funds. I didn't actually know the breakdown of federal university funding in the 1950s, so I had to look it up. For separately budgeted research, federal funds were ~70% of dollars according to a 1954 NSF survey. For total expenditures, they were 42%. A bit over half of that went to medical and agricultural research.

Re: Federal agencies continue terminating all funding to Harvard

#89

Post by beej71 »

yieldcrv wrote: post #38
spinarrets wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side, accepting this funding has allowed for a lot of research to progress. Sometimes those strings attached still lead to a net good. Obviously, you should always have a plan for "what if this source of funding goes to zero, suddenly", and be prepared to walk away if needs be. But it's hard to imagine what university research would be like if they didn't accept Federal funding. (Much, much weaker, I'd im…

> If the usefulness of the work has proven itself now, then other sources can fund it.

Let's remember that China funds all kinds of research, not just the research with guaranteed profit. (Indeed, private industry already funds research with guaranteed profit.)
Post reply on HN