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

551–560 of 1001 posts

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

#551

Post by gambiting »

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…

>>- a new diversity initiative for diverse points of view

I'm sure we both know what this one means though. Forcing the university to hire people who think the earth is flat and that climate change isn't real - for the sake of diversity of course.

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

#552

Post by triceratops »

peterbecich wrote: post #506
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.

Agreed. For the revenue tax activists want from billionaires, it would necessitate a wealth tax, which I believe is unconstitutional. The non-profit tax exemption fight is about "income taxes" which billionaires already have to pay (but avoid). So it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

> it would necessitate a wealth tax, which I believe is unconstitutional

I take it you haven't heard of property taxes.

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

#553

Post by JumpCrisscross »

colechristensen wrote: post #381
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he could potentially pull a completely illegal fast one and freeze their accounts Harvard (and most institutions and powerful individuals) would be smart to maintain liquid assets and a bank account outside America’s control.

>a bank account outside America’s control There really isn't such a thing if you want to do business in America. If you're in the US and doing business with a bank, the courts can order that bank to do things or face isolation from the entire financial system.

> There really isn't such a thing if you want to do business in America

There are to varying extents. You want a country that isn't aligned with or dependent on America, but also isn't its adversary. (And which has a good banking system.) That list was classically Turkey, the UAE and Switzerland. Today I'd add India, Qatar, Canada and Brazil and remove Switzerland.

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

#554

Post by const_cast »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #544
const_cast wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives will make observations such as "the most educated people are almost never conservative" and they will conclude that it's not their ideology that may be on shaky grounds, but rather the concept of education itself.

[flagged]

> Most professors in non stem departments are Marxist

So, as I alluded to before, the issue here isn't the education - you are delusional. I don't know how to help you because what you're saying is just not aligned with reality and that's not something I can fix.

For the record, you can analyze the text of various scholars even if you don't agree with them, and that's a huge part of critical thinking and higher education. Understand the historical, social, and economic context that lead someone like Marx to his ideology is important. We do this for Hitler and Mussolini all the time, but I don't see anyone claiming that educators are fascists.

Meaning, you, and others, have a severe bias here. You're missing, looking past, the instances that disagree with your perception. So then all that's left is the stuff that aligns with your perception, and such you've constructed a perfect delusion.

This idea that conservative socioeconomics and the "invisible hand" is the One True theory of everything and nothing else should even so much as uttered, lest you be a communist, is, in it of itself, as you say, "fashionable nonsense". In fact, you cannot truly understand the context for 20th century fiscal policy without understanding the impact of Marx and other ideologues that came after him.

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

#555

Post by margalabargala »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #474
margalabargala wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people promoting intersectionality which also promotes systematic discrimination (eg DEI) against specific groups. That's a highly-divisive philosophy with no proven benefits that's similar to Marxism which killed 50 million people and wrecked countries Just like all people connecting to "Kevin Bacon", and all Wikipedia pages first links connecting to "Philosophy", every idea can be connected to mass murder if you'…

More like it's two philosophies with similar elements originating from places where both were taught. In both cases, those that believe in them try to force them on everyone in law, policy, etc. They've been doing that, too, so it isn't speculative. There's also large groups pushing this stuff in businesses, forcing it on all employees, under the banner of ESG. That includes Blackrock and World Economic Forum. There'…

> In both cases, those that believe in them try to force them on everyone in law, policy, etc. They've been doing that, too, so it isn't speculative.

I think it is speculative. I haven't seen this happen beyond a small number of isolated cases, that generally are met poorly within the organization where it happens.

To my observation the association between "believing that intersectionality accurately describes the world today" and "attempting to force others to believe similarly", is about as strong as the association between "frequently voting Republican in the US since 2016", and "attempting to carry out a mass shooting".

Could you describe what you believe "intersectionality" to mean, as a philosophy?

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

#556

Post by JumpCrisscross »

crazygringo wrote: post #135
forrestthewoods wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if a $50,000,000,000 endowment can not be used to smooth things over in times of need or turbulence then the endowment managers need to make changes. You can not possibly convince me that Harvard’s endowment doesn’t trivially have one year of liquidity in it. I’m sure it’s not structured to handle a 7% annual draw down for the next 30 years. But it’s got plenty of time to restructure if needed.

The point is, it's eating your seed corn. Spending a billion of it is not just spending a billion. It's spending the many billions it was meant to provide, in interest, over the next decades. It's extraordinarily expensive to spend it directly, as opposed to spending the income it generates. You can certainly do it, in a true emergency. But you certainly don't want to make a habit of it.

> it's eating your seed corn

Paraphrasing J. P. Morgan, the man, in the midst of the Panic of 1907 reassuring a banker concerned about dipping into reserves to pay out depositors: "what are reserves for if not times like these."

Eat the seed corn. Fight. Then raise unencumbered donations from the billionaires whose balls haven't fallen off. If Harvard plays this correctly, they could become one of the flag bearers of the legal and financial resistance to Trump.

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

#557

Post by arp242 »

kombine wrote: post #63

These people (not only MAGA) perverted the very meaning of antisemitism to the point that it means nothing today. I am saying that as someone who's lost a family member to Holocaust. When I hear someone mention antisemitism today, 90% of the time it is to punish someone's views critical of Israel.

When I was active on the Politics Stack Exchange site years ago I was "reported to the ADL" for merging the [jews] and [judaism] tags. Right out of the gate after I casually mentioned it in another discussion: not even a big fight about it. But the same person outright ignored the Trump-supporting holocaust denying user who harrassed a Jewish user with antisemitic slurs such (e.g. [1]).

Sadly antisemitism obviously exists, and sadly some pro-Palestinian activists have veered off into antisemitism. But the selective outrage is hard to take serious.

Remember, Caesar subjugated Gaul and killed or enslaved about a quarter of all Gauls in the process, to "protect" them from invading Germanic tribes. "Top kek", as I believe the old Latin saying goes.

[1]: https://politics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3596 – I am the author of that, I deleted my account since in large party due to all of this

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

#558

Post by [deleted] »

mtalantikite wrote: post #491
enaaem wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never been a "woke" person, but Trump really makes me doubt the meritocracy argument. If Trump was a black woman he would never get away with half the things he is doing now.

As others have pointed out to you, "woke" is just from AAVE, meaning to be awake to the racial prejudices and social injustices of the world. Leadbelly used it at the end of his "Scottsboro Boys" [1] in 1938, and it likely was in use many years before that. Erykah Badu's "Master Teacher" also uses it prominently, which probably helped bring it out of AAVE into more mainstream use [2]. Anyway, that's all to say I find…

[deleted]

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

#559

Post by jakeydus »

iAMkenough wrote: post #514
silexia wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harvard is free to say whatever it wants and operate without government funds. A shocking idea may be for a school to actually use the tuition paid by students to educate them. This is forced speech for all those of us who disagree with Harvard's politics and yet have our tax dollars sent to support it anyways.

Just watch what happens when they exercise their Constiutional right to "say whatever it wants." Stephen Miller made it clear this morning: "Under this country, under this administration, under President Trump, people who hate America, who threaten our citizens, who rape, who murder, and who support those who rape and murder are going to be ejected from this country." If the government decides you "hate America" or y…

They're absolutely teeing up to be able to deport whoever they want. Reasonable people should be (and are) very afraid.

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

#560

Post by janalsncm »

arrosenberg wrote: post #539
janalsncm wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, which is why it’s so surprising so few are able to get in.
Post reply on HN