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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by yes_really »

We can debate about specific requests from the Trump administration, but it is pretty clear that Harvard has been horrible. The previous administrations completely failed to fix it.

- Harvard has been discriminating against Whites and Asians in admissions for decades.

- Harvard deliberately refused to protect Jewish students against intimidation and harassment. Students camped in school property for weeks against Harvard's official rules. They chanted that they would bring islamic terrorism to America ("intifada, intifada, coming to America"), established a self-appointed security system that monitored and recorded Jews, and remained there for almost a month while the school simply refused to remove them. [1]

- Harvard's president stated that calling for the genocide of Jews did not necessarily constitute harassment. This is particularly bizarre when contrasted to Harvard's approach to other groups, like when it considers "misgendering" of trans individuals to be harassment.

[1] https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/harvard-jew...

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

#623

Post by explodes »

anonfordays wrote: post #592
UncleMeat wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#624

Post by aoki »

acmj wrote: post #587
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…

People here have little idea about how Harvard works. Harvard is financially vulnerable. It is currently running on a deficiency considering the endowment. And Harvard can't freely use most endowment for personnels anyway. If the government takes away funding, Harvard will have a financial crisis. I guess the leadership made the decision in hope someone could stop the government before bad things happen but when bad…

I mean, we literally just saw what happened at JHU when their USAID funding vanished. Everybody on that soft money got laid off.

That’s what makes stands like this hard for admin: you’re risking massive layoffs in the programs that are often the least political to defend the academic freedom of the programs that are often the most political. Columbia made one decision. Harvard is making another. You could make Lord Farquaad jokes here, but if it alone loses its federal funding in these expensive research areas, it will lose its preeminence in those areas for a long time.

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

#625

Post by blindriver »

tastyface wrote: post #424
blindriver wrote: post #419

The law in the immigration act to disallow people who espouse support for terrorism is a good one. We protect freedom of speech for citizens because we have to. They are part of our country. I don’t believe this extends to foreigners. We should allow only immigrants who do not support terrorism and want to be productive members of society. This isn’t too much to ask. This is not a right or left issue. This is a pro-A…

Define “terrorism.” The administration, for example, freely uses the word to describe someone with no criminal record and no proven gang affiliations: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lmrwrrkbnf2e They also use the word to describe Tesla vandals: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/03/25/us/fbi-task-force-tesla-a...

The US government has determined that the individual belonged to a gang. Also, the government of El Salvador confirmed this.

The fact that the lawyer for the person says "there's no evidence" doesn't mean there actually isn't any evidence. It just hasn't been revealed.

I believe that setting Teslas on fire is domestic terrorism. They were politically motivated to specifically target a political figure to intimidate other citizens. I think setting ballot boxes on fire is also domestic terrorism.

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

#626

Post by cma »

pjfin123 wrote: post #382

The Federal government making funding to a university contingent on them "reforming" specifically named departments whose foreign policy views the executive branch disagrees with (Israel/Palestine policy) seems like a clear violation of the First Amendment.

They are deporting permanent residents for op-eds.

One permanent resident was sent to a concentration camp in El Salvator without due process, none over speech yet that I know of but his was for being spuriously labeled a terrorist.

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

#627

Post by 1970-01-01 »

palmotea wrote: post #541
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.

> 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'm not so sure. The Harvard endowment is huge . I might not be so much "moral fiber" as having enough fuck you money that risks don't matter as much as they do to others.

More of that! When a mountain of old money is suddenly put at risk, it can easily be mistaken as moral fiber. We will see if Harvard suddenly decides to defend others, or just fend for itself.

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

#628

Post by blindriver »

spacemadness wrote: post #426
blindriver wrote: post #419

The law in the immigration act to disallow people who espouse support for terrorism is a good one. We protect freedom of speech for citizens because we have to. They are part of our country. I don’t believe this extends to foreigners. We should allow only immigrants who do not support terrorism and want to be productive members of society. This isn’t too much to ask. This is not a right or left issue. This is a pro-A…

Assumption: everything critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza is supporting terrorism. That’s quite the take.

The evidence presented to the judge that allowed the deportation was that he specifically supported Hamas. He wasn't just pro-Palestinian. This is why he is being deported.

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

#629

Post by Herring »

elliotec wrote: post #611
zanellato19 wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consistency is undesirable, because if everyone is breaking a law, you apply the hammer of justice only if they aren't a friend. It's one of the best ways to look good to certain people as well,because you can claim to be just following the law.

This comment and the parent’s are the best retorts I’ve seen yet to the “these people are just stupid” idea we hear all the time. These “rules” are not calculated and brilliant, and that’s the point. They’re controlling at any angle they want.

No, it's still stupid. High corruption leads to weaker economic performance (eg compare red vs blue states). Nepotism looks like winning right until it sinks your company.

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

#630

Post by jrapdx3 »

Papirola wrote: post #586

[flagged]

Certainly seems it ought not to be, but evidently the will to provide "the same protections" is lacking. The unavoidable conclusion is that antisemitism is policy even if it's not official and documented. That truly defies logic considering some of the university's brightest lights have been Jews who've made major contributions to their fields, the school and the country as a whole.
Post reply on HN