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

111–120 of 203 posts

Re: Regarding the Compact

#111

Post by aquova »

dem_bones_ wrote: post #105
aquova wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Regardless of what's even in the document, the core issue is the administration effectively attempting to punish universities who do not agree to whatever standards they dictate. Not because anything actually against any enacted state or federal law, or even standards set out for every university, but based on policies the executive can arbitrarily decide for a handful of schools. That's why you're seeing such push back.

As for the document itself, it's a bit of a mixed bag, with a lot of subtle gatchas to make it sound enticing on the surface, but more sinister the closer you look. I honestly like some of the proposed tuition changes, but there's some language regarding enrollment that I find problematic. However, since the whole thing is being given to them with the threat of a knife hanging over their head, you're going to see a lot of universities be opposed to this.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#112

Post by BrokenCogs »

dem_bones_ wrote: post #105
aquova wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does it? The entire Compact document is contradictory. "We don't want diversity initiatives unless they benefit the white American and conservative thought."

"We want only the best and brightest to be let in, unless they are foreign or female."

MIT is clearly rejecting it diplomatically

Re: Regarding the Compact

#113

Post by laidoffamazon »

fedsocpuppet wrote: post #30
laidoffamazon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They hate the rest of us that didn’t get into elite schools and are permanent members of the upper caste of this country. Graduate school admission is more purely meritocratic on if you can do research but even that isn’t great.

Is this like a humiliation fetish at this point? This is seriously unhealthy. We don't hate our friends that didn't a go to an eLiTe school because we're not sociopaths. Not sure why I'm even trying since you seem pretty dead set on this, but it's just a lot easier to go through life without made up enemies.

People that go to elite undergrads think the rest of us are a lower inferior caste. I don’t know how that’s even something you can deny. You’ve clearly expended a lot of effort to segregate yourself from the likes of people like me or people that go to SJSU because we don’t have “merit” or “potential”

Re: Regarding the Compact

#114

Post by pastel8739 »

kjksf wrote: post #87
sgentle wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Careful not to fall into the "People's Democratic Republic" trap: the way something is described and its purported aims are not at all the same as its actual effects (and, often, not even its intended ones). Politics is, in many cases, the art of selling you a box of spoons with "forks" printed on the label. Instead of asking "does this agreement sound nice?", ask what power it gives, to whom, and what might they wan…

There was a wave of violent disruptions across many universities under the guise of protests. "protestors" took over libraries, disrupted lectures, vandalized university property, used the power of the mob to intimidate students who disagreed. The universities have rules against all of that but failed to stop it, leading to weeks long disruptions on campus. There are videos of all that on the internet. And you're pla…

Notably, the language in the compact does not limit legal intervention to those violent actions. It requires action against even peaceful protesting in a library, or even in a hallway or outdoor area (as a student I often studied in both of these places).

Further, your "setting fire to university" video is in South Africa; it hardly seems relevant here. Access to global news will always provide extremes. To me, it's important that actions we take serve the everyday reality rather than the rare occurrences that happen in a few places but are amplified by human attraction to violence and drama.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#115

Post by anonymousiam »

Because nobody (including the link from president.mit.edu) included the text of the Compact, I'm linking it here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/1...

After a quick skim, I don't see an issue. Is the opposition to this based upon any rational argument, or is it just "Resist Trump"?

Re: Regarding the Compact

#116

Post by wat10000 »

wrs wrote: post #51
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…

The purpose of a university is to expand knowledge, which is itself not a “conservative idea”. A university that can’t “belittle” obviously false ideas like “the earth is flat” or “evolution isn’t real” or “the climate isn’t changing” just because they’re popular with whoever’s calling themselves “conservatives” at the time is not capable of functioning. You’re picking out the quote that reveals the entire document f…

I’m reminded of this classic:

Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views

Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?

Con: LOL no...no not those views

Me: So....deregulation?

Con: Haha no not those views either

Me: Which views, exactly?

Con: Oh, you know the ones

Re: Regarding the Compact

#117

Post by necovek »

nis0s wrote: post #84
necovek wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are these adversaries you speak of? How have they attacked the US of A? As an example, for a long time, spiritual and scientific enlightement was the calling card of the Warszaw pact countries: they just couldn't figure out how to earn money off it (free university education and intensive scentific curiculums in primary and high schools were common). For China today, they are thoroughly convinced they are doing t…

> Yes, I'd rather live in a "Western" country than any of the "adversaries" It’s important to reflect on why you say this because when push comes to shove, the moral relativism rings a hollow tone. The preceding parts of your post are just part of the education instilled in you from having been exposed to enlightenment-influenced frameworks.

Not really, it mostly speaks to the fact that I've been indoctrinated through my upbringing, education and environment that this is the "true" enlightenment. Even for people on the "other" side, they ask the same questions and they see the hipocrisy (it's not hard to see how capital corrupts) and get stuck. This is why morality moves in cycles even in the Western world: morality is a human construct created through reason to best enable civilization and progress.

I did not add that statement accidentally to "off myself": I did that to acknowledge that this is hard to overcome, and that none of us has a moral upper hand, really (me included).

Re: Regarding the Compact

#118

Post by dragonwriter »

kjksf wrote: post #61
runako wrote: post #18

In a way, the overreach in the compact made this an obvious (though not easy) decision. Obviously, an independent university cannot agree to government-mandated pricing or censorship of faculty members. Similarly, government intrusion into grading practices and proactively threatening to use "lawful force" against minors are immediately off the table. That's all aside from the practicality of ongoing assessment, whic…

> an independent university MIT is taking (lots of) money from federal government. That makes them dependent on the government and government is within its right to attach strings to the money. MIT is free to not do what the government wants but then government is free to stop giving them (our) money. Furthermore, MIT, like any other organization, must obey state and federal laws. For example, there's a law that you…

> MIT is taking (lots of) money from federal government. That makes them dependent on the government and government is within its right to attach strings to the money.

Governments do not have rights (except in a metaphorical sense in relations with other governments, which doesn't apply here), so it is impossible for a government to be “within its rights” when interacting with an entity to subject to its governance.

It may be within legal exercise of its powers, but that is a very a very different thing than rights, and in any case there is a very good argument that the compact is not only unlawful as an exercise of government power, but that accepting and complying with it would require universities to act in conflict with existing federal civil rights laws which provide for private causes of actions against perpetrators.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#119

Post by mostlysimilar »

anonymousiam wrote: post #115

Because nobody (including the link from president.mit.edu) included the text of the Compact, I'm linking it here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/1... After a quick skim, I don't see an issue. Is the opposition to this based upon any rational argument, or is it just "Resist Trump"?

Government forcing institutions to conform to a specific ideology.

> Signatories commit themselves to revising governance structures as necessary to create such an environment, including but not limited to transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.

> Institutions commit to defining and otherwise interpreting “male,” “female,” “woman,” and “man” according to reproductive function and biological processes.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#120

Post by justin66 »

TheCondor wrote: post #88
runako wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a motley list. I am guessing the criteria for inclusion was an administration staffer (or their offspring) was not able to secure admission.

That's a very favorable interpretation. It looks an awful lot like a sampling designed to identify who the "enemies" are.

I was thinking it was a rare display of caution on the part of otherwise careless idiots. (or maybe we just got lucky) They aren't fucking with any of the universities responsible for managing national laboratories.
Post reply on HN