Live data from Hacker News

Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

harvard.edu

61–70 of 1001 posts

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

#61
There really is no incentive to compromise with the Trump Admin on anything. Even if you cave, they just go for more. You need to act like a cornered animal and not expect honest negotiation.

OTOH if Trump admin WAS at all rational partners they could be extracting historic changes from these institutions. But they won’t.

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

#62

[flagged]

The federal government cannot attach conditions that limit free speech onto federal funding. There is precedent for the federal government expanding into areas it has no direct constitutional authority over through conditions on funding. But e.g. 'regulating commerce within a state' is not something the constitution explicitly forbids. Whilst 'abridging the freedom of speech' is very much explicitly forbidden.

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

#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.

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

#64

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…

He's not gonna be happy they can operate financially without his assent

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

#65

[flagged]

Importantly, the Civil Rights Act is a (well-litigated) law, not an ad hoc decree from the executive branch. If the current administration wants to strong arm universities, they should go through Congress.

If they want to abridge freedom of speech, they also need 2/3s of US states.

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

#66
post #22

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.

The page acknowledges that Harvard lost that case and will comply with the ruling.

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

#67

It seems like the government has a soft Monopsony. There are many universities willing to sell research, but the government is the biggest buyer and controls the research grant market

This isn't close to a monopsony but it's more directionally correct than it is wrong. Keep in mind research institutes can be funded by private foundations, state and local governments, industry (e.g. pharma), venture, or even foreign governments. The federal government is undoubtedly the largest buyer though. I do think there are other motivations to rely primarily on federal grants beyond number of dollars. In particular, funding sources other than federal grant money is often looked down on from an academic prestige perspective. Until now federal money came with very few strings attached compared to the perceived loss of objectivity that could occur when receiving money from other sources. The current situation may alter or relax the prevailing view on which sources of research money are perceived of as potentially compromising.

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

#68
post #51

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 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)

> who will we turn to when we're fighting fascists coming from the East _and_ West? (Russia and the USA)

Like a heart attack can be good for your health,perhaps this USA withdrawal will be good for Europe. (If Europe is what you mean)

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

#69
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal funds are for doing research that the government wants to fund, not keeping the university’s lights on. This is about terminating a productive partnership, not ending a subsidy handout to schools.

Yup, people really need to learn their history. The modern federally-funded research university system came about as a direct result of the US getting caught with their pants down after Sputnik. The government decided it's in its best strategic interests to maintain long-term investments in basic and applied research. Those aren't things you can just spin up on short notice, though it's easy to kill it. https://en.wi…

Also, isn't a ton of the IP from federally funded research just handed over to US corporations for free or pennies on the dollar?

Something tells me this is more of the current administration threatening to completely wreck US prosperity if they don't get wins on their bigoted social war agenda.

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

#70
post #22

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.

These "values" are not sincerely held, but tactical. Once they got the SCOTUS win and affirmative action was toast, they quickly moved on from fighting anti-Asian hate to a new fig-leaf/tool to useful for fighting the next ideological battle, which was prominent protests against government policy, which happened to be pro-Palestine, so this is the best tool for the job.

The messaging is very similar too, conflating pro-diversity with anti-whiteness, or anti-asian when needed, and now redefining being pro-Palestine as anti-Semitic or pro-Hamas. It's dumb, lacks nuance, but effective when the Fifth estate is pliant, co-opted or otherwise ineffective.

Post reply on HN