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

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

Post by surge »

areoform wrote: post #139
outer_web wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Habeas corpus - still in effect unless you're already in El Salvador.

It's not. The rubicon has already been crossed. If you asked some of the framers of the US constitution - beyond all other factors, unelected powers etc - what was the one defining trait of the government structure they wished to avoid; they'd have replied with arbitrary imprisonment and the suspension of due process. Please don't take my word for it, hear it from the Prosecutor's Prosecutor. The SCOTUS justice, form…

[flagged]

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

#232

Post by settrans »

breadwinner wrote: post #117

Being anti-Israel should not be conflated with being antisemitic. After all, the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu for a reason. Trump is using “antisemitism” as cover for the imposition of authoritarianism. This comes from Putin's playbook. Putin used denazification as an excuse for invading Ukraine. Trump himself has espoused antisemitism from time to time, see below. John Kell…

[flagged]

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

#233

Post by __jl__ »

bretpiatt wrote: post #32

With their endowment above $50 billion, combined with Federal plus Non-Federal sponsored revenue at 16% of operating budget, it makes sense to me they just forgo Federal funds and operate independently. If all 16% is canceled, then they'd need to draw an additional $1 billion per year from endowment at current budget levels. That would put them above 7% draw so potentially unsustainable for perpetuity, historically t…

I think the 9 billion is very misleading. More than half goes to hospitals affiliated with Harvard. I am not sure but I don't think they get anything from the endowment. The impact of loosing this money would be very uneven across different parts of the university and hospitals affiliated with it.

The faculty of arts and science would be fine. Yes, some cuts, a hiring freeze etc. The med school and public health school would feel a big impact. They employ so many people on "soft money" through grants including many faculty members.

The hospitals are a different story and I am not sure why they are even lumped together.

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

#236

Post by BuckRogers »

esrauch wrote: post #213
FloorEgg wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the letter sent from the government to Harvard?

I did; it explicitly demanding an audit of employees and students political views, the forced hiring of more professors who are sympathetic to the current administration's politics. That doesn't sound authoritarian to you? Can you imagine if Obama had demanded that any university do an ideological purge of its conservative staff and students?

[flagged]

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

#237

Post by areoform »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #199
areoform wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. The rubicon has already been crossed. If you asked some of the framers of the US constitution - beyond all other factors, unelected powers etc - what was the one defining trait of the government structure they wished to avoid; they'd have replied with arbitrary imprisonment and the suspension of due process. Please don't take my word for it, hear it from the Prosecutor's Prosecutor. The SCOTUS justice, form…

The more fundamental corollary is that the US government does not grant any rights. We have them by default and cede limited power for the benefit of an orderly society. Within such a framework, it should be impossible to disenfranchise people by denying them due process.

Precisely. If only the people who worship the Declaration of Independence and recite it like parrots singing a psalm, actually understood what the document was saying.

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

#238

Post by DarkmSparks »

allturtles wrote: post #165
repeekad wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$9 billion dollars from the federal government to Harvard equates to nearly $30 per American, that is an ignorant amount of money for a single academic institution, surely the world isn't so black and white that we can have a conversation about how much money is leaking out of our tax dollars without it always coming back to "fascism"?

The dispute between Harvard and the Trump has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. You can read the government letter and see for yourself, none of it is about Harvard spending research money irresponsibly. It is an attempt to assert deep government control over the institution's policies and ideologies. So your comment reads as an attempt to distract from the real issues at hand, which I (and I think many other…

Maybe. Not sure. More explicitly the letter demands that tenured professors be given more decision making power than non academic activists.

The outright dismissal of the letter suggests that at least maybe non academic activists are calling the shots, and if that is true Harvard is destined to wither and die.

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

#239

Post by brendoelfrendo »

ziddoap wrote: post #183
outer_web wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Habeas corpus - still in effect unless you're already in El Salvador.

Just say "oops, sorry, that was a mistake but we can't get that person back" every time you want to disappear someone, and somehow you'll have people claiming that habeas corpus is still alive and well while people get disappeared.

Unless you're Stephen Miller, who insists that no mistake was made: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrobxubic23

And, more recently, Bukele and Trump insisted that they would not return a "terrorist" to the United States: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrwrrkbnf2e

It's clear that the administration does not consider collateral damage a bug, but a feature; it confirms that as long as they insist that they will not do anything, then nothing will be done.

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

#240

Post by ecb_penguin »

bilbo0s wrote: post #73
ghusto wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of no return is Trump getting a third term. The parallels are strong there. I was just thinking this morning that we very much needed the USA's help fighting Nazi Germany, but who will we turn to when we're fighting fascists coming from the East _and_ West? (Russia and the USA)

The point of no return is Trump getting a third term That's a little alarmist. It's not going to happen. Things are close to going off the rails and people are understandably troubled with the direction in which the US government is headed. I am as well. But we all need to start turning down the temperature a bit.

> That's a little alarmist. It's not going to happen.

Serious question, when someone tells you what they want, why don't want you believe them?

It's openly being discussed and you think it's alarmist? No, we need to turn the temperature up and start taking people at their word.

Post reply on HN