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

531–540 of 1001 posts

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

#531

Post by shadowgovt »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #485
shadowgovt wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a Christian school > That is worth federal funding. ... interesting.

You left off... "Also, one where many views can be represented with no cancel culture." ...before "that is worth federal funding." Such cherry picking in ways that misrepresent what is said, also common in liberal media, is one reason distrust in liberal politics is at an all-time high. Put the truth of what others said side by side with your own position, like I mentioned intersectionality with my counterpoint. See…

It's really not necessary since you had already invoked the notion that separation of Church and State isn't particularly important to your evaluation of what the government should fund. Everything else sort of falls by the wayside.

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

#532

Post by arrosenberg »

andoando wrote: post #527
pqtyw wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this tax only apply to "net investment income"/realized gains? Billionaires technically already have to pay it at a higher rate. And well they generally do? I mean when they personally actually sell stock and or receive dividends and interest.

Most of the wealth being in stock is really tricky. You can't really tax stock ownership, but at the same time stock can be leveraged against business deals (Musk for example bought Twitter with largely stock, without having to sell it first and therefore being subject to tax), and you can take out loans with stock as collateral.

It's not that tricky. All you have to do is make it a taxable event to collateralize stock.

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

#533

Post by jmye »

silexia wrote: post #483
ericjmorey wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1st Amendment is more important than you not liking a specific spending of government funds.

[flagged]

> My first amendment right not to be forced to support causes I disagree with is being harmed.

Fascinating. Do I have a similar right to stop paying taxes, because I don’t support the things the President is saying, or the causes Mike Johnston is adding to the budget?

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

#534

Post by arp242 »

oehtXRwMkIs wrote: post #352
rocqua wrote: post #14

Harvard just earned some reputation with me. It was already a place with great research. But now, it is also in institution with actual moral fiber.

I don't know, is it moral to give legitimacy and a platform to someone like J. Mark Ramseyer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Mark_Ramseyer )? Less clear example would be keeping around Roland Fryer.

I find that very few people and even fewer institutions are consistently always on the right side of things morally, even in very clear-cut cases (never mind that what exactly the "moral thing" is, is a whole discussion in itself). It's probably better to look at the overall pattern rather than a incidents (either good or bad).

I have no opinion on Harvard myself by the way; I don't know enough about it. I'm just saying this is not an especially good criticism.

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

#535

Post by kccoder »

squigz wrote: post #275
areoform wrote: post #26

If 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.

> At practically every point in history where a government or dictator goes too far, we've come back from it.

Not everyone.

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

#536

Post by [deleted] »

UncleMeat wrote: post #477
kweingar wrote: post #224

The 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…

It makes sense if you understand that they aren't focused on general principles. Diversity is bad when it involves non-whites, women, gay people or research involving these groups. Diversity is good when it involves "race realists." Free speech is bad when students are advocating for divestment initiatives. Free speech is good when a professor calls somebody the n-word online. The goal is white supremacy and antifemi…

[deleted]

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

#538

Post by jmye »

bitcoin_anon wrote: post #345
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 agree. Also, the quality and independence of the research will improve when it is funded outside of government influence.

Which is, of course, why the internet is a spectacular failure and SpaceX is our best chance to ever put a man on the moon, and polio is still ravaging the country. Great point.

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

#539

Post by arrosenberg »

janalsncm wrote: post #462
sys32768 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harvard admitted it needs to "...broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community..." This is a no-brainer considering only 2.3% of their faculty identifies as conservative. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/5/22/faculty-survey-...

I am against admissions discrimination so I disagree. Conservatives should get into schools based on merit.

Do they ask for your political ideology on the Harvard application?

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

#540

Post by FloorEgg »

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?

Yes it does sound authoritarian. Thank you for answering my question in good faith.

I am noticing a pattern; whenever I ask clarifying questions on hacker news threads regarding politically charged topics, most people assume least-respectful interpretation of my questions and heavily downvote them. As someone who is curious and genuinely trying to understand what's going on (I am here instead of other social media because I am looking for nuance, analysis, details, etc), it's really frustrating and disappointing when I am attacked for asking questions.

So thank you, again, for engaging in my question constructively.

Post reply on HN