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

51–60 of 203 posts

Re: Regarding the Compact

#51

Post by wrs »

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 for what it really is, and choosing to ignore it.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#52

Post by wavemode »

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…

> threatening to use "lawful force" against minors

What's the context here?

Re: Regarding the Compact

#53

Post by runako »

wavemode wrote: post #52
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…

> threatening to use "lawful force" against minors What's the context here?

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.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#54

Post by clessed »

maldusiecle wrote: post #40
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…

> In matters of bathroom, locker-room, and sports segregation, universities will define sex categories based on reproductive and biological criteria. In other words, trans people can't use the bathrooms matching their gender identity. > Calls for ideological diversity, not just at the campus level, "but within every field, department, school, and teaching unit." In other words, every academic department is susceptibl…

[flagged]

Re: Regarding the Compact

#55

Post by necovek »

nis0s wrote: post #46

This tells you who really wears the pants in the relationship. Western nations are screwed because their bedrock is enlightenment, but their adversaries have no such ideals to be held up to. The rule of law that many such organizations enjoy in the West would be denied to them in places their faculty members defend. It’s important to reflect on what works well while trying to fix what doesn’t; discourse often neglect…

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 the same by restricting access to "bad information" (like "Western nations" are now starting to do with eg. porn, and did similar stuff with "fake news" during the pandemic) — the difference being that they did figure out how to earn money while doing that.

In the Middle East, people die and kill in the name of their version of "enlightenment".

Now, not saying there never was any enlightenment in the Western world, but it was built on slavery, exploitation and being first to many an industrial improvement (like using coal or oil to drive progress, that the whole world now suffers for).

Yes, I'd rather live in a "Western" country than any of the "adversaries", but they are only a risk to our way of life if we do not believe it is the right, enlightened way.

Because if it is, we are willing to pay for it. Are we?

Re: Regarding the Compact

#56

Post by clessed »

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…

[dead]

Re: Regarding the Compact

#57

Post by maldusiecle »

clessed wrote: post #54
maldusiecle wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In matters of bathroom, locker-room, and sports segregation, universities will define sex categories based on reproductive and biological criteria. In other words, trans people can't use the bathrooms matching their gender identity. > Calls for ideological diversity, not just at the campus level, "but within every field, department, school, and teaching unit." In other words, every academic department is susceptibl…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Regarding the Compact

#58

Post by runako »

bee_rider wrote: post #22
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.

For anyone confused like me, a definition of motley is “Having elements of great variety or incongruity; heterogeneous.” I think a lot of the neural connections to the word motley come from the expression “motley crew” which has fairly negative connotations. But the truth of the matter is, this is just a very varied group of schools; some great schools on the list. I won’t say any of the schools are not great, becaus…

I meant it in the sense of heterogeneous.

The list includes public & private institutions across a variety of states and size ranges. It singles out particular institutions in state university systems (e.g. University of Texas at Austin but not Texas A&M or University of Texas at El Paso). Half the list is in the northeast, while the midwest and Pacific Northwest are not represented. It's 9 institutions, not 10.

It's just an odd list.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#59

Post by bmandale »

clessed wrote: post #54
maldusiecle wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In matters of bathroom, locker-room, and sports segregation, universities will define sex categories based on reproductive and biological criteria. In other words, trans people can't use the bathrooms matching their gender identity. > Calls for ideological diversity, not just at the campus level, "but within every field, department, school, and teaching unit." In other words, every academic department is susceptibl…

[flagged]

It is not. Trans people, frequently, look like the opposite sex. Hence there can be no reasonable enforcement of this policy. Cis people, frequently, look like transgender individuals of their own gender. Hence they are liable to receive harassment by any attempt to enforce such a policy. Harassing people, cis and trans, merely trying to use the bathroom in peace, is a far greater imposition than merely existing in the same space as someone else.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#60

Post by baked_beanz »

clessed wrote: post #56
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…

[dead]

More Republican politicians have been convicted of sexual misconduct in bathrooms than trans people. Perhaps we can start with the real issue, and ban them from public bathrooms first? Remember, facts don't care about your feelings!

Source: https://www.complex.com/life/a/amanda-wicks/republican-legis...

Post reply on HN