Trump administration halts Harvard's ability to enroll international students

I worked there for years, still spend a lot of time there, and therefore know a lot of people who either are or were there. Many people associated with the University are pretty happy about it getting smacked down.

Shameless, wrong, and overtly illegal discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and creed, suppression of free speech, even the compelling of speech have all been de rigeur for Harvard for the past decade.

I just wish they would use a scalpel rather than a sledge hammer.

The University (and many other universities) has been engaging in overtly illegal discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and creed in hiring, grants, and I'm sure many other areas. There were many job postings where the CVs of white men were never looked at, because of their skin color and sex. There were many grant-funded opportunities (often federally-funded) where a white man, or a man, or a straight person would not have a chance because of those characteristics. Oh, and I should mention "diversity statements", now called "belonging statements". These are political tests: regardless of your skin color and genitals, if you don't sing the right political song you have no chance. This was a first line assessment at many places (e.g., UC Berkeley). This was all overt in that it was openly talked about, people would send emails to the effect "this job opening must go to a brown woman", etc. People generally, somehow, even Americans, didn't understand it was illegal. I would be greeted with quizzical looks if I enlightened them! (in casual conversation, of course, never officially!). This is all for hiring and similar. Students are different, and since the end of affirmative action Harvard has still been doing everything it can to continue discriminating against e.g. East Asians and Whites, which is of course illegal.

You risked losing your job for expressing an uncool belief (e.g., Carole Hooven: https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/02/15/carole-hooven-wh...). Of course, they will try to force you to resign before actually firing you, which would leave open the possibility of legal problems. This may be a sort of "why not, it's a small thing, just say it" to a chemist, but to an endocrinologist or social scientist it can be intolerable.

Compelled speech was on the table, too, which is a bright line we have so far, as a society, have managed not to cross. Harvard and other elite universities were crossing it, and the Biden admin's Title IX rules overtly crossed it (by forcing you to use someone's preferred pronouns). A bad look, to put it mildly.

They are not at all comparable.

Previous admins didn't withhold billions in funding that was already granted, threaten 25% of its student body with expulsion, and try to take away its tax status.

One could also call it a bubble. Last as long as it lasts, which is as long as the stakeholders believe in it.

I think your argument doesn't hold. Just because people still believe something to be the case, doesn't mean it really is the case. It being "worth so much to so many groups" just means they believe in it being worth as much. A well formed argument would come up with examples of the brightest hailing from Harvard and perhaps statistics about achievements of former Harvard students.

[flagged]

> their only option is to seek injunctive relief

…why? Why does an internal Harvard report obviate damages for an unrelated illegal executive action?

I’m not arguing they have that claim. I’m just fairly certain this report doesn’t have anything to do with it.