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

Regarding the Compact

president.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 203 posts

Re: Regarding the Compact

#101

Post by runako »

dem_bones wrote: post #96
runako wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The text of the Compact: > Signatories commit to using lawful force if necessary to prevent these violations and to swift, serious, and consistent sanctions for those who commit them. Many students enter college as minors, so this is asking colleges to commit to using force against minors while only talking about hypothetical events.

What's wrong with that? They're still covered by the law.

I'll make it simple in a few steps:

1. Many people have an aversion to harming children. This aversion is not universally shared, but it is a very common stance nonetheless. Children, especially, tend to have an aversion to being harmed.

2. Universities need to recruit children to leave their families and be governed by them (e.g. housing, food, etc.).

3. Parents of children are required to get approval for those children to go to the universities, so that the universities can function.

4. It is harder to recruit children to a university that has agreed that in vague circumstances it is ready to harm them. Note here that everyone already knows that there are sanctions for breaking the law, and that the university is advertising that it is willing to go above and beyond normal law enforcement procedures in hurting children.

Does that clarify?

Re: Regarding the Compact

#102

Post by aquova »

dem_bones wrote: post #95

It sounds like MIT basically agrees with the Compact except for a few minor details. Unfortunate they didn't quote any specifics on what these are.

I think they completely disagree with the entire document, this is as kindly worded but complete rejection as they could make it.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#103

Post by dem_bones_ »

runako wrote: post #101
dem_bones wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with that? They're still covered by the law.

I'll make it simple in a few steps: 1. Many people have an aversion to harming children. This aversion is not universally shared, but it is a very common stance nonetheless. Children, especially, tend to have an aversion to being harmed. 2. Universities need to recruit children to leave their families and be governed by them (e.g. housing, food, etc.). 3. Parents of children are required to get approval for those chi…

Did you read the rest of the paragraph prior to the sentence you quoted? Any use of lawful force has to be justified by prevention of the violations described thus:

> Signatories acknowledge that the freedom to debate requires conditions of civility. Civility includes protections against institutional punishment or individual harassment for one’s views. Universities shall neither support nor permit a heckler’s veto through, for example, disruptions, violence, intimidation, or vandalism. Universities shall be responsible for ensuring that they do not knowingly: (1) permit actions by the university, university employees, university students, or individuals external to the university community to delay or disrupt class instruction or disrupt libraries or other traditional study locations; (2) allow demonstrators to heckle or accost individual students or groups of students; or (3) allow obstruction of access to parts of campus based on students’ race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.

Misbehaving children need to dealt with too, within the bounds of what is allowed by law. Otherwise, what, you want a loophole for them to get away with all of the above?

Re: Regarding the Compact

#104

Post by kjksf »

baked_beanz wrote: post #50
periodjet wrote: post #23

This seems like a reasonable response by MIT. I’m struggling to understand where the core disagreement lies though. Would someone who is opposed to this “compact” care to explain their view? I’m not interested in baseless name-calling (“fascist” etc) but I am interested in cogent reasoning. I didn’t read the compact itself, but I did read the wikipedia article about it, and it seems to be a very positive set of crite…

My main objections are to the following points: - Specifically calling out protecting "conservative ideas" in their section on creating an "intellectually open campus environment". This is a dog whistle that makes it patently clear which viewpoints will be protected, and which won't. See what happened to Mahmoud Khalil for a recent example of how this will work in practice. - Preventing admissions of foreign students…

[flagged]

Re: Regarding the Compact

#105

Post by dem_bones_ »

aquova wrote: post #102
dem_bones wrote: post #95

It sounds like MIT basically agrees with the Compact except for a few minor details. Unfortunate they didn't quote any specifics on what these are.

I think they completely disagree with the entire document, this is as kindly worded but complete rejection as they could make it.

Most of the document seems reasonable though.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#106

Post by joshuamorton »

kjksf wrote: post #71
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you injured if you can't misgender someone?

Yes, to the extent that any violation of constitution injures me. Forcing me to say things I don't want to say under threat of punishment violates first amendment. It's been litigated and so concluded. The fact that it's the 1st amendment indicates that founding fathers thought that it is indeed the greatest injury us government can inflict on us citizens.

Do you think that, to use this site's language, it would be a 1A violation to create a rule under which

> students can be reported for merely expressing their opinions about controversial political and social issues of the day or even if they prefer not to express support for American political allies and wars they may not support

Re: Regarding the Compact

#107

Post by [deleted] »

kjksf wrote: post #104
baked_beanz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main objections are to the following points: - Specifically calling out protecting "conservative ideas" in their section on creating an "intellectually open campus environment". This is a dog whistle that makes it patently clear which viewpoints will be protected, and which won't. See what happened to Mahmoud Khalil for a recent example of how this will work in practice. - Preventing admissions of foreign students…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Regarding the Compact

#108

Post by dem_bones_ »

kjksf wrote: post #104
baked_beanz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main objections are to the following points: - Specifically calling out protecting "conservative ideas" in their section on creating an "intellectually open campus environment". This is a dog whistle that makes it patently clear which viewpoints will be protected, and which won't. See what happened to Mahmoud Khalil for a recent example of how this will work in practice. - Preventing admissions of foreign students…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Regarding the Compact

#109

Post by runako »

dem_bones_ wrote: post #103
runako wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll make it simple in a few steps: 1. Many people have an aversion to harming children. This aversion is not universally shared, but it is a very common stance nonetheless. Children, especially, tend to have an aversion to being harmed. 2. Universities need to recruit children to leave their families and be governed by them (e.g. housing, food, etc.). 3. Parents of children are required to get approval for those chi…

Did you read the rest of the paragraph prior to the sentence you quoted? Any use of lawful force has to be justified by prevention of the violations described thus: > Signatories acknowledge that the freedom to debate requires conditions of civility. Civility includes protections against institutional punishment or individual harassment for one’s views. Universities shall neither support nor permit a heckler’s veto t…

Yes, I read that. As you said, the law is still operant. This is not about normal law enforcement, this is about willingness to be more aggressive than the police normally would.

> to delay or disrupt class instruction or disrupt libraries or other traditional study locations

No, I do not think that it is reasonable for a child to be beaten or shot because someone delayed a class somewhere on campus (note that this does not even indicate that the harmed student must have been part of the demonstration).

> allow demonstrators to heckle or accost individual students

I do not think this is generally enforceable outside of a police state. And no, I do not consider it reasonable for a child to be beaten or shot because a person was "heckled" somewhere on campus.

I am using "beaten or shot" because that's always a likely event when "lawful force" is exercised in America.

> you want a loophole for them to get away with all of the above

No, I want to fall back on our existing laws, which have the benefit of decades/centuries of precedent, and which are enforced in more transparent fora.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#110

Post by wat10000 »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #34

I am affiliated and have been affiliated with several top universities, including the two in Cambridge, MA. I'm an academic. I say that because this stuff directly affects my career prospects. The Compact itself can be found here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/1... It's short, I ask that you read it before commenting. It's too bad MIT has taken this stance. I think the Compact is overall…

It's a power grab that makes the university effectively subordinate to the federal government.

The most important part is the end: if the university violates the agreement, they not only lose funding, they also have to give back what they received the previous year. Such a clawback would be devastating, much worse than merely denying funding going forward. And who determines whether there's a violation? The Department of Justice apparently has sole power to make that determination. There's no mention of any appeals process or oversight.

That means that if the President has a compliant Attorney General, they can demand pretty much anything of the university under threat of finding them in violation, regardless of whether they've actually done anything wrong.

It could be a reasonable, good-faith effort if it were put forth by reasonable, good-faith people. But it very much was not.

Post reply on HN