No mention of anti-Asian discrimination? It made big rounds in all the American media circles a few years back, and if memory serves, MAGA boarded that train too.
[dead]
Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes
321–330 of 1001 posts
Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Federal government has always attached conditions in exchange for Federal funding and Federal contracts. This is not dictating. It effectively is. Just look up the history of the drinking age - a classic example of the federal government using extortion tactics to override state rights.
Which was also a law passed by Congress. Congress passes laws. Should we also say that the president can strike down unconstitutional state laws because the Supreme Court is in the federal government?
> Which was also a law passed by Congress. Congress passes laws.
Indeed, but this was a clear evasion of prior laws. I don't like such workarounds in principle - either Congress should have gone the proper way and go for a constitutional amendment, or it should have buried the fucking bill. This created the nasty precedent that the current admin is using to push through the SAVE Act.
Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that we can have a conversation about how much money is leaking out of our tax dollars Of course. It's clear you didn't read the letter because Harvard addresses this specifically. The Trump admin is literally refusing to have a conversation. This is 100% politically motivated and it's obvious to anyone who is not in the Trump cult. This is particularly disgusting because their doing it under the guise of 'antisemi…
nope, just a random stranger trying to add some random noise into these often one sided conversations, I of course support public academic investment and Trump is bad for the country, but I worry we've fully mapped one to one trump and nazis, and it just doesn't resonate with me as much as it seems it does everyone else. I'm from small town America, I know that the federal government doesn't care about my hometown, s…
> it's hard for me to not think that's crazy and why can't that money go to average americans
Are there world-class research facilities in your small town? Why would it be hard for you to see it makes sense for billions to be spent on research at world-class facilities with world-class scientists?
FWIW, chances are whatever local state university nearby also receives quite a bit from federal grants as well. But it probably scales based on the research facilities and staff actually there. Do you think it would be better management of federal resources to instead spend the same amount at facilities that don't do nearly as impactful or nearly as much research?
These are grants for specific research. Researchers put together proposals to study things, the federal government decides that's something worth looking into, and funding gets cut (simplified). Harvard has a lot of people doing pretty fancy research, so it makes sense they'd have a lot of grant proposals requiring fancy and expensive things. Complain to your state legislature for not focusing on making your local university a research university if you feel your area should be getting more of these grants. But let me guess, you probably voted for people who argued for lower taxes. Gee, I wonder what they found to cut...
And FWIW the federal government spends a bunch on a lot of small-town America. FEMA grants for emergency preparedness comes to mind. A higher percentage of populations of small-town America live off federal aid programs. Small-town America also sees more of its school funding from federal sources and grants.
Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes
#324The aggregate demands of the administration are confusing and contradictory. They seem to be simultaneously asking for: - an end to diversity initiatives - a new diversity initiative for diverse points of view - a new policy of not admitting international students with certain points of view - ending speech-control policies - auditing the speech of certain departments and programs - ending discipline of students who…
because they can use as excuse to stop the funding nonetheless, it's impossible to 100% comply with contradictory requests
It could be a feature not a bug. Inventible violations can be used as leverage for future requests/mandates.
Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes
#325If you've read history, this rhymes with certain acts that have happened before under certain regimes. Under a non-authoritarian Government, this type of showboating can be dismissed, but when habeas corpus and the right to due process is suspended — such actions take on a very different cast indeed. It's good that Harvard is fighting this. The more people accede, the more they will accelerate down a path where there…
[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes
#326I hope everyone is ready for a general strike because that time is coming up at us rapidly.
General strike when >50% of those who voted wanted this? What world are you living in? Edit: I stand corrected, 49.81%. It doesn't change the point much. Especially when that ~49% includes many "working class"[1] voters. Who's going to participate in this general strike? A bunch of office workers? [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-return-power-fueled-...
49.81% of the people who voted did so for Trump.
Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes
#327If you've read history, this rhymes with certain acts that have happened before under certain regimes. Under a non-authoritarian Government, this type of showboating can be dismissed, but when habeas corpus and the right to due process is suspended — such actions take on a very different cast indeed. It's good that Harvard is fighting this. The more people accede, the more they will accelerate down a path where there…
> the more they will accelerate down a path where there is no coming back from. Why do you say this? At practically every point in history where a government or dictator goes too far, we've come back from it.
Everyone recovers from a sickness. Until they don't.
Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edited: Yes, I doubt they're cool with the ideas in the letter like the federal government auditing everyone's "viewpoint diversity" and mandating staffing changes to fit what the federal government wants.
I think.... you're agreeing with me?
I am, I misread your response, my bad.
Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything negative you can say about Israel is equated to antisemitism then Israel gets a free pass. Hamas engaged in terrorism, but Israel's response was out of proportion. Saying that aloud doesn't make one antisemitic. The ICC and UN are not antisemitic organizations for ordering arrest of Netanyahu and condemning Israel's use of excessive force.
> If anything negative you can say about Israel is equated to antisemitism then Israel gets a free pass. I am not arguing this. Everyone is free to criticize Israel; when it becomes antisemitic is when you hold Jews to a different standard than you hold everyone else. > but Israel's response was out of proportion Why do you say this? What would a proportionate response have looked like to an attempt to conquer your c…
> when it becomes antisemitic is when you hold Jews to a different standard than you hold everyone else.
And where it gets disturbing is when you make the claim of different standard without any evidence, and launch accusations of antisemitism.
Not everyone in Gaza is Hamas. As of January 2025, at least 46,707 Palestinians have been reported killed, including about 18,000 children. Israel has a right to annihilate Hamas, but those 18,000 children were not Hamas.
Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Federal government has always attached conditions in exchange for Federal funding and Federal contracts. This is not dictating. It effectively is. Just look up the history of the drinking age - a classic example of the federal government using extortion tactics to override state rights.
I don't think most people would consider "You can't discriminate based on race", to be extortionary. Instead, its a well accepted principle in most of society.
I agree on the matter, but pressuring states with financial strings is not the way to go for it.
All other democracies on this rock just go and modify their constitution, that's the proper way. Y'all just are so completely gridlocked that this is all but impossible...