Trump administration halts Harvard's ability to enroll international students(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Trump administration halts Harvard's ability to enroll international students
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/22/us/politics/trump-harvard-international-students.html
1,170 comments
http://archive.today/SnNBv
Don’t miss this bit. Currently enrolled students are going to need to find a new university.
> In a news release, the Department of Homeland Security sent a stark message to Harvard’s international students: “This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students, and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.”
> In a news release, the Department of Homeland Security sent a stark message to Harvard’s international students: “This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students, and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.”
I don't get how DHS has control over what universities foreign students can attend. Either than can attend school in the US or not. Saying they have to transfer from Harvard to another American university is total abuse of power. Surely there are lawsuits in the works over this.
The F/J exhange visa is tied to a specific sponsor (ie the University) for a very specific goal. There are a lot of restrictions on what you can and can't do. If your visa sponsor has its privilege revoked then presumably you have a choice to transfer to a different institute, if one will take you, or leave the country.
There is a mechanism for that transfer built into the visa, which could be used for example if your professor moved institutions and wanted to re-hire you to fulfil the original goals of your exchange program.
It's unclear if this affects all foreign academic staff, many of whom who would be on the J, or just the F visa.
Edit: apparently all exhange visas.
There is a mechanism for that transfer built into the visa, which could be used for example if your professor moved institutions and wanted to re-hire you to fulfil the original goals of your exchange program.
It's unclear if this affects all foreign academic staff, many of whom who would be on the J, or just the F visa.
Edit: apparently all exhange visas.
[deleted]
i'd guess this kind of thing (per-institutional authorization to allow international students) was intended to provide the government a way to revoke that right from "sham" institutions (wonder if Trump University ever had international students?) or ones that otherwise were obviously trying to facilitate students skirting or abusing immigration law.
not that i agree with that anyways (citizenship is stupid, borders are stupid, countries are stupid blah blah blah) but it's pretty clear we're currently dealing with a regime that's willing to use ambiguous regulations in malicious ways (no comment on previous regimes, they're all bad, don't call me a HN Democrat or whatever).
not that i agree with that anyways (citizenship is stupid, borders are stupid, countries are stupid blah blah blah) but it's pretty clear we're currently dealing with a regime that's willing to use ambiguous regulations in malicious ways (no comment on previous regimes, they're all bad, don't call me a HN Democrat or whatever).
Chesterton's fence is way too relevant, when it comes to the "citizenship is stupid, borders are stupid, countries are stupid blah blah blah" part.
It seems that the amount of fences is growing up exponentially. To the point that we are all corralled. Not so long time ago people could move from country to country relatively freely. Now it is a fucking tragedy
>Not so long time ago people could move from country to country relatively freely
The well-off rich and upper middle-class could move from country to country relatively freely, or immigrants who intended not to look back. Which puts a strong pressure on self-selection on the type of people coming into a country.
That time isn't now, with cheap airfares and the internet, it's much more easier for anyone to come in, often with no intention of integration and bringing their own sectarian politics in. When the time comes, how many of these immigrants do you think will fight for their host country? Especially if said host country make likely come into conflict with their homelands.
The well-off rich and upper middle-class could move from country to country relatively freely, or immigrants who intended not to look back. Which puts a strong pressure on self-selection on the type of people coming into a country.
That time isn't now, with cheap airfares and the internet, it's much more easier for anyone to come in, often with no intention of integration and bringing their own sectarian politics in. When the time comes, how many of these immigrants do you think will fight for their host country? Especially if said host country make likely come into conflict with their homelands.
>"When the time comes, how many of these immigrants do you think will fight for their host country? Especially if said host country make likely come into conflict with their homelands."
Same arguments were just as valid 100-200 years ago where virtually anyone could move anywhere.
Same arguments were just as valid 100-200 years ago where virtually anyone could move anywhere.
well, it'd be relevant if i was actually discussing the idea of immediately abolishing all borders and countries, which i'm definitely not doing here.
Even in the Pre-Industrial Age, Obvious differences existed between class hierarchy or ethnicities. When an Empire does not specifically identify with one or two ethnicities, most societies have always been wary of foreigners by calling them "Barbarians". Chichimecas, Mongols, Non-Greeks, Non-Han Chinese, etc.
> not that i agree with that anyways (citizenship is stupid, borders are stupid, countries are stupid blah blah blah)
Millions of people worldwide have values that are radically different from yours or mine or >99% of people reading this. Consider, a country like Afghanistan-no doubt there are millions of Afghans who oppose the Taliban and are trapped under the rule of a government whose policies and values they radically oppose - and they are denied any realistic outlet to advocate for change using non-violent means-but, at the same time, there are also millions of Afghans who support the Taliban, who think it is great and its values and laws and policies and actions are all wonderful-do you really want millions of pro-Taliban Afghans to be allowed to move to your country if they want to and can afford to do so, and be allowed to vote in your elections as soon as they turn up? This isn’t saying we should ban immigrants or refugees from Afghanistan, only have some kind of filtering process which excludes those with radically opposed values, such as those who are pro-Taliban - and, so nobody thinks I’m singling out Afghans for special treatment, there are several other countries for which the same concern exists (consider e.g. Iran, North Korea), and such a “filtering process” can be designed to work in a way which treats immigrants/refugees of different nationalities/ethnicities/religions equally. But complete abolition of citizenship and immigration control would leave your country at the mercy of chance in terms of protection against takeover by newcomers with radically different values, and although in the short-run you’d escape that outcome (even if they were all free to come, most of them either don’t want to or can’t afford to), in the long-run the odds that you’d succumb to it only go up. And such a policy is fundamentally unstable, in that it would eventually become the cause of its own demise: once these newcomers with radically different values (whatever those values might be) take over, their new values will cause them to reinstate immigration and citizenship controls, to prevent anyone else doing to them what they did to you.
That’s not to say I agree with what the Trump administration is doing here - I actually sympathise with some conservative criticisms of Harvard, but this isn’t a gentle federal nudge in the right direction, it is attacking Harvard with a legally dubious sledgehammer - but just because an administration abuses immigration laws (something many governments around the world have done many times before) doesn’t change the fact that some degree of legal control of immigration and naturalisation is the right thing to have in principle
Millions of people worldwide have values that are radically different from yours or mine or >99% of people reading this. Consider, a country like Afghanistan-no doubt there are millions of Afghans who oppose the Taliban and are trapped under the rule of a government whose policies and values they radically oppose - and they are denied any realistic outlet to advocate for change using non-violent means-but, at the same time, there are also millions of Afghans who support the Taliban, who think it is great and its values and laws and policies and actions are all wonderful-do you really want millions of pro-Taliban Afghans to be allowed to move to your country if they want to and can afford to do so, and be allowed to vote in your elections as soon as they turn up? This isn’t saying we should ban immigrants or refugees from Afghanistan, only have some kind of filtering process which excludes those with radically opposed values, such as those who are pro-Taliban - and, so nobody thinks I’m singling out Afghans for special treatment, there are several other countries for which the same concern exists (consider e.g. Iran, North Korea), and such a “filtering process” can be designed to work in a way which treats immigrants/refugees of different nationalities/ethnicities/religions equally. But complete abolition of citizenship and immigration control would leave your country at the mercy of chance in terms of protection against takeover by newcomers with radically different values, and although in the short-run you’d escape that outcome (even if they were all free to come, most of them either don’t want to or can’t afford to), in the long-run the odds that you’d succumb to it only go up. And such a policy is fundamentally unstable, in that it would eventually become the cause of its own demise: once these newcomers with radically different values (whatever those values might be) take over, their new values will cause them to reinstate immigration and citizenship controls, to prevent anyone else doing to them what they did to you.
That’s not to say I agree with what the Trump administration is doing here - I actually sympathise with some conservative criticisms of Harvard, but this isn’t a gentle federal nudge in the right direction, it is attacking Harvard with a legally dubious sledgehammer - but just because an administration abuses immigration laws (something many governments around the world have done many times before) doesn’t change the fact that some degree of legal control of immigration and naturalisation is the right thing to have in principle
The US had no immigration laws for the first 100 years, during which time many of our ancestors came here. The only reason we had any immigration laws to begin with was racism against Chinese people. Now we are making up other excuses for it, based on no evidence whatsoever.
> The US had no immigration laws for the first 100 years,
The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited US citizenship by naturalisation to “free white persons” of “good moral character” - yes, it didn’t technically bar immigration from people who didn’t meet that criterion, but it reduced them to an underclass who were denied citizenship - and this was prior to the 14th Amendment, so there was no constitutional right to birthright citizenship even for their children born in the US.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (still on the books but long dormant until recently revived by Trump) gave the federal government the power to deport citizens of countries at war with the US - effectively banning them from immigrating. The Alien Friends Act of 1798 allowed the President to deport any foreigner based on the President’s subjective determination that they were “dangerous”- however, it expired in 1800 and was not renewed.
In the early years of US independence, there were state laws enabling deportation of immigrants - e.g. in 1794 Massachusetts responded to the “problem” of poor Irish immigrants with a state law authorising their deportation back to Ireland, and several were actually deported under this Act. While nowadays, state-level deportation laws would surely be struck down as intruding into an exclusive federal domain, the lack of broad federal deportation statutes for much of the 18th/19th centuries left open a (since closed) constitutional space in which state-level deportation laws could exist
Even prior to US independence, British law gave the colonial authorities the power to deport people they viewed as undesirable - rarely exercised, but it legally existed - and the main reason they rarely exercised it was they didn’t get many “undesirable” immigrants turning up
Note I’m not defending these laws - judged by today’s standards they were racist and deeply unfair - just pointing out that the “first 100 years” of the US wasn’t as “open borders” as you paint it as having been
And while no doubt historically (and even today) many immigration laws have been racist in their terms, motivation, or implementation - I don’t think the idea of having some restrictions on immigration is inherently racist. Almost every country on earth (even non-Western) nowadays has laws saying people convicted of very serious crimes cannot immigrate without special permission - is it “racist” if Botswana says to someone just released from serving a 20 year prison sentence for terrorism “sorry, we don’t want you”?
The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited US citizenship by naturalisation to “free white persons” of “good moral character” - yes, it didn’t technically bar immigration from people who didn’t meet that criterion, but it reduced them to an underclass who were denied citizenship - and this was prior to the 14th Amendment, so there was no constitutional right to birthright citizenship even for their children born in the US.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (still on the books but long dormant until recently revived by Trump) gave the federal government the power to deport citizens of countries at war with the US - effectively banning them from immigrating. The Alien Friends Act of 1798 allowed the President to deport any foreigner based on the President’s subjective determination that they were “dangerous”- however, it expired in 1800 and was not renewed.
In the early years of US independence, there were state laws enabling deportation of immigrants - e.g. in 1794 Massachusetts responded to the “problem” of poor Irish immigrants with a state law authorising their deportation back to Ireland, and several were actually deported under this Act. While nowadays, state-level deportation laws would surely be struck down as intruding into an exclusive federal domain, the lack of broad federal deportation statutes for much of the 18th/19th centuries left open a (since closed) constitutional space in which state-level deportation laws could exist
Even prior to US independence, British law gave the colonial authorities the power to deport people they viewed as undesirable - rarely exercised, but it legally existed - and the main reason they rarely exercised it was they didn’t get many “undesirable” immigrants turning up
Note I’m not defending these laws - judged by today’s standards they were racist and deeply unfair - just pointing out that the “first 100 years” of the US wasn’t as “open borders” as you paint it as having been
And while no doubt historically (and even today) many immigration laws have been racist in their terms, motivation, or implementation - I don’t think the idea of having some restrictions on immigration is inherently racist. Almost every country on earth (even non-Western) nowadays has laws saying people convicted of very serious crimes cannot immigrate without special permission - is it “racist” if Botswana says to someone just released from serving a 20 year prison sentence for terrorism “sorry, we don’t want you”?
Which isn’t at all how PhD programs work. This is a supreme dick move to students are going to be forced to leave with an AbD for no other reason than Trumps ego.
This is going to burn the children of the most powerful families across the world. Monarchies, dictators, owners of international conglomerates, etc all send their kids to Harvard. Destroying their children’s education out of a fit of malice is going to haunt him, and America on top of all the other stuff America is doing to the world.
America first is rapidly becoming America alone.
This is going to burn the children of the most powerful families across the world. Monarchies, dictators, owners of international conglomerates, etc all send their kids to Harvard. Destroying their children’s education out of a fit of malice is going to haunt him, and America on top of all the other stuff America is doing to the world.
America first is rapidly becoming America alone.
Here’s a case in point - future queen of Belgium kicked out of college by the president of the United States:
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5316202-future-queen-...
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5316202-future-queen-...
Considering it’s not 1733, a future Belgian monarch has almost zero power.
You're very wrong if you think harvard accepts children of dictators and monarchies for its graduate programs. It's near impossible to get into those program except if you are a genius (exceptionally high GPA and GRE grades, published valuable scientific papers in prestigious journals). Just check the graduate student's directory to see what I mean.
Or have the right demographic details.
children of the most powerful families across the world
I doubt that most of those people are reliant on student visas.
I doubt that most of those people are reliant on student visas.
The students absolutely are. Up until now the law applies to everyone. Now, their applications were probably rapidly approved unlike many international students. But there’s no carve out for being powerful (yet).
You cannot jump over immigration requirements "just because you're powerful", and the vast majority of them are not US citizens.
They could easily get an E2 entrepreneur visa, and the necessary cash is as little as $300k, most of which can be withdrawn later, so it's effectively a free citizenship as long as you have cash.
E2 visa is not available to everyone. Notably Indian and Chinese citizens are not eligible. And that is a large chunk of international students.
You could probably get round immigration requirements by "gifting" a jet or something
> You cannot jump over immigration requirements
You probably will be able to soon though, and it 'only' costs $5m: "A ‘Trump Card Visa’ Is Already Showing Up in Immigration Forms" [0]
I couldn't blame you for not having seen this though. It was quickly flagged and never whitelisted; like so, so many other important stories here this past few months. Check my favorites for more falsely flagged stories.
0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43921421
You probably will be able to soon though, and it 'only' costs $5m: "A ‘Trump Card Visa’ Is Already Showing Up in Immigration Forms" [0]
I couldn't blame you for not having seen this though. It was quickly flagged and never whitelisted; like so, so many other important stories here this past few months. Check my favorites for more falsely flagged stories.
0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43921421
He's 78 and at the end of his political career in few years, he could care less.
He couldn’t care less.
Or maybe he could care less, but doesn't even bother to care less because caring less would exert effort and he doesn't care enough to exert any effort.
Own the grammar mistake, my dude :)
He could care less is the common phrase by now, even if it doesn't make literal sense.
"Could care less" used as a snarky response makes sense, as in, "I could care less, but I don't want to put in the effort." Using that phrase without a sarcastic intonation is still incorrect.
Could care less meaning couldn't care less. It's the same thing as how literally has come to be used with the meaning of figuratively. If you look up "could care less" in the OED you'll find it lists it under American English with the meaning "could not care less."
That’s disappointing. What next? Americans get a pass on using “it’s” when the correct thing would be “its” just because they do it all the time?
This is a tour of vengeance, creating a place in history, establishing a family dynasty of inherited power, and a smatter of narcissistic delusion.
[deleted]
[flagged]
Making the government small enough to drown in the bathtub? (Grover Norquist's goal)
rayiner(3)
Monarchies, dictators, owners of international conglomerates, etc all send their kids to Harvard
When you frame it like this... it doesn't sound like such a loss. But yeah, it's not the only way to frame it.
When you frame it like this... it doesn't sound like such a loss. But yeah, it's not the only way to frame it.
The percentage of Harvard international students who fall into this category is statistically insignificant. It’s not even worth framing.
It's not about the percentage of Harvard international students who fall into this category, it's about the percentage of students in this category who go to Harvard.
Also fairly low. There's plenty of high-prestige institutions in the world.
As someone from europe I'd say Harvard and MIT are the #1 prestige institutions, and a lot of people will not settle for less.
A lot? Those institutions only accept a relatively small total number of foreign students. Everyone else has to "settle for less" whether they want to or not.
If Dad gifts a new building on campus you odds at getting accepted go up tenfold.
I dont see why that is ever considered a problem. They are literally a private institution selling a service. Why shouldn't you be able to pay your way to the front of the line.
It's fine as long as they're open about it. It's when they say "We're a very selective institution that only accepts the academic best of the best from the entire world" and then also allow pay to play, clarifying "Also the people whose parents donated us buildings juuuuust so happen to be the academic best of the best from the the entire world" that people start to question just how selective admission really is, and just how world-class their student body and standards really are.
If they kept stats on who was an endowment/legacy admit and gave them a different colored diploma so people could filter them out when assessing things like grades and graduation rate and they didn't effect the curve I think there would be less criticism of the process.
If they kept stats on who was an endowment/legacy admit and gave them a different colored diploma so people could filter them out when assessing things like grades and graduation rate and they didn't effect the curve I think there would be less criticism of the process.
I think they do keep stats on legacy admits.
I dont see why they would get different diplomas provided they complete the same coursework. If they are inferior, they should only help others on the curve.
I do think they would be more upfront about options for entry.
I dont see why they would get different diplomas provided they complete the same coursework. If they are inferior, they should only help others on the curve.
I do think they would be more upfront about options for entry.
Depends in what. HEC in France is the top for finance.
Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College would disagree.
There is no need for there to be one and only one such institution.
MIT, really? I think of MIT as being high prestige mostly for people that actually want a science or tech-related career, not for old-money people looking to make family connections.
> MIT as being high prestige mostly for people that actually want a science or tech-related career...
Apparently you've not been to MIT in a while - it offers degrees in business management, finance, plus 17 in arts, humanities, and social sciences, not to mention grad programs. MIT admits more than its fair share of fruit-cakes with money:
https://catalog.mit.edu/degree-charts/
Apparently you've not been to MIT in a while - it offers degrees in business management, finance, plus 17 in arts, humanities, and social sciences, not to mention grad programs. MIT admits more than its fair share of fruit-cakes with money:
https://catalog.mit.edu/degree-charts/
Believe it or not, I've never been to MIT.
As a percentage of -students- yes but as a percentage of world power children? That’s a much smaller cohort, and is the cohort that matters in this context.
[flagged]
That is just insane. How much do you think it costs or how poor do you think people in say france are where only criminals can afford it?
I didn’t say France, did I? I’m talking about africa, the middle east, much of asia, and parts of eastern europe. E.g.., maybe not Poland, but probably Russia.
Then you should be more specific instead of using weasel words like “much of the world”.
Asia, Middle East, and Africa are literally “much of the world.” They account for the vast majority of the world’s population.
There are a lot of ways to group countries and form a majority of the global population. You left it open to interpretation.
It’s still unclear to me why Africa, the Middle East, much (which part?) of Asia, and parts of Eastern Europe are uniquely capable of political corruption that France and Poland are not.
It’s still unclear to me why Africa, the Middle East, much (which part?) of Asia, and parts of Eastern Europe are uniquely capable of political corruption that France and Poland are not.
I remember when you claimed the APA didn't apply to this. At least now you don't bother to defend based on legality and are cool with forcing your 'totally not corrupt' single totalitarian viewpoint on the country in order to counter... corrupt totalitarianism.
Get rid of Harvard and the person you mentioned would just... go somewhere else. You aren't actually advocated FOR anything, just saying 'there are bad people in the world'. Um, ok, yeah, we know that. That's why we disagree with you empowering those we see as bad people but that you defend illegally empowering/illegal behavior of because you happen to agree with them.
Get rid of Harvard and the person you mentioned would just... go somewhere else. You aren't actually advocated FOR anything, just saying 'there are bad people in the world'. Um, ok, yeah, we know that. That's why we disagree with you empowering those we see as bad people but that you defend illegally empowering/illegal behavior of because you happen to agree with them.
The APA doesn’t apply to this—issuing visas as a discretionary function of the executive, and thus unreviewable under section 701(a)(2). Where am I being inconsistent?
Have any of the challenges to the administration prevailed on APA grounds in an appellate court?
Have any of the challenges to the administration prevailed on APA grounds in an appellate court?
"In an appellate court" doing a lot of heavy lifting for you, isn't it? How many APA cases has this administration lost in district courts?
Lawyers rely on appellate court decisions to understand what the law actually is or isn’t. District court orders granting TROs don’t even include meaningful legal reasoning. Lots of these are being overturned. E.g. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/22/nx-s1-5407923/voa-voice-of-am....
The Supreme Court stands ready to overturn Humphreys Executor. https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-bl.... The prospect of the Supreme Court upholding using the APA to challenge direct presidential action is nil. Courts aren’t empowered to micromanage discretionary presidential actions.
The cases where appellate courts have upheld injunctions against the administration have been mainly on due process and first amendment groups. Courts are empowered to protect individual rights from executive action.
The Supreme Court stands ready to overturn Humphreys Executor. https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-bl.... The prospect of the Supreme Court upholding using the APA to challenge direct presidential action is nil. Courts aren’t empowered to micromanage discretionary presidential actions.
The cases where appellate courts have upheld injunctions against the administration have been mainly on due process and first amendment groups. Courts are empowered to protect individual rights from executive action.
[flagged]
Please don't cross into name-calling or personal attack, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. We've had to ask you this more than once before and your account has unfortunately been continuing to break the rules pretty badly.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. We've had to ask you this more than once before and your account has unfortunately been continuing to break the rules pretty badly.
I used that example because it’s my family. My mom’s family’s landholdings have grown in value as our capital city grows, so my aunts and uncles are selling plots and buying houses in California in cash. This is after distributing my grandfather’s estate among a dozen kids. From a country where the per-capita GDP is $2,400 per year. How do you think that happened? This background is table stakes for being part of the 0.1% that has the means to emigrate out of these countries and send their kids to elite American schools.
[flagged]
I don’t think my family was involved in corruption. But they are part of a landed gentry class that cooperated with the British colonial administration. My mom’s surname is an honorific reserved for people in a high position within a rigid class hierarchy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begum
But yes, I think that, in the aggregate, it’s not good to have a large number of people like me injected straight into America’s major institutions. We dilute what I think is a core american value against elitism and hierarchy. And our presence gives our home grown elite permission to drop certain beneficial safeguards on their behavior, such as the WASP taboo against conspicuous consumption. This is highly visible in Northern Virginia where I grew up. It was always full of elites, but now it’s full of elites that don’t feel pressured to keep a low profile and at least pretend they’re not elites.
But yes, I think that, in the aggregate, it’s not good to have a large number of people like me injected straight into America’s major institutions. We dilute what I think is a core american value against elitism and hierarchy. And our presence gives our home grown elite permission to drop certain beneficial safeguards on their behavior, such as the WASP taboo against conspicuous consumption. This is highly visible in Northern Virginia where I grew up. It was always full of elites, but now it’s full of elites that don’t feel pressured to keep a low profile and at least pretend they’re not elites.
Ah yes, this is how we will be competitive - defunding universities, deporting the best and brightest, dismantling education, and cutting off trade.
I mean seriously, if a malicious saboteur was running things, what would the differences be?
I mean seriously, if a malicious saboteur was running things, what would the differences be?
They (the current administration) doesn't want to be competitive. They want to be in full control and willing to destroy any institution, organization or person that opposes them, internal or external.
It's like he read Why Nations Fail as a guidebook.
Can we say "fascism" out loud yet or are moderates still pretending everything is fine?
[flagged]
The other side four years ago:
Can we say "Marxism" out loud yet or are moderates still pretending everything is fine?
Can we say "Marxism" out loud yet or are moderates still pretending everything is fine?
were the banks nationalized? All capital over 1 million seized and redistributed? Private property collectivized? Abandoned properties commandeered for the homeless by the state? I must have missed it.
What's "communism" now? The public park? A library? What's the current communist thing that makes you couch faint?
What's "communism" now? The public park? A library? What's the current communist thing that makes you couch faint?
were the death camps created? all minorities sized and placed into camps? all members of society involved in the war effort? expansionist wars being started? I must have missed it.
What's "fascism" now? Enforcing borders? Deporting illegal immigrants? What's the current fascist thing that makes you couch faint?
What's "fascism" now? Enforcing borders? Deporting illegal immigrants? What's the current fascist thing that makes you couch faint?
I never called it fascism. But doing things like tackling senators for asking questions in a public hearing and snatching children up off the street to send them off to forever jail doesn't look great.
I'm sure you'll defend it though, this guy has an R next to his name and you're on team R!
(I'm not on team D btw and never was so you can drop that pretext right now)
I'm sure you'll defend it though, this guy has an R next to his name and you're on team R!
(I'm not on team D btw and never was so you can drop that pretext right now)
I never called it marxism. But doing things like attempting to subvert democracy by banning your opponent from running and groomimg and mutilating children doesn't look great.
I'm sure you'll defend it though, this guy has an D next to his name and you're on team D!
(I'm not on team R btw and never was so you can drop that pretext right now)
I'm sure you'll defend it though, this guy has an D next to his name and you're on team D!
(I'm not on team R btw and never was so you can drop that pretext right now)
Marxism is when ultra-capitalist slightly right leaning politicians make boring policies to further enrich the American capitalist class. Oh and also some token "woke" stuff that doesn't really help anyone but I guess doesn't make anything worse either.
There's not a single Marxist in American politics at any level of power that matters. We have two neo-liberal parties that are both right leaning. One is ultra-right and one is ever so slightly right leaning.
There's not a single Marxist in American politics at any level of power that matters. We have two neo-liberal parties that are both right leaning. One is ultra-right and one is ever so slightly right leaning.
AOC and Sanders wanted a JOB GUARANTEE as part of the GND. The "one-time wealth tax" is confiscation and redistribution.
That's sure as hell not capitalism.
In what world is a party advocating for universal healthcare, free college, and expanded immigration "slightly right?"
That's sure as hell not capitalism.
In what world is a party advocating for universal healthcare, free college, and expanded immigration "slightly right?"
> In what world is a party advocating for universal healthcare, free college, and expanded immigration "slightly right?"
1. Most of that party is not advocating for that, those are actually fairly fringe beliefs.
2. Our fellow capitalistic allies in the west have all of that.
3. The closest things the dems tried to universal healthcare was the ACA, and despite being obvious legislation, was fought tooth and nail. You had droves of people legitimately arguing that insurers SHOULD be able to drop you for pre-existing conditions. That's how unbelievably fucking propagandized our population is. We're advocating against ourselves every day.
1. Most of that party is not advocating for that, those are actually fairly fringe beliefs.
2. Our fellow capitalistic allies in the west have all of that.
3. The closest things the dems tried to universal healthcare was the ACA, and despite being obvious legislation, was fought tooth and nail. You had droves of people legitimately arguing that insurers SHOULD be able to drop you for pre-existing conditions. That's how unbelievably fucking propagandized our population is. We're advocating against ourselves every day.
> 1. Most of that party is not advocating for that, those are actually fairly fringe beliefs.
They were literally in Biden's platform. If Biden didn't stand for "most of the party" IDK what to tell you.
> 2. Our fellow capitalistic allies in the west have all of that.
Sort of - but they are also significantly poorer on an individual basis, and the US beats them on important quality-of-life measures (living space, degree attainment, etc.) Many of them have private healthcare systems and require students to pay for college.
> 3. The closest things the dems tried to universal healthcare was the ACA, and despite being obvious legislation, was fought tooth and nail. You had droves of people legitimately arguing that insurers SHOULD be able to drop you for pre-existing conditions. That's how unbelievably fucking propagandized our population is. We're advocating against ourselves every day.
Democrats are not a right-wing party because Trump or "swing voters" exist.
They were literally in Biden's platform. If Biden didn't stand for "most of the party" IDK what to tell you.
> 2. Our fellow capitalistic allies in the west have all of that.
Sort of - but they are also significantly poorer on an individual basis, and the US beats them on important quality-of-life measures (living space, degree attainment, etc.) Many of them have private healthcare systems and require students to pay for college.
> 3. The closest things the dems tried to universal healthcare was the ACA, and despite being obvious legislation, was fought tooth and nail. You had droves of people legitimately arguing that insurers SHOULD be able to drop you for pre-existing conditions. That's how unbelievably fucking propagandized our population is. We're advocating against ourselves every day.
Democrats are not a right-wing party because Trump or "swing voters" exist.
> They were literally in Biden's platform
Uh, no. Universal healthcare and free college were not in the platform. Expanding the ACA and programs like Medicaid is not universal healthcare. There are almost zero politicians currently advocating we completely abolish private insurers. In addition, loan forgiveness is also not free college.
> Sort of - but they are also significantly poorer on an individual basis, and the US beats them on important quality-of-life measures
And the US also loses on many important quality-of-life measurements. For example, we pay significantly more per person for healthcare while simultaneously having significantly worse healthcare outcomes. Gee, I wonder why?
> Democrats are not a right-wing party because Trump or "swing voters" exist.
My point more so was that the ACA was incredibly reasonable and obvious and still shocking unpopular. Even among the democrats, there were some at the time claiming it went too far.
To this day, the ACA is still a common punching bag for a variety of politicians and constituents.
Ultimately, the democrats are trying to win over moderate and on-the-fence voters. That means they're trying to be slightly more left of the republican party, but not by much. When the republican party is far-right, as it currently is, we then have to ask ourselves: where do we land if we're trying to be slightly left of that? It's not socialism, I'll tell you that.
Uh, no. Universal healthcare and free college were not in the platform. Expanding the ACA and programs like Medicaid is not universal healthcare. There are almost zero politicians currently advocating we completely abolish private insurers. In addition, loan forgiveness is also not free college.
> Sort of - but they are also significantly poorer on an individual basis, and the US beats them on important quality-of-life measures
And the US also loses on many important quality-of-life measurements. For example, we pay significantly more per person for healthcare while simultaneously having significantly worse healthcare outcomes. Gee, I wonder why?
> Democrats are not a right-wing party because Trump or "swing voters" exist.
My point more so was that the ACA was incredibly reasonable and obvious and still shocking unpopular. Even among the democrats, there were some at the time claiming it went too far.
To this day, the ACA is still a common punching bag for a variety of politicians and constituents.
Ultimately, the democrats are trying to win over moderate and on-the-fence voters. That means they're trying to be slightly more left of the republican party, but not by much. When the republican party is far-right, as it currently is, we then have to ask ourselves: where do we land if we're trying to be slightly left of that? It's not socialism, I'll tell you that.
> There are almost zero politicians currently advocating we completely abolish private insurers.
This is not universal healthcare either, and many countries achieve universal coverage without single-payer. I would encourage you to look this up.
> In addition, loan forgiveness is also not free college.
Dude, seriously? Biden proposed free college for families making less than $125k/yr. I'm not gonna shadow box with you, this stuff was literally written down.
You are making an excellent point about the informedness of the average voter, here.
> For example, we pay significantly more per person for healthcare while simultaneously having significantly worse healthcare outcomes. Gee, I wonder why?
Obesity, for the outcomes. The price is good old-fashioned regulatory capture :)
> My point more so was that the ACA was incredibly reasonable and obvious and still shocking unpopular. Even among the democrats, there were some at the time claiming it went too far.
Healthcare is a full FIFTH of all economic activity in the US. The ACA was stuffed full of compromises and carve-outs to get those people on board. There's no faceless villain here, there were plenty of people with skin in the game if you're looking to blame someone.
> That means they're trying to be slightly more left of the republican party, but not by much. When the republican party is far-right, as it currently is, we then have to ask ourselves: where do we land if we're trying to be slightly left of that? It's not socialism, I'll tell you that.
If Bernie Sanders cannot even win with Democrats in the primary process, he would be smoked in the general election. That's basic numeracy. And no, the party did not railroad him - he was actually just not very popular outside of college students. The US is further right than Europe or whatever other "true left" place you want to name, and our politics reflect that.
This is not universal healthcare either, and many countries achieve universal coverage without single-payer. I would encourage you to look this up.
> In addition, loan forgiveness is also not free college.
Dude, seriously? Biden proposed free college for families making less than $125k/yr. I'm not gonna shadow box with you, this stuff was literally written down.
You are making an excellent point about the informedness of the average voter, here.
> For example, we pay significantly more per person for healthcare while simultaneously having significantly worse healthcare outcomes. Gee, I wonder why?
Obesity, for the outcomes. The price is good old-fashioned regulatory capture :)
> My point more so was that the ACA was incredibly reasonable and obvious and still shocking unpopular. Even among the democrats, there were some at the time claiming it went too far.
Healthcare is a full FIFTH of all economic activity in the US. The ACA was stuffed full of compromises and carve-outs to get those people on board. There's no faceless villain here, there were plenty of people with skin in the game if you're looking to blame someone.
> That means they're trying to be slightly more left of the republican party, but not by much. When the republican party is far-right, as it currently is, we then have to ask ourselves: where do we land if we're trying to be slightly left of that? It's not socialism, I'll tell you that.
If Bernie Sanders cannot even win with Democrats in the primary process, he would be smoked in the general election. That's basic numeracy. And no, the party did not railroad him - he was actually just not very popular outside of college students. The US is further right than Europe or whatever other "true left" place you want to name, and our politics reflect that.
trealira(2)
Luckily Jon Stewart finally came to his senses.
I tolerate my normie family saying it, but it grates on me because of how many of the constituencies have switched sides by now. For instance, educated professionals were a major base for the original Nazi Party, while nowadays the fascists seem to really loathe that class stratum.
"For instance, educated professionals were a major base for the original Nazi Party."
Thats not entirely true. While there were definitely many people in education who supported the nazi party there were still quite a few in the education field during the beginning of Hitlers power who were not and many fled to other countries starting around 1933. https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/Online/5299/The-scientific.... it was why albert einstein spent a great deal of time in the US.
Through laws they shaped and molded the education to be inline with nazi ideology and only those who towed the line were allowed to continue to teach/study. heres a small article from the US Congress (shocked its still up) that discusses higher education in germany during nazi occupation. https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116973/documents/...
Basically if you disagreed with the nazi party you were fired/expelled in the beginning and later sent to camps. the entire point of studying history is so we dont repeat it and just looking at the amount of US universities bending to the republican parties ideals on what they believe is scarily similar to early nazi germany.
I dont get how people dont understand that the strength of the US for the longest time has been our diversity; especially in education. hell, after world war 2 we actively recurited many nazi scientist to help us with the space program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip many would argue it is the reason why we beat the soviet union to the moon. the harm that is slowly being done to this country will take decades to repair if it can be and i dont believe that is being hyperbolic
Through laws they shaped and molded the education to be inline with nazi ideology and only those who towed the line were allowed to continue to teach/study. heres a small article from the US Congress (shocked its still up) that discusses higher education in germany during nazi occupation. https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116973/documents/...
Basically if you disagreed with the nazi party you were fired/expelled in the beginning and later sent to camps. the entire point of studying history is so we dont repeat it and just looking at the amount of US universities bending to the republican parties ideals on what they believe is scarily similar to early nazi germany.
I dont get how people dont understand that the strength of the US for the longest time has been our diversity; especially in education. hell, after world war 2 we actively recurited many nazi scientist to help us with the space program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip many would argue it is the reason why we beat the soviet union to the moon. the harm that is slowly being done to this country will take decades to repair if it can be and i dont believe that is being hyperbolic
Not really. The nazis party had the same rethoric. Of course they recruited business leaders etc despite that. Just like people like Elon are part of the MAGA movement.
Do you know the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?
Do you know how condescending and useless that statement is?
It is only useless on mindless elitist mind. Why would it be condescending to remind people actions have consequences?
> Why would it be condescending to remind people actions have consequences?
I think yes, explicitly. I think every person on planet Earth is aware actions have consequences. That's never been a debate. The debate is always what consequences have come from what actions, and to what extent.
I think yes, explicitly. I think every person on planet Earth is aware actions have consequences. That's never been a debate. The debate is always what consequences have come from what actions, and to what extent.
Yeah ok. It seems you have nothing to add except some lame nonsensical jabs at “elitists.”
You are free to expand on why you think it's condescending, since you brought it up.
[flagged]
anonfordays(1)
[flagged]
Please don't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter what you're replying to. In discussions like this we need everyone to pay extra attention to the guidelines, particularly these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Yeah, and my grandmother lived under Nazi Germany, although she was a supporter and not put in any camps. Call me an elitist all you want, I don't care.
I'd be fine with banning political discussion altogether on this site, but until that happens, I'm not going to self-censor as others confidently let their opinions be known.
I'd be fine with banning political discussion altogether on this site, but until that happens, I'm not going to self-censor as others confidently let their opinions be known.
Banning political discussion was briefly tried here, nearly a decade ago. It failed, but it did reveal (or, remind) that there's no way to get a community like HN to agree on where the line should be between "politics" and "everything else", and that indeed that very question is itself political. So, there will be no more attempts to ban political discussion here. There will just be continued emphasis on the guideline that only stories that contain "significant new information" are considered worthy of discussion on HN.
But we do ask you and everyone to heed the guidelines, particularly these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But we do ask you and everyone to heed the guidelines, particularly these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
They’d probably try to be more subtle about it.
Whence the salient and more pressing question: why does the gop in the legislative branch take a zero?
We've all had bad bosses ... and that's a problem, but it's 10x worse when the people around know better and do nothing.
We've all had bad bosses ... and that's a problem, but it's 10x worse when the people around know better and do nothing.
They're afraid of losing to a primary challenger if they break with Trump. It used to be a Trump endorsement would hurt your campaign. Now a Trump critique is believed to be a scarlet letter. He's got a lock on the racist zealots that make up the most consistent voting bloc in the GOP.
They never picked off Newhouse, IIRC.
I think the problem is that half of the country (has been made to) wants to sabotage itself. Therefore, they elect and keep in power someone that gives them exactly what they want.
Yeah, the way the Democratic Party self-destructed was indeed enlightening and frightening. And they continue to point fingers at each other and present specious arguments why they failed in the last election.
Meamwhile the Republicans, while making headway, aren't doing it in a way that will last beyond the next Democratic administration. I'm speaking of the overuse of executive orders when legislation is what is required.
Meamwhile the Republicans, while making headway, aren't doing it in a way that will last beyond the next Democratic administration. I'm speaking of the overuse of executive orders when legislation is what is required.
DOGE has destroyed institutions that will likely not recover in the next Democratic majority term. If they sell off the federal lands or damage them with resource extraction, Dems probably wont have the bandwidth to fix that either. Those are just two examples but there are probably many more.
> seriously, if a malicious saboteur was running things, what would the differences be?
Less obvious corruption.
Less obvious corruption.
Harvard does not have "the best and brightest" students and that's a meme that needs to die as is discriminatory to literally all the other students in the US and the planet.
You are nitpicking. It is an elite institution that still attracts elite class people or else it wouldn't be worth so much to so many groups. There are hundreds of universities in the US, many of which have no kind recognition of the kind Harvard has.
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.
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.
Only if you look at one aspect of the school: A bubble wouldn't produce a cadre of skilled people that move multiple fields forward. The elite nature of the institution comes from people maintaining that elite status through accomplishment. You don't need a "belief" when the school continually produces many examples of excellence. Thats just hard evidence.
>You are nitpicking.
I am doing the opposite, @kristopolous is the one who attached the "best and brightest" label to Harvard students. I am arguing that's unfair.
I am doing the opposite, @kristopolous is the one who attached the "best and brightest" label to Harvard students. I am arguing that's unfair.
I think it may have been an [un]intentional callback to Trump saying that about who "Mexico was sending over the border" - at least that's how I interpreted it.
Harvard doesn't have higher academic standards for foreign students. So I don't think foreign students are any "better or brighter" than their American counterparts.
So if you can find equally qualified American students on the margin shouldn't you do so? I think an American university that benefits greatly from American taxpayers and institutions should primarily benefit American students. If you're picking truly exceptional student, that's one thing. But I don't think that's happening.
So if you can find equally qualified American students on the margin shouldn't you do so? I think an American university that benefits greatly from American taxpayers and institutions should primarily benefit American students. If you're picking truly exceptional student, that's one thing. But I don't think that's happening.
Academic standards are kind of irrelevant when it comes to Harvard undergraduate admissions.
Harvard is a tiny university at the absolute top of the prestige hierarchy. As far as they are concerned, every serious (non-legacy/donor) applicant is a truly exceptional student. At least to the extent it can be determined from the admission materials and a short interview. They could choose randomly from all good enough applicants with no noticeable impact on academic standards.
But Harvard is not in the business of educating the most deserving. Instead, they want to educate the ones who will be successful and influential in the future, and to give them the best networking opportunities possible. The standard joke is that if the admissions officer knew that the applicant would become a tenured professor at Harvard, they would reject the applicant for the lack of success. Most Harvard graduates fail to reach that standard, but it's better to choose a likely failure (and an unlikely unicorn) over a certain failure.
PhD admissions are another story. At that stage, Harvard starts caring a lot more about academic potential. They don't want to restrict their recruitment to the US, because Americans are only a small fraction of the people with access to good education. Especially because Americans are reluctant to do a PhD due to the low pay effectively mandated by public research funders.
Harvard is a tiny university at the absolute top of the prestige hierarchy. As far as they are concerned, every serious (non-legacy/donor) applicant is a truly exceptional student. At least to the extent it can be determined from the admission materials and a short interview. They could choose randomly from all good enough applicants with no noticeable impact on academic standards.
But Harvard is not in the business of educating the most deserving. Instead, they want to educate the ones who will be successful and influential in the future, and to give them the best networking opportunities possible. The standard joke is that if the admissions officer knew that the applicant would become a tenured professor at Harvard, they would reject the applicant for the lack of success. Most Harvard graduates fail to reach that standard, but it's better to choose a likely failure (and an unlikely unicorn) over a certain failure.
PhD admissions are another story. At that stage, Harvard starts caring a lot more about academic potential. They don't want to restrict their recruitment to the US, because Americans are only a small fraction of the people with access to good education. Especially because Americans are reluctant to do a PhD due to the low pay effectively mandated by public research funders.
> As far as they are concerned, every serious (non-legacy/donor) applicant is a truly exceptional student.
I know it's fun to dunk on legacy admissions but legacy students are actually more qualified by objective measures than non legacy. It makes sense that some genetics that predisposes children to an academic environment gets passed on. Not to mention the fact that their parents value education. This holds up even when you compare them against their non legacy peers in the same parental income bracket.
https://mleverything.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-legacy-adm...
I know it's fun to dunk on legacy admissions but legacy students are actually more qualified by objective measures than non legacy. It makes sense that some genetics that predisposes children to an academic environment gets passed on. Not to mention the fact that their parents value education. This holds up even when you compare them against their non legacy peers in the same parental income bracket.
https://mleverything.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-legacy-adm...
I think in context “legacy” refers to the affirmative action boost given to children of (donating) alumni over better qualified unconnected peers.
rayiner(2)
But foreign students pay foreign money which helps against the deficit.
On top of that many students stay in the US afterwards means a brain plus for the US and a loss their home country. These kind of braun drain is a big advantage for the US they know destroy.
On top of that many students stay in the US afterwards means a brain plus for the US and a loss their home country. These kind of braun drain is a big advantage for the US they know destroy.
If that was the case, then these funding cuts wouldn't have any effect on Harvard.
If your expenses are based on your income and your income includes government money, cuts on these will have an impact.
Same is true for income from foreign student tuition fees.
Same is true for income from foreign student tuition fees.
Notwithstanding the unfounded isolationist argument, having international students is valuable to the university and the domestic students. A diversity of life experiences, knowledge, backgrounds, etc. results in better educational outcomes. But you probably wouldn't understand that concept.
They don't have lower standards either.
I mean they will now with a candidate pool reduction of 96%...
The rest is kinda wild. I guess Ilya Sutskever should leave? Sergey Brin would have never started Google, Jony Ive would be in the UK, Jensen Huang and Nvidia would be hailing from Taipei, Elon Musk would be in Johannesburg, Linus Torvalds would still be in Finland, the Rasmussen brothers would have launched Google maps in the Netherlands, Satya Nadella would be in Hyderabad, the Broadcom CEO would be in Malaysia...
You're beheading like 50% of the S&P my friend...
Not to mention say, the faculty of engineering at places like MIT https://www.eecs.mit.edu/role/faculty-cs/
To me places like Stanford and Caltech are world class schools that happen to be in the US. Over 90% not being American born is what I'd expect from a globally renown world class institution because that's what the world population looks like.
China has many programs to attract top global talent. If you want to fast track the transition from Silicon Valley to Beijing, kicking out the foreigners is an excellent move.
Graduate level coursework at Peking is already in English. All these scholars have to do is get on a plane.
I mean they will now with a candidate pool reduction of 96%...
The rest is kinda wild. I guess Ilya Sutskever should leave? Sergey Brin would have never started Google, Jony Ive would be in the UK, Jensen Huang and Nvidia would be hailing from Taipei, Elon Musk would be in Johannesburg, Linus Torvalds would still be in Finland, the Rasmussen brothers would have launched Google maps in the Netherlands, Satya Nadella would be in Hyderabad, the Broadcom CEO would be in Malaysia...
You're beheading like 50% of the S&P my friend...
Not to mention say, the faculty of engineering at places like MIT https://www.eecs.mit.edu/role/faculty-cs/
To me places like Stanford and Caltech are world class schools that happen to be in the US. Over 90% not being American born is what I'd expect from a globally renown world class institution because that's what the world population looks like.
China has many programs to attract top global talent. If you want to fast track the transition from Silicon Valley to Beijing, kicking out the foreigners is an excellent move.
Graduate level coursework at Peking is already in English. All these scholars have to do is get on a plane.
> You're beheading like 50% of the S&P my friend...
Everyone's decisions are fundamentally ideological. Some ideologies are just more coherent
> You're beheading like 50% of the S&P my friend...
And that's why we call it MAGA Maoism.
And that's why we call it MAGA Maoism.
rather than say anything likely unconstructive myself in direct response to this, i would very much like to see you elaborate on your understanding of mao and what value and predictive power you find in this comparison.
Maoism and Trumpism share a certain self-sabotaging ideological fetish for the virtues of rural life that expresses itself politically more in destructive resentment of urbanites and urban institutions than productive development of rural ones.
Snow_Falls(1)
It doesn’t actually matter if the foreign students are better or not: by having a mixed student body, with lots of cultures and backgrounds, students learn more from each other. They learn skills to work with other cultures, and ways of doing things that may be better.
Of course, in America’s future of autarky and Shogunate-style isolationism, those skills will no longer have any value, even to the elite. There’s no need to learn about other countries if everything we need is produced here and no one could ever threaten us once America is made great again. (/s maybe?)
Of course, in America’s future of autarky and Shogunate-style isolationism, those skills will no longer have any value, even to the elite. There’s no need to learn about other countries if everything we need is produced here and no one could ever threaten us once America is made great again. (/s maybe?)
I don't know. A lot of foreign students from Harvard are Chinese. Seems kind of weird that they were found to discriminate against American Asians and then they import foreign Asian students. Goes against the whole we want diversity thing, no?
That sentence is breath taking.
> A lot of foreign students from Harvard are Chinese. Seems kind of weird that they were found to discriminate against American Asians and then they import foreign Asian students.
How do I put this delicately - the Race part is not what is bringing the difference in lived experience.
> A lot of foreign students from Harvard are Chinese. Seems kind of weird that they were found to discriminate against American Asians and then they import foreign Asian students.
How do I put this delicately - the Race part is not what is bringing the difference in lived experience.
The university defines diversity broadly, encompassing race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic background, nationality, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity.
Don't gaslight me and pretend they don't focus a lot on race when figuring out their student body. They report on it and it's a huge distinguishing characteristic when looking at median standardized scores across diff characteristics. There's little difference between socio economic groups, gender, nationality etc. But if you look across just Asian and non Asian students, the scores are dramatically higher with Asians meaning that they have higher standards. Courts found this to be true
Don't gaslight me and pretend they don't focus a lot on race when figuring out their student body. They report on it and it's a huge distinguishing characteristic when looking at median standardized scores across diff characteristics. There's little difference between socio economic groups, gender, nationality etc. But if you look across just Asian and non Asian students, the scores are dramatically higher with Asians meaning that they have higher standards. Courts found this to be true
Chinese people, are the same to you, as Americans if Asian descent.
That is what you conflated in your framing.
That is what you conflated in your framing.
I agree. Then why are Asian students held to a higher standard?
Asian-Americans admitted to Harvard earned an average SAT score of 767 across all sections. Every section of the SAT has a maximum score of 800. By comparison, white admits earned an average score of 745 across all sections, Hispanic-American admits earned an average of 718, Native-American and Native-Hawaiian admits an average of 712, and African-American admits an average of 704
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american...
Asian-Americans admitted to Harvard earned an average SAT score of 767 across all sections. Every section of the SAT has a maximum score of 800. By comparison, white admits earned an average score of 745 across all sections, Hispanic-American admits earned an average of 718, Native-American and Native-Hawaiian admits an average of 712, and African-American admits an average of 704
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/22/asian-american...
What about non-American Chinese students? Those kids from Shanghai are no slouches at standardized tests.
A judge has already blocked the move.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/judge-blocks-tr...
> A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from terminating the legal statuses of international students at universities across the U.S.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/judge-blocks-tr...
> A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from terminating the legal statuses of international students at universities across the U.S.
I don't think this decision can force the Department of State to issue new visas for Havard students unfortunately. At least existing students *might* be alright...
This is not the same issue. Judges can be fast, but not that fast. Both the decision and this action against Harvard happened within an hour of eachother.
> This is not the same issue.
It is not, but it isn't unrelated; this is about the individual actions for which Harvard's refusal to assist by proactively supplying information is the basis for the action against Harvard.
It is not, but it isn't unrelated; this is about the individual actions for which Harvard's refusal to assist by proactively supplying information is the basis for the action against Harvard.
I believe they've taken a different tactic here - attacking Harvard's ability to enroll international students, not the students' status directly.
The article states "existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status"; this injunction would appear to pause that.
The semester is already over, many of them went home. They'll simply be refused when they try to come back.
That's a real issue. If you're on a student visa, and were planning on coming back in the fall, leaving the US for the summer may be a bad move. Entry to the US can be denied arbitrarily. Deporting someone is harder.
> Deporting someone is harder.
It used to be harder and mostly seems to be a matter of ICE finding the right door to break down now.
It used to be harder and mostly seems to be a matter of ICE finding the right door to break down now.
Or the wrong one.
They've got a deportation order, so somebody is being put on a plane to El Salvador. Whether the name of the person being deported matches the name on the deportation order is another question, but not one ICE seems bothered by anymore
Deporting someone is just a matter of grabbing them off the street and shipping them out to El Salvador before the courts hear anything about it.
Not only refused, they may be locked up for a couple of weeks, as has happened to various tourists.
Sure, I was locked up by DHS/immigration, and I am a US citizen. CBP/ICE/HSI doesn't really need much of anything to lock you up, when they did it to me they told me I wasn't even under arrest.
> Sure, I was locked up by DHS/immigration, and I am a US citizen.
Can you expand - what happened?
Can you expand - what happened?
IANAL but there are different categories like "detained" [reasonable suspicion, for questioning] and "arrested" [probable cause], and that's why the common advice is to just ask "am I free to go", which doesn't get bogged-down on finer-grained distinctions about why you might no be.
Yes chained ("detained") in a jail cell, but not arrested, so no right to lawyer.
It’s hard to do an injunction if there is currently no harm.
ICE begs to differ.
What judges say doesn't matter anymore to this administration. They'll just implement it anyway.
[deleted]
The house republicans have passed a bill that in effect lets Trump override the courts: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-t...
Presumably you mean it would if it were passed into law. The House passes all sorts of bullshit that dies in the Senate.
Hopefully it dies, but republicans do have a senate majority too.
They don’t have 60 senators which is required to pass anything besides the budget these days thanks to the filibuster.
This is the budget reconciliation bill.
And thus it can only be used to pass legislation that impacts the federal budget according to the reconciliation rules. I don't see how the house putting in a provision that doesn't impact the budget but strips judges of a power could fly with the reconciliation rules. But I'm not a lawyer or legislative rules expert
The Republicans already ignored the parliamentarian ruling they couldn't use reconciliation to prevent California from setting a combustion engine sunset date.
If Republicans believe they will never lose the Senate, they can easily bypass the filibuster without 60 votes. To date, the adults in the room prevented either party from doing this for short term wins, but a) there are no adults in the room and b) it’s arguable the Senate will never again have a non-Republican majority (demographically, not a conspiracy theory).
[deleted]
[deleted]
Nationwide injunctions are going the way of the dodo
With population outgrowing our capped judiciary, making access to courts increasingly pay to play, this means even less accountability for the executive branch.
The judiciary doesn't have to be capped. Thats on Congress
[deleted]
It doesn’t matter, the damage is done. If you’re an international student, are you going to risk an El Salvador gulag?
Why do students need to be inside the US in order for Harvard to issue them a degree? Surely there is an international network -- collaborators abroad who could host students, etc, etc. For example , Harvard already has an infrastructure of exchange programs. It's not ideal for the students, but I don't see why they can't continue to "be Harvard students" from anywhere.
Hopefully, though, this is an "escalate to deescalate" thing, and this whole discussion will become moot.
Hopefully, though, this is an "escalate to deescalate" thing, and this whole discussion will become moot.
Or gain legal status another way. Marriage, business, lottery, another college, etc.
I wonder what avenues there are for Harvard to challenge this; it looks like the mechanism the Trump Admin used was for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cancel Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification [0] which is managed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [1].
Does ICE just have full discretion over SEVP? Can they do this to any school for whatever reason they want?
[0] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses...
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsicepia-001-student-exchan...
Does ICE just have full discretion over SEVP? Can they do this to any school for whatever reason they want?
[0] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses...
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsicepia-001-student-exchan...
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1372, the SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) program requires schools to report data on international students including what DHS has been asking for.
Harvard may argue that DHS’s request was overly broad, lacked due process, or sought information beyond what the law permits.
8 CFR § 214.3(g) and § 214.4(b), which require schools to maintain and furnish records “as required by the Service,” including disciplinary actions and other conduct relevant to maintaining status.
8 CFR § 214.3(l)(2)(iii) allows for withdrawal of certification if a school fails to “provide requested documentation” to DHS.
Not to mention other overly broad immigration laws
But given the laws on the books, DHS has broad authority to take this action.
Not arguing one way or the other just laying out the facts. This could have happened under the prior administration if the law was applied
Harvard may argue that DHS’s request was overly broad, lacked due process, or sought information beyond what the law permits.
8 CFR § 214.3(g) and § 214.4(b), which require schools to maintain and furnish records “as required by the Service,” including disciplinary actions and other conduct relevant to maintaining status.
8 CFR § 214.3(l)(2)(iii) allows for withdrawal of certification if a school fails to “provide requested documentation” to DHS.
Not to mention other overly broad immigration laws
But given the laws on the books, DHS has broad authority to take this action.
Not arguing one way or the other just laying out the facts. This could have happened under the prior administration if the law was applied
The actual statute provides the categories of information schools must provide about their students. It’s not a “whatever we happen to ask for” list. See 8 U.S.C. § 1372. Needless to say, “protest activity” is not included.
We do not know yet what Harvard did and did not respond to. All we have is their word. If they didn’t provide what was required after DHS demanded what was legally required to be provided then DHS is on solid legal ground. I can’t really defend not providing something that isn’t called out as part of the law though
No, we gave the SEVIS revocation letter demanding a handful of categories of information, one of which is “protest activity.” And they are already required under the statute to provide one category of information requested: “any disciplinary action taken by the institution against the alien as a result of the alien’s being convicted of a crime or, in the case of a participant in a designated exchange visitor program, any change in the alien’s participation as a result of the alien’s being convicted of a crime.”
My main point, though, was this: (1) the information required to maintain SEVIS program is statutorily defined, so the government doesn’t get to arbitrarily expand that and then punish a school for noncompliance; and (2) we know of at least one category requested information that they are not allowed to ask for and that implicates nothing other than the exercise of a student’s First Amendment rights.
My main point, though, was this: (1) the information required to maintain SEVIS program is statutorily defined, so the government doesn’t get to arbitrarily expand that and then punish a school for noncompliance; and (2) we know of at least one category requested information that they are not allowed to ask for and that implicates nothing other than the exercise of a student’s First Amendment rights.
My point is we don’t know if they actually provided all the info that is statutorily required and/or the government is saying within those statutory rules you still didn’t provide it so by law it’s revoked (for now). We only have statements from both sides.
Seeing as it’s private most likely won’t see it via FOIA
Seeing as it’s private most likely won’t see it via FOIA
Nah, this one is going to federal court for sure. It’ll all come out. But part of the rules are also that schools must provide the relevant information within 30 days of the start of an alien’s academic term. There’s a whole system set up to handle this. The system is not, government, go ask for this set of information whenever you feel like it and if the school doesn’t hop to it immediately, you may suspend. It says that if a school does not provide the information within the relevant period before the term starts, it shall be suspended. There is no discretionary wiggle room for the government to be like, well, I don’t think you’re giving me enough, or you’re not being cooperative enough.
Actually, that interpretation isn’t quite correct. The 30-day reporting window you’re referring to applies to initial SEVIS data entry and student registration at the beginning of each term-things like confirming enrollment, course load, address, etc. That’s under 8 CFR § 214.3(g)(2) and (l)(2), which govern routine reporting timelines for active F-1/M-1 students.
But the April 16 DHS request to Harvard wasn't routine. It invoked 8 CFR § 214.3(g)(1), which covers ad hoc or investigative information requests by DHS. That section gives DHS broad power to request any time the records needed to assess a student’s compliance with immigration status.
But the April 16 DHS request to Harvard wasn't routine. It invoked 8 CFR § 214.3(g)(1), which covers ad hoc or investigative information requests by DHS. That section gives DHS broad power to request any time the records needed to assess a student’s compliance with immigration status.
Yes, I was being sloppy. Nevertheless, they can still only request that particular set of documents. And it’s not to assess a particular student’s status but the school’s compliance with the program requirements. (They can of course check individuals to make sure they’re also complying.) And just from the face of the letter to Harvard you can see they’re going way beyond the enumerated categories of information. Not to mention intermingling other SEVP-unrelated complaints (DEI! Antisemitism!) as to why Harvard is being targeted.
Our immigration system is so profoundly screwed up, and there is no doubt the executive agencies have wide powers to draw on, but they’re not even trying to provide a fig leaf of legality. It’s straight, “Comply or suffer!”
Our immigration system is so profoundly screwed up, and there is no doubt the executive agencies have wide powers to draw on, but they’re not even trying to provide a fig leaf of legality. It’s straight, “Comply or suffer!”
yes, there are clear problems with the scope and political context of the request. But the legal framework does give DHS room to request information tied to student status compliance, even outside of term-start reporting. The question now is how much of that request was actually lawful, and how much was political theater cloaked in regulatory form.
Rights don’t exist if you’re not a citizen. Isn’t that the whole crux of the debate? Glossing over that part, and as a former lawyer you should know better, means everything.
You’re wrong about that. It doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law, unless it targets non-citizens.” The First Amendment is a constraint on what governments may do.
Governments may remove foreigners. Especially ones who come here to expand their internecine desert tribal rivalries that have no place in American communities.
And all we have is DHS' word that Harvard didn't provide what was required. This is simply ridiculous and everything needs to be easier for the public to double-check so we can call bullshit in the right direction.
Your bias is showing. Harvard could be wrong too.
This is all being argued in the court of public opinion now
This is all being argued in the court of public opinion now
The bayesean priors aren't the same for the two parties: One is a 30-time convicted criminal infamous for lying to get his way (tens of thousands of such lies on the record); The other is not.
If your first instinct isn't that the infamous known liar isn't the one lying here, then the bias here is yours.
If your first instinct isn't that the infamous known liar isn't the one lying here, then the bias here is yours.
Why would you ever believe the orange criminal and his gang members?
He is not a criminal nor do we have gang members. Show some respect
He is a criminal. He is a convicted felon.
Ah yes, the justice system only works when it favors your guy. But sure, 12 random jurors in New York just happened to all get their talking points from MSNBC. Totally not how trials work. Let us know how the appeal goes - third time's the charm, right?
I mean Biden was totally with it his entire term and didn’t have cancer either right?
I mean Biden was totally with it his entire term and didn’t have cancer either right?
yep. the laws have been written to be broad... my best guess would be the best legal argument Harvard could claim would be that it construes the existing law as a bill of attainder (a law targetted at an individual or group of individuals called out by person -- versus called out by some category of actions -- that is judged without trial)
Could Harvard be eligible for damages?
Given that Harvard’s own report supports this administration’s findings I am doubtful. Harvard’s own ASAIB report proved there is a prevalence of antisemitism and anti-Israel bias which includes verbal harassment, discriminatory comments hostile environments in academic settings pertaining to Israel and the Middle East, and exclusion of Jewish students from certain campus activities and organizations due to their perceived political affiliations
Link https://www.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FINAL-Har...
Link https://www.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FINAL-Har...
Not sure how that’s relevant to pulling their foreign student credentials.
Point is their only option is to seek injunctive relief
> 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.
…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.
I will explain.
Under 8 CFR § 214.3(a)(3) and § 214.4(a)(2)(ii), schools are required to maintain accurate records and comply with all SEVP-related responsibilities, which include ensuring that F-1 students are not engaged in activities that violate status or federal law. If DHS believes that international students were involved in threatening, discriminatory, or unlawful activity and the school either failed to document, disclose, or respond appropriately, that’s a direct compliance issue.
Harvard’s own ASAIB report admits that antisemitic conduct occurred-including exclusion of Jewish students, verbal harassment, and bias in classroom settings. If any of that involved foreign students-and Harvard didn’t report it or take disciplinary action-DHS can reasonably infer noncompliance with 214.3(g)(1) (required records) and failure to enforce visa conditions.
In fact, the ASAIB report might be evidence that Harvard knew about the issues and didn’t fully cooperate, justifying DHS’s conclusion that the university wasn’t acting in good faith.
Under 8 CFR § 214.3(a)(3) and § 214.4(a)(2)(ii), schools are required to maintain accurate records and comply with all SEVP-related responsibilities, which include ensuring that F-1 students are not engaged in activities that violate status or federal law. If DHS believes that international students were involved in threatening, discriminatory, or unlawful activity and the school either failed to document, disclose, or respond appropriately, that’s a direct compliance issue.
Harvard’s own ASAIB report admits that antisemitic conduct occurred-including exclusion of Jewish students, verbal harassment, and bias in classroom settings. If any of that involved foreign students-and Harvard didn’t report it or take disciplinary action-DHS can reasonably infer noncompliance with 214.3(g)(1) (required records) and failure to enforce visa conditions.
In fact, the ASAIB report might be evidence that Harvard knew about the issues and didn’t fully cooperate, justifying DHS’s conclusion that the university wasn’t acting in good faith.
They could argue it is an arbitrary or capricious action by the agency: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706
If Harvard has maintained approval for international students, and Harvard's policies with respect to the approval haven't changed recently, then withdrawing approval would be arbitrary.
If Harvard has maintained approval for international students, and Harvard's policies with respect to the approval haven't changed recently, then withdrawing approval would be arbitrary.
The actual letter explains they can regain status by ratting out their students.
It will quietly be done, although likely in a way that make it look as if Harvard hasn't.
It will quietly be done, although likely in a way that make it look as if Harvard hasn't.
Maybe, but I doubt it. Trump is not a mafia boss - time after time he showed that his words cannot be trusted. If Harvard makes a concession, there's no guarantee that Trump will "forgive" it.
Look how China is dealing with Trump. Trump announces tariffs, China returns Boeing planes, tariffs somehow comes down.
Look how China is dealing with Trump. Trump announces tariffs, China returns Boeing planes, tariffs somehow comes down.
It's too bad Barron was too dumb to enroll at Harvard so his admission couldn't be rescinded
As a sovereign nation, China is in a somewhat different position than Harvard which is subject to US law.
Penn should support Harvard and publicly revoke Trump's degree. Bullies only understand force.
What force does that possibly employ?
When you revoke the degree of a sitting president, that costs him...?
When you revoke the degree of a sitting president, that costs him...?
It costs him the only thing he cares about: his ego
I see two risks with your analysis. First, you generally underestimate a person if you try to distill his personality into one negative trait (or, for that matter, if you select a bunch of negative traits but assume no positive.)
Second, he's still the president, so I don't see what pull the Penn degree has vs. that.
Second, he's still the president, so I don't see what pull the Penn degree has vs. that.
Justice.
> Trump is not a mafia boss - time after time he showed that his words cannot be trusted. If Harvard makes a concession, there's no guarantee that Trump will "forgive" it.
> Look how China is dealing with Trump. Trump announces tariffs, China returns Boeing planes, tariffs somehow comes down.
Doesn't this example make the opposite of your point?
> Look how China is dealing with Trump. Trump announces tariffs, China returns Boeing planes, tariffs somehow comes down.
Doesn't this example make the opposite of your point?
The point I'm trying to make is: if Trump bullies you, and you make a concession, Trump will feel no obligations to pay you back and may bully you further. China played hardball (up to some degree - I'm sure there were backstage talks), and that apparently made Trump "respect" China more.
> The actual letter explains they can regain status by ratting out their students.
Trump's history has shown that if you cave into his demands, he doesn't leave you alone—instead he starts demanding even more, since he knows you'll fold.
Trump's history has shown that if you cave into his demands, he doesn't leave you alone—instead he starts demanding even more, since he knows you'll fold.
Classic schoolyard bully behavior.
can you give an example?
> can you give an example?
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elec...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elec...
thanks!
Everything Columbia University did and what they got in return.
i was hoping for an example out of this particular domain (because i cant think of one), but it'll do.
Apple just got warned if they don’t bring manufacturing to USA they will be hit by company specific tariffs after Tim Cook bent the knee twice with personal pleas to lower tariffs for a bit and million dollar personal donations.
"million dollar personal donations" don't really address the underlying request though?
like I'm thinking trump saying "china needs to come to the table", so china comes to the table, and they get a 90 day stay on the 150% tariffs.
like I'm thinking trump saying "china needs to come to the table", so china comes to the table, and they get a 90 day stay on the 150% tariffs.
'ratting out' how? this implies they did something wrong
If you provide information to an actor when you have a clear indication that said actor will then take disproportionate action against the one on which you provide information, how is that not wrong?
Doesn't matter anyway.
Pretty much a guarantee that Harvard will choose to stay the course. This is the quintessential organization that thinks along the lines of, "100 years from now Harvard will still be Harvard. And Trump will be one of the answers on a middle school history exam".
Expect escalation.
Pretty much a guarantee that Harvard will choose to stay the course. This is the quintessential organization that thinks along the lines of, "100 years from now Harvard will still be Harvard. And Trump will be one of the answers on a middle school history exam".
Expect escalation.
Ratting out in my mind means informing authorities in a way that something negative might be expected to happen to the subject.
For instance, I don't think smoking weed is wrong, but if I go tell an officer you have weed in your car, I have ratted you out despite nothing 'wrong' happening.
For instance, I don't think smoking weed is wrong, but if I go tell an officer you have weed in your car, I have ratted you out despite nothing 'wrong' happening.
Can someone ELI5 the power networks involved here?
I didn't expect to see Harvard getting smacked around or humiliated like this.
Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government. And that key figures in government were interested in maintaining and benefiting from that influence.
And a lot of that influence seemed aligned with national interests. (For example, getting things done with prestige connections, domestically and internationally. And the international diplomatic goodwill, when children of the world's wealthy and powerful go to prestigious schools in the US.)
Is some other faction at work now, or is it the same people as before? Are the power networks changing? If the distribution of power is changing, is it partly due to someone willing to sacrifice national power from which all parties benefited (and everyone else wasn't expecting that, or wasn't ready to defend against that from within)? Better questions?
I didn't expect to see Harvard getting smacked around or humiliated like this.
Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government. And that key figures in government were interested in maintaining and benefiting from that influence.
And a lot of that influence seemed aligned with national interests. (For example, getting things done with prestige connections, domestically and internationally. And the international diplomatic goodwill, when children of the world's wealthy and powerful go to prestigious schools in the US.)
Is some other faction at work now, or is it the same people as before? Are the power networks changing? If the distribution of power is changing, is it partly due to someone willing to sacrifice national power from which all parties benefited (and everyone else wasn't expecting that, or wasn't ready to defend against that from within)? Better questions?
> For example, getting things done with prestige connections, domestically and internationally. And the international diplomatic goodwill
What you describe is relatively recent development of US foreign policy. In 1959, John F. Kennedy purchased a copy of The Ugly American for all of his fellow US Senators. After Kennedy was elected, many foreign service programs were initiated to leverage soft power. That was JFK's legacy.
Prior to that, the US acted much in the same way as it is today. It came up with Bretton Woods, along with the UK. The people that ran the world were the Averill Harrimans and Prescott Bushes.
In 1956, the US basically told the UK it wasn't going to back the Prime Minister (Anthony Eden) with regards to the Suez Canal. That was probably a sobering indication that the UK was going to be a supplicant in the relationship. The US also returned Vietnam to France (as was policy after WW2), which of course precipitated 20 years of war in southeast asia.
The end of the WW2, and the discovery of the infiltration of Russian agents in the dead Roosevelt administration put Truman in panic mode. The iron curtain and cold war basically turned foreign policy into a huge power grab after the war to position against a perceived threat.
https://www.thehistoryreader.com/us-history/ugly-american-jf...
What you describe is relatively recent development of US foreign policy. In 1959, John F. Kennedy purchased a copy of The Ugly American for all of his fellow US Senators. After Kennedy was elected, many foreign service programs were initiated to leverage soft power. That was JFK's legacy.
Prior to that, the US acted much in the same way as it is today. It came up with Bretton Woods, along with the UK. The people that ran the world were the Averill Harrimans and Prescott Bushes.
In 1956, the US basically told the UK it wasn't going to back the Prime Minister (Anthony Eden) with regards to the Suez Canal. That was probably a sobering indication that the UK was going to be a supplicant in the relationship. The US also returned Vietnam to France (as was policy after WW2), which of course precipitated 20 years of war in southeast asia.
The end of the WW2, and the discovery of the infiltration of Russian agents in the dead Roosevelt administration put Truman in panic mode. The iron curtain and cold war basically turned foreign policy into a huge power grab after the war to position against a perceived threat.
https://www.thehistoryreader.com/us-history/ugly-american-jf...
Much thanks for the jfk link. New info. Interesting info to me at least.
I will add a little nuance or my take. Balance as always is key. Toxic feminity or hopes/prayers/empathy holism alone is hardly an answer. Would it kill the dems to get some street smarts? No!
I will add a little nuance or my take. Balance as always is key. Toxic feminity or hopes/prayers/empathy holism alone is hardly an answer. Would it kill the dems to get some street smarts? No!
I know what toxic masculinity is, but what is toxic femininity?
> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government.
The simple answer is that they don't. Alumni are often in powerful positions, but even they are, that is very different from the school itself exerting influence.
The simple answer is that they don't. Alumni are often in powerful positions, but even they are, that is very different from the school itself exerting influence.
A friend is a big Harvard alum. He says that most of his classmates are very unhappy with the direction of the university. So in his circle the alumni may be cheering this on. Maybe not the extremism but the general idea of telling Harvard that it needs to get back to truth-seeking.
The fund-raising email the President of Harvard sent us after the gov pulled federal funding begins: "Dear Alumni and Friends,
In recent weeks, thousands of you have sent encouraging messages, asked thoughtful questions, provided candid feedback, and made generous new gifts to the University. Many of you also shared deeply moving stories of how Harvard changed and shaped your lives. Your outpouring of appreciation and support reinforces the importance of our institution and what it represents. Thank you for your commitment to the University and its ideals." It goes in at length, and as the international recipient of a full-ride scholarship you can bet I was happy join in and double my annual gift. Just as trump was able to raise money from his various trials, so to Harvard draws sympathy from this: and while trumps's supporters are many, Harvard's supporters are rich, so it comes out in a wash and is effectively just melodrama to wind us all up with. The Harvard network is wide and varied so while I am sure there are some like your "big Harvard alum" who are cheering attacks on a major source of their own and their country's prestige, but in my circle of conservative alumni friends I have heard exactly the opposite reaction: even those who were still card-carrying Republicans were already apoplectic about the tariff debacle's impact on their net worth so all this petty virtue-signaling against the alma-mater that launched them on their successful careers hasn't done anything to heal the growing rift...
In recent weeks, thousands of you have sent encouraging messages, asked thoughtful questions, provided candid feedback, and made generous new gifts to the University. Many of you also shared deeply moving stories of how Harvard changed and shaped your lives. Your outpouring of appreciation and support reinforces the importance of our institution and what it represents. Thank you for your commitment to the University and its ideals." It goes in at length, and as the international recipient of a full-ride scholarship you can bet I was happy join in and double my annual gift. Just as trump was able to raise money from his various trials, so to Harvard draws sympathy from this: and while trumps's supporters are many, Harvard's supporters are rich, so it comes out in a wash and is effectively just melodrama to wind us all up with. The Harvard network is wide and varied so while I am sure there are some like your "big Harvard alum" who are cheering attacks on a major source of their own and their country's prestige, but in my circle of conservative alumni friends I have heard exactly the opposite reaction: even those who were still card-carrying Republicans were already apoplectic about the tariff debacle's impact on their net worth so all this petty virtue-signaling against the alma-mater that launched them on their successful careers hasn't done anything to heal the growing rift...
Not a single alum I've talked to is happy about what Trump is doing.
That said, it's not only the Harvard issue that is giving everyone pause, it's the direction of the Administration in general. In fact, for a lot of them, Harvard is the least of the problems the US will be facing the next 20 years due to this Administration. Europe is moving. China is moving. And neither are moving in the direction we thought they were moving prior to Trump coming into office.
My general feel on conservative Harvard/MIT alums is "Buyer's Remorse". A fair sentiment likely shared by most of the nation at this point. I keep hoping that maybe it gets better? At some point, someone, somewhere has to realize the economy, at minimum, has to be brought back in hand. When that happens, maybe we see more movement on these other issues. If it doesn't happen, we'll see movement on new political leadership over the next few election cycles.
That said, it's not only the Harvard issue that is giving everyone pause, it's the direction of the Administration in general. In fact, for a lot of them, Harvard is the least of the problems the US will be facing the next 20 years due to this Administration. Europe is moving. China is moving. And neither are moving in the direction we thought they were moving prior to Trump coming into office.
My general feel on conservative Harvard/MIT alums is "Buyer's Remorse". A fair sentiment likely shared by most of the nation at this point. I keep hoping that maybe it gets better? At some point, someone, somewhere has to realize the economy, at minimum, has to be brought back in hand. When that happens, maybe we see more movement on these other issues. If it doesn't happen, we'll see movement on new political leadership over the next few election cycles.
I didn't want to measure relative genitalia size with "friend of Big Harvard", but as it happens I was on the Executive Board of an Asian country's Harvard Club during a trump election campaign, and, duty-bound to attend multiple in-person events a month for the year, I accumulated plenty of anecdotes that confirm your experience. Instead of doxing myself with them, I crunched some central bank numbers from this unaligned Asian country for us instead: before trump (2016) the ratio of Western-sphere FDI to Chinese FDI was ~5:1 in favor of the West, but as of 2024 it had reached ~5:1 in favor of China. (Subjectively, the loss of soft-power has been order of magnitude more gradual than the abrupt swing in business influence here.) Regardless, the local Harvard Club has in fact already sent out a subsequent "support" email specific to this international issue, and I'm sure local elites are circling wagons full of generational wealth to defend their offspring's future Ivy credentials regardless of who they're going to end up in business with once they get back.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Those of you who took the time to flag this completely innocuous comment should take a moment to review the site guidelines as you are abusing the mechanism.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You and others in this thread are using HN for political or ideological battle, which is against the guidelines. It's inevitable in a thread of this nature that people are going to do this, but if you want to herald the guidelines, which we appreciate, we need you to also make a sincere effort to observe them.
> You and others in this thread are using HN for political or ideological battle
You look to be an admin so you can do whatever you want, but I would point out that the only post I made that expressed an opinion is still up [0]. I don’t really have a strong opinion about the issue. I find that I only ever get flagged on HN when I ask clarifying questions on threads like these, presumably because people simply don’t like to be questioned about the claims they are making.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44068235
You look to be an admin so you can do whatever you want, but I would point out that the only post I made that expressed an opinion is still up [0]. I don’t really have a strong opinion about the issue. I find that I only ever get flagged on HN when I ask clarifying questions on threads like these, presumably because people simply don’t like to be questioned about the claims they are making.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44068235
Yes I'm a moderator here. These politics-based threads are the most difficult for us to manage, because, whilst mainstream politics stories are generally considered to be off topic here, if a story contains "significant new information" and the weight of community sentiment supports having a thread about it, we'll yield - which means turning off the flags and flamewar penalties and spending much of the day moderating it. But then too many people treat the presence of a political topic on the front page as an open door to post whatever they want, without any regard for the guidelines at all. Then we have to spend time adjudicating between different people making accusations against other community members about breaking the guidelines, when, really, the entire thread is against the guidelines, so the whole matter is kind of moot.
> I only ever get flagged on HN when I ask clarifying questions on threads like these
We can't know exactly why people flag things, but it may be because it comes across as stirring up controversy with plausible deniability. It looks like you're trying to bait another user into making a comment that is controversial and could be attacked (or considered to be breaking the guidelines), whilst being seen as being a neutral participant yourself.
Of course we can't know your true intention, all we can know is the consequences of this kind of conduct when we see it.
So, given that you seem to care about the guidelines, which we appreciate, we ask you to demonstrate a sincere intent to observe them yourself and also to avoid baiting others into breaking them.
> I only ever get flagged on HN when I ask clarifying questions on threads like these
We can't know exactly why people flag things, but it may be because it comes across as stirring up controversy with plausible deniability. It looks like you're trying to bait another user into making a comment that is controversial and could be attacked (or considered to be breaking the guidelines), whilst being seen as being a neutral participant yourself.
Of course we can't know your true intention, all we can know is the consequences of this kind of conduct when we see it.
So, given that you seem to care about the guidelines, which we appreciate, we ask you to demonstrate a sincere intent to observe them yourself and also to avoid baiting others into breaking them.
It boggles my mind that anyone with, apparently and allegedly, such a high tier education, would be against the actions Harvard has been taking this year.
They are literally just fighting for basic academic freedoms.
They are literally just fighting for basic academic freedoms.
People go to Harvard because they want a prestigious career, not because they have an insatiable palate for knowledge that somehow in 2025 they can't satisfy in any other way.
"Harvard's not a real school, therefore these actions are justified"
Even if you were right about Harvard not being a real school (which is a strange thing to claim), your conclusion still doesn't follow.
Separately, is there a name for this debating technique? I would like to call it "baiting the assertion".
You claim A => B where, in fact, A does not imply B. To distract attention from the faulty logic, however, you pick a highly divisive assertion A. That makes people argue about whether A is correct, instead on focusing on the faulty implication.
Here's an example: "Ukraine provoked Russia therefore we should send 0 aid to Ukraine"
(I have seen this argument both in the US and non-US discourses.)
When this argument is presented, people feel compelled to argue whether Ukraine did or did not provoke Russia. However, this hides the fact that _even if Ukraine did provoke Russia_, if might still make sense to provide aid: - due to humanitarian concerns - because you think the Russian response (even if provoked) is not commensurate - because you think the EU should present a united front - etc
However, saying things like "even if you are right <rest of argument>" is a difficult thing to do when A is a very divisive (or glaringly incorrect) statement, which is why this is a common troll argument.
Even if you were right about Harvard not being a real school (which is a strange thing to claim), your conclusion still doesn't follow.
Separately, is there a name for this debating technique? I would like to call it "baiting the assertion".
You claim A => B where, in fact, A does not imply B. To distract attention from the faulty logic, however, you pick a highly divisive assertion A. That makes people argue about whether A is correct, instead on focusing on the faulty implication.
Here's an example: "Ukraine provoked Russia therefore we should send 0 aid to Ukraine"
(I have seen this argument both in the US and non-US discourses.)
When this argument is presented, people feel compelled to argue whether Ukraine did or did not provoke Russia. However, this hides the fact that _even if Ukraine did provoke Russia_, if might still make sense to provide aid: - due to humanitarian concerns - because you think the Russian response (even if provoked) is not commensurate - because you think the EU should present a united front - etc
However, saying things like "even if you are right <rest of argument>" is a difficult thing to do when A is a very divisive (or glaringly incorrect) statement, which is why this is a common troll argument.
Thank you for this comment. It got me into researching more about the rhetoric types and think about all the people I've come across who make similar arguments.
lurk2(3)
Allowing students to (allegedly) be harassed on the basis of their race is what is under contention, not the broader notion of academic freedom.
That's the excuse being used, sure.
Harvard really tarnished it's reputation when the president, under oath, said that calls for the genocide of Jews would comply with their code of conduct "depending on the context". The president did end up resigning a year ago, though they have a lot of work to do to come back from that.
While what the Trump admin is doing is wrong, Harvard has given them ample cover for their actions. It would be intellectually lazy to assert, even implicitly, that Harvard has no responsibility over the current state of affairs.
While what the Trump admin is doing is wrong, Harvard has given them ample cover for their actions. It would be intellectually lazy to assert, even implicitly, that Harvard has no responsibility over the current state of affairs.
As a person of Jewish descent I am sickened by the way this administration is twisting the definition of antisemitism to mean things that have nothing to do with antisemitism. Antisemitism is real: devaluing it into bullshit is going to lead to the deaths of millions.
They don't, because the Trump admins actions are completely unwarranted, and completely overkill, and in no way can be defended or supported.
That Harvard still has work to do is basically an entirely irrelevant point.
That Harvard still has work to do is basically an entirely irrelevant point.
if there are harvard alum are cheering this on they are morons without a doubt. Trump couldnt care less about truth seeking in the slightest he just wants complete and full control with his delusional backwards thought process. you can want change on something but that doesnt mean that when another individual/goverment comes along theyre going to change something for the better.
people were unhappy with bidens handling of israel so they voted for trump and where did that get them?
people were unhappy with bidens handling of israel so they voted for trump and where did that get them?
Bill Ackman may be the most visible. Billionaire hedge fund manager. He's a Jew who is horrified by the school's tolerance for pro Hamas protests. He was a big Democrat supporter before that, including for Obama, Booker, and Cuomo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ackman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ackman
Bill Ackman made his bed with Trump and will now have to deal with the fact that his fate is tied to whatever random whims Trump has over the next 1,340 days.
I suppose there is a possibility that on January 21, 2029 this country won't be viciously angry about the past four years, and everyone associated with it. But I wouldn't want to bet on that.
I suppose there is a possibility that on January 21, 2029 this country won't be viciously angry about the past four years, and everyone associated with it. But I wouldn't want to bet on that.
it seems what all of these powerful, big thinkers are actually mad about is a school's tolerance for <anything>, the very thing that graduates of prestigious institutions don't need to like but should understand.
It is just crazy to me…..fuck Hamas but Israel committing genocide should be condemn by our govt, not openly supported.
[deleted]
Yeah this is also my read, people are horrified by the university behavior and generally supportive of the administration on this stuff. The 'elite' schools are becoming a counter signal it'll be embarrassing to have attended.
and that last phrase is worthy of chairman mao.
anti elitism rapidly turns into anti competence.
in which circles would one be embarrassed to have attended Harvard?
the notion of foisting your narrow-minded vision of reality on 300 million people is sickening.
that is the totalitarianism our forebears fought 2 world wars and a cold war over.
your thinking is worthy of stalin ot mao.
shame be upon such a sorry excuse for thought
in which circles would one be embarrassed to have attended Harvard?
the notion of foisting your narrow-minded vision of reality on 300 million people is sickening.
that is the totalitarianism our forebears fought 2 world wars and a cold war over.
your thinking is worthy of stalin ot mao.
shame be upon such a sorry excuse for thought
The circle embarrassed by ignorant students screaming for intifada.
Mao is a good example because it was similarly ignorant students that drove the cultural revolution and ended up killing millions. There's a line from these Harvard students to the two Jews a "Free Palestine" communist executed this week.
You're right that communism is a threat - you're wrong about where the threat lies.
Mao is a good example because it was similarly ignorant students that drove the cultural revolution and ended up killing millions. There's a line from these Harvard students to the two Jews a "Free Palestine" communist executed this week.
You're right that communism is a threat - you're wrong about where the threat lies.
I mean that alumni are invested in the prestige of the alma mater, and in the network they have through that. Also, that some people at the universities are very connected, and can get a lot of people on the phone.
But why stick your head out? The people you’re referring to got where they are now by being ruthless, egocentric, power-hungry opportunists; these kinds of people don’t risk their careers over some vague sense of gratitude for their Alma mater.
Some might feel like challenging the silverback because, well, they're ruthless, egocentric, power-hungry opportunists.
On the other hand this could just be seen as aristocracy battling it out over who's more aristocratic while the rest of us trudge on, so...
On the other hand this could just be seen as aristocracy battling it out over who's more aristocratic while the rest of us trudge on, so...
> Some might feel like challenging the silverback
That would be about as smart as challenging an actual silverback. Trump, and his administration by extension, are just past their power zenith right now. They ignore the judicial branch, send people to gulags without fair trial, accept 400 million dollar bribes on live TV, fuck over allies, suppress the press, force universities and schools to align with propaganda, lie openly about about government affairs, prioritise personal acclaim over national security, trash the global economy due to an elementary school level understanding of trade relations… This list could go on for quite a while and would still miss critically dangerous and unprecedented acts.
The democrats can't find a coherent voice; the republicans have been dismantled and are firmly in MAGA control; the people trust random TikTok influencers more than reputable journalists; judges must fear being imprisoned over doing their job; scientists and activists could get detained, deported, or imprisoned at any time and are fleeing the country.
That is the setting. That is what is happening right now. Even on the highest echelons of power, rebelling against this tsunami of corruption, delusion, and destruction is futile. All you get is a demotion, a muzzle, or a sentence. Just look at Marco Rubio; I seriously doubt he believes even a shred of all the bullshit he has to proclaim with a straight face, but he's as trapped in this as the rest of us, whether he's behind his administration or not.
That would be about as smart as challenging an actual silverback. Trump, and his administration by extension, are just past their power zenith right now. They ignore the judicial branch, send people to gulags without fair trial, accept 400 million dollar bribes on live TV, fuck over allies, suppress the press, force universities and schools to align with propaganda, lie openly about about government affairs, prioritise personal acclaim over national security, trash the global economy due to an elementary school level understanding of trade relations… This list could go on for quite a while and would still miss critically dangerous and unprecedented acts.
The democrats can't find a coherent voice; the republicans have been dismantled and are firmly in MAGA control; the people trust random TikTok influencers more than reputable journalists; judges must fear being imprisoned over doing their job; scientists and activists could get detained, deported, or imprisoned at any time and are fleeing the country.
That is the setting. That is what is happening right now. Even on the highest echelons of power, rebelling against this tsunami of corruption, delusion, and destruction is futile. All you get is a demotion, a muzzle, or a sentence. Just look at Marco Rubio; I seriously doubt he believes even a shred of all the bullshit he has to proclaim with a straight face, but he's as trapped in this as the rest of us, whether he's behind his administration or not.
Any alumni in a position of power to do something isn't interested in the prestige anymore, they already got their use out it.
A big wakeup call for me is I believed the idea that there was a small group of people in the US that had the "real power". The billionaires, the corporations, the elite whoevers. And on a certain level that was comforting, because their self-interest to keep the United States as the best place for capitalism meant that certain political excesses would be limited.
But with the Trump admin, I've realized that just isn't the case. There's nobody who has the ability to rein this in.
But with the Trump admin, I've realized that just isn't the case. There's nobody who has the ability to rein this in.
A big problem with other spheres like education is that they do not react immediately in the sense that the effects of a change in policy won't be realized for decades. The economy on the other hand basically has an instant reaction to policy changes. When Trump put out tariffs and saw the instant economic reaction, he somewhat walked it back.
But the reaction to changes in areas like research and education isn't realized for years if not decades. So Trump doesn't feel the consequences. For non-economic spheres, the only real immediate reaction to these changes is the social reaction, which comes from people Trump is actively aligned against and entrenches his position.
But the reaction to changes in areas like research and education isn't realized for years if not decades. So Trump doesn't feel the consequences. For non-economic spheres, the only real immediate reaction to these changes is the social reaction, which comes from people Trump is actively aligned against and entrenches his position.
In my opinion the reason why they are getting smacked is because they are powerful. This is textbook 101 dictatorship power grab in action. Harvard in the US is law. If they can't fight this, probably nobody else can or will.
One explanation might be that the objects of their influence are nested within agencies.
Most presidents let the agencies run mostly unsupervised, it seems like. With the agencies now under heavy fire structurally, they may not be able to do what they would normally do to prevent this kind of thing.
I think the whole agency model gives the president way more power than they are meant to have. I guess this exists to serve as a form of blame laundering from the people without term limits to the guy with term limits? But if the president does not play ball, suddenly they have power over things congress would otherwise have power over. Oops.
Most presidents let the agencies run mostly unsupervised, it seems like. With the agencies now under heavy fire structurally, they may not be able to do what they would normally do to prevent this kind of thing.
I think the whole agency model gives the president way more power than they are meant to have. I guess this exists to serve as a form of blame laundering from the people without term limits to the guy with term limits? But if the president does not play ball, suddenly they have power over things congress would otherwise have power over. Oops.
The intent of agencies was three-fold:
1. As the US grew and the workload required to govern it grew, Congress' ability to directly and quickly manage the country was outpaced. Consequently, agencies served as the grease between Congress' high-level actions/funding and the low-level implementation.
2. Due to the ever-adversarial nature of Congress, it was recognized that most Congresses operated slowly, and consequently didn't have the capacity to micromanage at the level required for direct control.
3. Circa 1900, civil service reform by the then-progressive wing of the Republican party pushed for greater isolation of the expertise that drove good government outcomes (in civil service employees) from politicians (administrators).
The flaw Trump revealed was that the President has too much direct power over the civil service, if he chooses to ignore tradition.
This wasn't always the case, and laws that previously restrained the President's ability to fuck with the civil service were substantially relaxed in the 60s - 80s (?).
1. As the US grew and the workload required to govern it grew, Congress' ability to directly and quickly manage the country was outpaced. Consequently, agencies served as the grease between Congress' high-level actions/funding and the low-level implementation.
2. Due to the ever-adversarial nature of Congress, it was recognized that most Congresses operated slowly, and consequently didn't have the capacity to micromanage at the level required for direct control.
3. Circa 1900, civil service reform by the then-progressive wing of the Republican party pushed for greater isolation of the expertise that drove good government outcomes (in civil service employees) from politicians (administrators).
The flaw Trump revealed was that the President has too much direct power over the civil service, if he chooses to ignore tradition.
This wasn't always the case, and laws that previously restrained the President's ability to fuck with the civil service were substantially relaxed in the 60s - 80s (?).
[deleted]
Conversely, the flaw of the civil servant plan during Trump 1 was that stonewalling the top of your org chart can really bite you if he sticks around too long or, maybe worse, comes back.
In any case, the President will keep having too much power until Congress starts taking theirs back.
In any case, the President will keep having too much power until Congress starts taking theirs back.
> I thought they had influence throughout government.
That's "institutional talk", which is not relevant when you have a "mad king".
That's "institutional talk", which is not relevant when you have a "mad king".
It's hard for me to see this as anything more than "they resisted Trump, that pissed him off and now he's further retaliating."
Side question I've been wrestling with to whoever feels like commenting: At what point would you look at our current US situation and say "yep, we're now in a dictatorship"
Side question I've been wrestling with to whoever feels like commenting: At what point would you look at our current US situation and say "yep, we're now in a dictatorship"
The day Kilmar Abrego Garcia was supposed to be brought back, but defiantly wasn’t.
You know, usually I'd assume this was a misspelling of "definitely" but this time, I'm really not sure.
It was definitely a deliberate choice. :)
At least a couple of months ago.
Dictatorships require at least some sort of state monopoly on violence. That's how power ultimately works.
As of now there's no way for the state to enact such a monopoly in the US.
As of now there's no way for the state to enact such a monopoly in the US.
the usa is seeing the state employ that monopoly right now:
- against opposing members of the legislative branch (lamonica mciver)
- against opposing members of the judicial branch (hannah dugan)
- against opposing members of the executive branch (ras baraka, andrew cuomo)
- against opposing private organizations (harvard, institute for peace)
- against opposing private individuals (chris krebs)
- against defenders of opponents (multiple lawfirms)
- not to mention rewarding private individuals who employed private violence against political enemies -- we saw this during duterte (ashli babbitt, the rest of the insurrectionists)
if there is no monopoly on violence in the usa, who else exactly is the monopolist permitting to use it?
- against opposing members of the legislative branch (lamonica mciver)
- against opposing members of the judicial branch (hannah dugan)
- against opposing members of the executive branch (ras baraka, andrew cuomo)
- against opposing private organizations (harvard, institute for peace)
- against opposing private individuals (chris krebs)
- against defenders of opponents (multiple lawfirms)
- not to mention rewarding private individuals who employed private violence against political enemies -- we saw this during duterte (ashli babbitt, the rest of the insurrectionists)
if there is no monopoly on violence in the usa, who else exactly is the monopolist permitting to use it?
The proletariat has the capacity to violently resist (See: Butler,PA), but the Venn overlap among those with the most firepower and those who actually support the oppressors is two concentric circles.
Agreed, dictatorship is a gross exaggeration. Sliding toward fascism? Sure. Would Tump like to do away with election? He’s said he does, that they won’t be necessary.
In the bill that has recently been passed, the republicans have inserted a clause that means no administration official can be found guilty of criminal contempt by the federal courts.
This will mean that the courts are literally powerless against the administration's malfeasance. The executive will be able to do what they like, and even if this bill doesn't pass the senate, SCOTUS will likely strike down as unconstitutional any appointment by the courts of a private attorney to prosecute criminal contempt because it has been stuffed with useful idiots.
This isn't sliding towards fascism, this is speed running 30's Germany.
This will mean that the courts are literally powerless against the administration's malfeasance. The executive will be able to do what they like, and even if this bill doesn't pass the senate, SCOTUS will likely strike down as unconstitutional any appointment by the courts of a private attorney to prosecute criminal contempt because it has been stuffed with useful idiots.
This isn't sliding towards fascism, this is speed running 30's Germany.
SCOTUS was packed even before Trump's first term. This is speed-running the cherry on top of a sundae that was already made.
ethbr1(1)
I would read the constitution and come to terms with the fact that the executive authority is vested in a president. It’s not quite a king, because it’s not passed down by inheritance and they can’t enact laws by fiat… but the president is supremely powerful during their term.
And that’s good. There’s no denying that the executive branch (its agencies, officers, regulators, etc) is supremely powerful. The only question is whether the public have any democratic control over the exercise of that authority.
And that’s good. There’s no denying that the executive branch (its agencies, officers, regulators, etc) is supremely powerful. The only question is whether the public have any democratic control over the exercise of that authority.
If you've been aware of Trump at all since the 1970's he's always been vastly inferior to anyone who takes academic effort seriously. And he knows it, his whole life, a lot better than anyone else, that's way longer than the general public who didn't really become aware of it until the '70's.
Even though he went to a prestigious school himself he's not the kind to make an academic pursuit resembling anything like truly sensible Presidents. The complete opposite of the league of actual accomplished Harvard men like Bush and Obama. What a weenie, Trump is probably just jealous and hates himself and everyone else because he'll never measure up to people having average-to-above-average intellect & integrity. Completely on brand to whine like a child with the most amplified voice he's ever had. So that's what he's going to do instead of something worthwhile for the citizens.
Even though he went to a prestigious school himself he's not the kind to make an academic pursuit resembling anything like truly sensible Presidents. The complete opposite of the league of actual accomplished Harvard men like Bush and Obama. What a weenie, Trump is probably just jealous and hates himself and everyone else because he'll never measure up to people having average-to-above-average intellect & integrity. Completely on brand to whine like a child with the most amplified voice he's ever had. So that's what he's going to do instead of something worthwhile for the citizens.
This is an explanation from my department chair which I've expanded. In the context of a university, there are four main power groups - the alumni, the faculty, the students, and the board of trustees. (Within each group of course are subfactions.) The actual power balance between these groups is never precisely certain (it's an unobservable "latent variable"). Whenever large events happen that involve the university, we get observations that allow us to estimate the latent variable better.
In the case of Harvard, I think the current observations are most consistent with the following: the Board of Trustees, faculty, and students have currently aligned in their goals - which we might summarize as (1) maintaining independence from the government and (2) the ability to hold/teach specific "controversial" viewpoints (benefits of diversity, anti-colonialism, potentially other "progressive" concepts). I suspect that within the factions the relative importance of these two goals is not balanced. The fact that the coalition has survived much longer than, e.g., Columbia, is somewhat surprising.
My suspicion is that the answer to your question is that the persistent "smacking around" is only in part due to the external factors other replies have mentioned. I think a major piece of the situation can be explained by a change in the power dynamic with the alumni. Under normal circumstances, the faculty presumably hope to maintain long lasting influence over their alumni, which the board of trustees leverage to bring in more money and influence to the university. The current situation suggests that the high-power/high-$$$ portion of the alumni who are in a position to leverage the public conversation about what's going on are not doing it. This implies that the strength of that edge of the power graph is much weaker than it was expected to be. I think it remains to be seen whether this is true. Further observations that would support that would be reduced donations, public complaints, etc. Conversely, increased fundraising and more public support would suggest the opposite.
The key point about the university power network is that USUALLY, the best situation is to avoid situations that actually reveal too much information. Everyone would prefer to believe they have more power than they do. Obviously the alumni are composed of factions, and presumably a large fraction of the potential participants are also members of other organizations with latent power networks and participating in this particular situation would involve expending capital in these other networks with potential reduction in power. Some alumni that have spoken up (i.e., Ackman) are clearly unaligned with the current coalition, and this MAY reflect the fact that the wealthy/powerful group of alumni that have sustained Harvard are really unhappy with the current stances of the university and would like it to shift (return?) to a different set of ideologies. But it's also possible that he represents a minority, and the rest are just nervous about getting involved.
My conclusion from this analysis is that things will persist as they have, with everyone who might be involved hoping that lawsuits will be successful in resolving the situation with the minimum of their involvement. If this approach is unsuccessful, I think we'll end up in a situation where we get a much better observation of the power balance between alumni, faculty, and board (I think the students rarely have as much power as they think they do!).
In the case of Harvard, I think the current observations are most consistent with the following: the Board of Trustees, faculty, and students have currently aligned in their goals - which we might summarize as (1) maintaining independence from the government and (2) the ability to hold/teach specific "controversial" viewpoints (benefits of diversity, anti-colonialism, potentially other "progressive" concepts). I suspect that within the factions the relative importance of these two goals is not balanced. The fact that the coalition has survived much longer than, e.g., Columbia, is somewhat surprising.
My suspicion is that the answer to your question is that the persistent "smacking around" is only in part due to the external factors other replies have mentioned. I think a major piece of the situation can be explained by a change in the power dynamic with the alumni. Under normal circumstances, the faculty presumably hope to maintain long lasting influence over their alumni, which the board of trustees leverage to bring in more money and influence to the university. The current situation suggests that the high-power/high-$$$ portion of the alumni who are in a position to leverage the public conversation about what's going on are not doing it. This implies that the strength of that edge of the power graph is much weaker than it was expected to be. I think it remains to be seen whether this is true. Further observations that would support that would be reduced donations, public complaints, etc. Conversely, increased fundraising and more public support would suggest the opposite.
The key point about the university power network is that USUALLY, the best situation is to avoid situations that actually reveal too much information. Everyone would prefer to believe they have more power than they do. Obviously the alumni are composed of factions, and presumably a large fraction of the potential participants are also members of other organizations with latent power networks and participating in this particular situation would involve expending capital in these other networks with potential reduction in power. Some alumni that have spoken up (i.e., Ackman) are clearly unaligned with the current coalition, and this MAY reflect the fact that the wealthy/powerful group of alumni that have sustained Harvard are really unhappy with the current stances of the university and would like it to shift (return?) to a different set of ideologies. But it's also possible that he represents a minority, and the rest are just nervous about getting involved.
My conclusion from this analysis is that things will persist as they have, with everyone who might be involved hoping that lawsuits will be successful in resolving the situation with the minimum of their involvement. If this approach is unsuccessful, I think we'll end up in a situation where we get a much better observation of the power balance between alumni, faculty, and board (I think the students rarely have as much power as they think they do!).
It feels like a situation where alumni are holding their breath. It reminds me of that moment in basketball games where the ball bounces around the rim - will it go in or will it bounce out? If I'm on the sidelines of that game, then I'm not going to vocalize until the ball settles.
> This implies that the strength of that edge of the power graph is much weaker than it was expected to be
Funnily, 2 Harvard profs have written the easiest way for me to point out that the media / Information economy in America is broken. (Network Propaganda)
Which would explain why Alumni dont have power, or for that matter any experts. This is fundamentally why Trump is in power, and why decisions that have zero connection to scientific fact or even reality.
Either everyone starts talking in terms of the reality being litigated on Fox and other related networks on the Right, or people find a way to actually engage in a fair debate. Democracy is fundamentally conversation.
Funnily, 2 Harvard profs have written the easiest way for me to point out that the media / Information economy in America is broken. (Network Propaganda)
Which would explain why Alumni dont have power, or for that matter any experts. This is fundamentally why Trump is in power, and why decisions that have zero connection to scientific fact or even reality.
Either everyone starts talking in terms of the reality being litigated on Fox and other related networks on the Right, or people find a way to actually engage in a fair debate. Democracy is fundamentally conversation.
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.
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.
[flagged]
It’s a short but sweeping claim without a citation in sight. That’s a recipe for a flame war but it probably won’t lead to a useful discussion since anyone who would respond is simply guessing at what you’re even talking about or whether you actually arrived at that position through research rather than simple partisan loyalty.
Ah. 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. I should have said that.
It’d be especially useful to have more specifics about what you’re talking about. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of university administrators, politics, etc. but without even knowing what you’re talking about a lot of people, especially those who’ve been here for a while, are going to see that, decide it won’t have a positive outcome, and downvote.
When former soviets are speaking out about compelled speach:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38985343
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38985343
^speech
Thanks for explaining. More specifics:
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 been still 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.
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 been still 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.
Nice. But none of the anti - trump comments bother with evidence. I hate what aboutism but this is too blatant. Everyone who follows the media even a little bit is fully aware of what OP is talking about. Very ugly things are taking place under the guise of DEI and other such dishonest terms.
This is a great example of the problem. You clearly think there’s some “ugly things” which are widespread in your media diet, but nobody else can read your mind to know what those things are or how honest the people who told you about them were, and we don’t even know if they’re the same things the original poster had in mind.
Now, based on your characterization of even questioning a bold assertion of illegality as anti-Trump we can make some assumptions about your position and media diet, but those aren’t likely to be completely accurate and it’s unlikely that a thread started on a poor footing will result in a good conversation.
Now, based on your characterization of even questioning a bold assertion of illegality as anti-Trump we can make some assumptions about your position and media diet, but those aren’t likely to be completely accurate and it’s unlikely that a thread started on a poor footing will result in a good conversation.
On HN they eschew talking about downvotes, friend.
I know ... but I was so curious!
FridayoLeary(1)
For every person that went through these elite schools, they must have rejected five or more other people. These schools pride themselves on turning people away. Perhaps, they have far more enemies than friends, explaining their seeming lack of influence in this situation
They absolutely prize having large pools of applicants to reject. Admission percentage is a prestigious statistic.
Harvard (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the Ivy League) collects a lot of federal money, this comes with certain conditions around treating people fairly without respect to skin color, ethnicity, or religion.
A regular corporation with the same fact pattern of discrimination would be looking at a billion+ dollar fine.
this is just Harvard losing some special privilges and being expected to act reasonably fairly like any other publicly funded institution.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-163976813
They're not actually so scientifically productive that we should tolerate discrimination in order to get the fruits of their research.
A regular corporation with the same fact pattern of discrimination would be looking at a billion+ dollar fine.
this is just Harvard losing some special privilges and being expected to act reasonably fairly like any other publicly funded institution.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-163976813
They're not actually so scientifically productive that we should tolerate discrimination in order to get the fruits of their research.
It’s less a shift in power networks and more about Trump using existing presidency tools more aggressively. Harvard didn’t lose influence, it’s being targeted because it's outspoken and symbolic. The immigration authority falls under the executive branch, so the president can act unilaterally, without needing broader support.
> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government.
Harvard and Yale didn't hire the right lobbyists [0][1][2]
The other universities like Dartmouth, MIT, and public university systems did.
One of the side effect of being large endowment private universities meant Harvard and Yale remained extremely insular and concentrated on donor relations over government relations.
For example, MIT across town remained much more integrated with public-private projects compared to Harvard, and ime Harvard would try to leverage their alumni network where possible, but the Harvard alumni network just isn't as strong as it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Also, don't underestimate the Israel-Palestine culture war's impact on campus alumni relationships. Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli campus orgs have continued to bombard me and other alumni to fight political battles against Harvard leadership for their side. Benefits of signing up to both Islamic orgs and Chabad to broaden my horizons back in the day I guess. Alumni from orgs on both sides are fine targeting the entire university, because fundamentally, Harvard is a very isolated experience where loyalty is to your house, a couple clubs, or your grad program - not Harvard as a whole.
And because Harvard has a lot of HNW alumni, they always try to meddle in some shape or form - Wen Jiabao's best friend funds the Fairbank Center, Kraft funds and hosts events at Chabad, some al Saud branches fund a couple Islamic clubs, a bunch of alt-right leaning Catholic traditionalists fund the Abigail Adams Institute, etc. It's just inter-elite fratricide at this point because no one truly gives a poo about Harvard.
Honestly, Harvard should prevent alumni from funding campus orgs, but they won't do so because donor relations.
[0] - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/19/trump-is-bombarding...
[1] - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/09/small-colleges-trum...
[2] - https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2024...
Edit: I am extremely pro-academic freedom. This move is a HORRIBLE affront to free speech and campus autonomy. My cynicism and disillusionment may sound like I support the move by the administration, but it is the complete opposite.
Harvard and Yale didn't hire the right lobbyists [0][1][2]
The other universities like Dartmouth, MIT, and public university systems did.
One of the side effect of being large endowment private universities meant Harvard and Yale remained extremely insular and concentrated on donor relations over government relations.
For example, MIT across town remained much more integrated with public-private projects compared to Harvard, and ime Harvard would try to leverage their alumni network where possible, but the Harvard alumni network just isn't as strong as it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Also, don't underestimate the Israel-Palestine culture war's impact on campus alumni relationships. Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli campus orgs have continued to bombard me and other alumni to fight political battles against Harvard leadership for their side. Benefits of signing up to both Islamic orgs and Chabad to broaden my horizons back in the day I guess. Alumni from orgs on both sides are fine targeting the entire university, because fundamentally, Harvard is a very isolated experience where loyalty is to your house, a couple clubs, or your grad program - not Harvard as a whole.
And because Harvard has a lot of HNW alumni, they always try to meddle in some shape or form - Wen Jiabao's best friend funds the Fairbank Center, Kraft funds and hosts events at Chabad, some al Saud branches fund a couple Islamic clubs, a bunch of alt-right leaning Catholic traditionalists fund the Abigail Adams Institute, etc. It's just inter-elite fratricide at this point because no one truly gives a poo about Harvard.
Honestly, Harvard should prevent alumni from funding campus orgs, but they won't do so because donor relations.
[0] - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/19/trump-is-bombarding...
[1] - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/09/small-colleges-trum...
[2] - https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2024...
Edit: I am extremely pro-academic freedom. This move is a HORRIBLE affront to free speech and campus autonomy. My cynicism and disillusionment may sound like I support the move by the administration, but it is the complete opposite.
Dartmouth is a smaller target without the name recognition of Harvard, and MIT has stronger ties to the MIC without the strong public image of a liberal institution. Harvard is a test case (what can this admin do) and a symbol almost in its own category for Trump's followers.
Harvard (the University, not it's alums) has had a near nil presence on K-Street for a looooong time - and their primary lobbyist with the GOP has been on Trump's bad side for sometime after he pissed off David Sacks.
I'm also an (severely disillusioned) alumni of some of the student orgs that are mutually using Harvard the institution as a punching bag to fight their culture wars.
A lot of this is honestly very childish BS done by some petulant alums who were already dicks on campus.
There is very little campus loyalty at Harvard which makes it easier to use it as a punching bag for your culture war (whichever way you lean).
I'm also an (severely disillusioned) alumni of some of the student orgs that are mutually using Harvard the institution as a punching bag to fight their culture wars.
A lot of this is honestly very childish BS done by some petulant alums who were already dicks on campus.
There is very little campus loyalty at Harvard which makes it easier to use it as a punching bag for your culture war (whichever way you lean).
Sorry to ask, who is "their primary lobbyist with the GOP"?
https://ballardpartners.com/team-member/brian-d-ballard/
To talk with this admin, you need a person who's part of the Florida GOP milleu in the 90s. Susie Wiles is the one who's managing/operating the show. Almost everyone who matters in Florida republican politics since the 90s owes favors to her.
Similar to how if you had an in into Chicago or IL Dem politics in the 90s or 2000s, you had an in with the Obama admin becuase of Axelrod, Rahm, and Jack Daley.
To talk with this admin, you need a person who's part of the Florida GOP milleu in the 90s. Susie Wiles is the one who's managing/operating the show. Almost everyone who matters in Florida republican politics since the 90s owes favors to her.
Similar to how if you had an in into Chicago or IL Dem politics in the 90s or 2000s, you had an in with the Obama admin becuase of Axelrod, Rahm, and Jack Daley.
That is just shockingly cynical. We're facing a situation where a sitting government feels empowered to go to war against an elite university solely over the speech it doesn't like to hear on its campus.
And your response is to dismiss it all as a kerfuffle over "bad lobbying" and "inter-elite fratricide"? Really?
Surely there are existing institutions of some form or another you'd like to see not made enemies of the state. You don't maybe see a principle at work here beyond your personal dislike of academia?
And your response is to dismiss it all as a kerfuffle over "bad lobbying" and "inter-elite fratricide"? Really?
Surely there are existing institutions of some form or another you'd like to see not made enemies of the state. You don't maybe see a principle at work here beyond your personal dislike of academia?
Fighting antisemitism is clearly not the true motive behind this ideological "war", just as denazification was clearly not the motive for Russia's invasion of Ukraine; it's just a convenient excuse to target institutions such as Harvard that are unwilling to distance themselves from the progressive left.
Exactly this. It's nothing but an attempt to punish them for not kissing the ring. If only we had another arm of government able to hold this clearly corrupt behavior to account....
There would have been a stronger one if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired at a time that supported a 5/4 ideological balance on the Supreme Court.
Instead of the hubris to hold onto the job until death and thereby subsequently undo many of the things she spent her life fighting for.
Finding a successor and handing over your power is one of the most important responsibilities of the powerful, when they have a say.
Instead of the hubris to hold onto the job until death and thereby subsequently undo many of the things she spent her life fighting for.
Finding a successor and handing over your power is one of the most important responsibilities of the powerful, when they have a say.
Pretty bold to blame RBG without spending a breath on Mitch McConnell, who stole an appointment from Obama because he said it was too close to the election to fill the seat; and then rushed to fill the seat vacated by RBG even though it was so close to the election. Treating the court with that kind of partisan contempt is the reason why the court is as partisan as it is.
There is different blame.
I expect McConnell to be an advocate for harm. But RBG could have made a decision that made it impossible for the GOP to flip her seat in the way that she did. I expect people that are ostensibly fighting for the same things as me to act in ways that help achieve that.
I expect McConnell to be an advocate for harm. But RBG could have made a decision that made it impossible for the GOP to flip her seat in the way that she did. I expect people that are ostensibly fighting for the same things as me to act in ways that help achieve that.
Indeed. It's pretty stupid in game theory to make a move that's beneficial only if your opponent also then makes a choice against their self interest.
Yeah, McConnell really acted like scum by doing that. But it's fair to say RBG didn't help things.
Instead of the hubris to hold onto the job until death and thereby subsequently undo many of the things she spent her life fighting for.
A bit off-topic, but this seems to be an ongoing problem for the Democratic party. They just lost an important vote on a budget bill in the House by a single vote, because Gerry Connolly wasn't willing to give up his House seat and instead clung on until he (very predictably) died of cancer a few days ago.
A bit off-topic, but this seems to be an ongoing problem for the Democratic party. They just lost an important vote on a budget bill in the House by a single vote, because Gerry Connolly wasn't willing to give up his House seat and instead clung on until he (very predictably) died of cancer a few days ago.
This is drama, a republican congressperson was asleep for the bill. This is producing storylines to sell during the mid terms.
Dont believe it for a second. The Republican Party moves in lockstep.
Dont believe it for a second. The Republican Party moves in lockstep.
But if the Democratic guy had stepped down and they had a non sick person then the story would have been much better: Republican bill fails because one of their members was asleep and missed the vote.
He would be awake for the vote.
They would go to his location and shake him awake if they had to.
They would go to his location and shake him awake if they had to.
Yeah, that was a pretty bad decision, but the bigger issue is still a population that votes based on misinformation and 'alternative facts'. Until that is resolved, if it even can be at this point, then this tribal and sometimes cultish behavior is only going to become more prevalent, in turn doing more damage to the country.
Personally, I think we've started on a path to self-destruction that can't be reversed.
Personally, I think we've started on a path to self-destruction that can't be reversed.
> Personally, I think we've started on a path to self-destruction that can't be reversed.
Do you mean, 'we' as in the US, or 'we,' as in humanity?
[either way, I'm not saying you're wrong :( ]
Do you mean, 'we' as in the US, or 'we,' as in humanity?
[either way, I'm not saying you're wrong :( ]
Oh, I mean the US specifically. I'm optimistic the other western powers won't go down the same self-destructive path the US has chosen, largely because they have much better public education pre-college, and much more accessible higher education.
I expect even China and India to start improving drastically in all the ways that matter as the US continues to downlside.
I expect even China and India to start improving drastically in all the ways that matter as the US continues to downlside.
I'm a severely disillusioned alum of a couple of the campus orgs really driving some of this.
> Surely there are existing institutions of some form or another you'd like to see not made enemies of the state. You don't maybe see a principle at work here beyond your personal dislike of academia
Hold up - I'm massively pro-academic freedom and autonomy. I'm just pointing out that there's a fight happening behind this fight that has been going on in a subset of the Harvard alum community that has snowballed into this fiasco.
> That is just shockingly cynical
You don't understand unless you actually attended Harvard. It's a very isolating and cliquish experience which incentivizes you to exist within your echo chamber.
Even joining god damn clubs on campus required "Comping" (basically the same as rushing in frats)
Major reason I spent most of my time at MIT and BU or the grad schools like HKS and HBS instead - middle class schools tend to have less of a stick up their butt.
Edit: can't reply to you below, but tl;dr I agree with your callout. I edited my initial comment because as you pointed out it did come off as if I had schachenfreude.
> I can say with 100% sincerity that'd I'd feel the same horror if a White House was similarly going after TCU, or Liberty University, or even Yale
I agree. I'm just exasperated by this whole fiasco and that's why my post is so angry in tone
> Surely there are existing institutions of some form or another you'd like to see not made enemies of the state. You don't maybe see a principle at work here beyond your personal dislike of academia
Hold up - I'm massively pro-academic freedom and autonomy. I'm just pointing out that there's a fight happening behind this fight that has been going on in a subset of the Harvard alum community that has snowballed into this fiasco.
> That is just shockingly cynical
You don't understand unless you actually attended Harvard. It's a very isolating and cliquish experience which incentivizes you to exist within your echo chamber.
Even joining god damn clubs on campus required "Comping" (basically the same as rushing in frats)
Major reason I spent most of my time at MIT and BU or the grad schools like HKS and HBS instead - middle class schools tend to have less of a stick up their butt.
Edit: can't reply to you below, but tl;dr I agree with your callout. I edited my initial comment because as you pointed out it did come off as if I had schachenfreude.
> I can say with 100% sincerity that'd I'd feel the same horror if a White House was similarly going after TCU, or Liberty University, or even Yale
I agree. I'm just exasperated by this whole fiasco and that's why my post is so angry in tone
> Hold up - I'm massively pro-academic freedom and autonomy.
Then maybe you'd like to rephrase your upthread comment which seems very comfortable with a clear and obvious attack on academic freedom and autonomy?
> You don't understand unless you actually attended Harvard.
Class of '96. But really I don't see how that's relevant in the face of the current crisis. I can say with 100% sincerity that'd I'd feel the same horror if a White House was similarly going after TCU, or Liberty University, or even Yale.
It's. Awful. And it's not made less so because some of the students are Zionists, or Palestinian Sympathizers, or Vegan, or whatever it is you're upset about.
Then maybe you'd like to rephrase your upthread comment which seems very comfortable with a clear and obvious attack on academic freedom and autonomy?
> You don't understand unless you actually attended Harvard.
Class of '96. But really I don't see how that's relevant in the face of the current crisis. I can say with 100% sincerity that'd I'd feel the same horror if a White House was similarly going after TCU, or Liberty University, or even Yale.
It's. Awful. And it's not made less so because some of the students are Zionists, or Palestinian Sympathizers, or Vegan, or whatever it is you're upset about.
> Then maybe you'd like to rephrase your upthread comment which seems very comfortable with a clear and obvious attack on academic freedom and autonomy?
On it! I agree with you 100% - it's horrid.
> But really I don't see how that's relevant in the face of the current crisis
There are some interpersonal relations and egos that got mixed into this, along with a very cynical anti-establishment play. It takes a couple bad apples to spoil the batch, and that's what it feels like has happened. I was a Gov secondary during the Obama years so I bumped into a lot of the people who ended up on either side of the political and cultural divide. I feel digging into that helps explain how this has really snowballed. It's been a rolling crisis for a couple years now.
> It's. Awful. And it's not made less so because some of the students are Zionists, or Palestinian Sympathizers, or Vegan, or whatever it is you're upset about
I agree, but ignoring some of the ego and personal clashes that has caused this crisis means you lose the bigger picture.
On it! I agree with you 100% - it's horrid.
> But really I don't see how that's relevant in the face of the current crisis
There are some interpersonal relations and egos that got mixed into this, along with a very cynical anti-establishment play. It takes a couple bad apples to spoil the batch, and that's what it feels like has happened. I was a Gov secondary during the Obama years so I bumped into a lot of the people who ended up on either side of the political and cultural divide. I feel digging into that helps explain how this has really snowballed. It's been a rolling crisis for a couple years now.
> It's. Awful. And it's not made less so because some of the students are Zionists, or Palestinian Sympathizers, or Vegan, or whatever it is you're upset about
I agree, but ignoring some of the ego and personal clashes that has caused this crisis means you lose the bigger picture.
>Harvard and Yale didn't hire the right lobbyists.
I don't think it's as simple as this. To my knowledge, Dr. Sian Leah Beilock handled the protests of the past 2 years much better than their counterparts.
I don't think it's as simple as this. To my knowledge, Dr. Sian Leah Beilock handled the protests of the past 2 years much better than their counterparts.
Oh easily! But the issue is Brian Ballard (their GOP lobbyist) stepped on a lot of feet and pissed people (primarily David Sacks) off, leading him to get metaphorically slapped by the Trump admin.
So they're frozen out from K-Street in the medium term.
On top of that, a couple extremely active and very wealthy alumni have continued to maintain a grudge and have an ear in the admin
And finally, it's an easy anti-establishment win.
Finally, this is specifically a Harvard College thing - the alumni of other schools at Harvard are much less... let's say idealistic.
So they're frozen out from K-Street in the medium term.
On top of that, a couple extremely active and very wealthy alumni have continued to maintain a grudge and have an ear in the admin
And finally, it's an easy anti-establishment win.
Finally, this is specifically a Harvard College thing - the alumni of other schools at Harvard are much less... let's say idealistic.
>And because Harvard has a lot of HNW alumni, they always try to meddle in some shape or form - Wen Jiabao's best friend funds the Fairbank Center, Kraft funds and hosts events at Chabad, some al Saud branches fund a couple Islamic clubs, a bunch of alt-right leaning Catholic traditionalists fund the Abigail Adams Institute, etc. It's just inter-elite fratricide at this point because no one truly gives a poo about Harvard.
When you put it like that... should I make some popcorn?
When you put it like that... should I make some popcorn?
When elephants fight, it's the grass that gets trampled.
Harvard plays a significant role multiple fields of study (from social science to humanities to hard sciences), and a significant portion of their grad students are affected by the SEVP revocation.
Furthermore, a number of fields just don't have that many domestic graduate students because the domestic pipeline for a number of fields such as Distributed Systems is almost non-existent, and students often get poached with just a bachelors for industry. Not bad for students, but applied research or part-time industrial PhDs don't exist in the US.
Harvard plays a significant role multiple fields of study (from social science to humanities to hard sciences), and a significant portion of their grad students are affected by the SEVP revocation.
Furthermore, a number of fields just don't have that many domestic graduate students because the domestic pipeline for a number of fields such as Distributed Systems is almost non-existent, and students often get poached with just a bachelors for industry. Not bad for students, but applied research or part-time industrial PhDs don't exist in the US.
The Project 2025 people and the Yarvinists agree that elite universities like Harvard are spreading the “woke mind virus” and must be destroyed. They consider their movements a revolution, not an iteration on the status quo.
Project 2025 is about uneducated people now having power and trying to stop other people from becoming educated
I think the people who work at the Heritage foundation are very well educated, they're just also very cynical.
I downloaded the file (must still be somewhere in my "Downloads" folder with many other forever-unread PDFs). I would suggest for anyone living in the US, to find and read that because this is (more or less) what will happen in the/your country in the next 3.5 years.
(if I remember well it's 150-170 pages - and since I don't live in the US the meme "Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" is spot on).
(if I remember well it's 150-170 pages - and since I don't live in the US the meme "Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" is spot on).
It's around 900 pages. In NYC we have a study group to go over it -- we've covered just a handful of chapters. But most people can get a lot out of just reading the opening section.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-202...
You can understand, for example, most of their tactics about immigration by reading the section on Homeland Security, tariffs by reading the Economy section (by Peter Navarro), and so on. They are in fact hewing pretty closely to the plan.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-202...
You can understand, for example, most of their tactics about immigration by reading the section on Homeland Security, tariffs by reading the Economy section (by Peter Navarro), and so on. They are in fact hewing pretty closely to the plan.
This is another good resource: https://www.project2025.observer/
You don't need to read the file. It's history repeating itself. Just read about China during the cultural revolution or Cambodia during the 70s.
Project 2025 is only the “part 1” doc, and they’re tracking to wrap most of it up this year.
Skip the reading (it's too hard) - watch the documentary version instead, Idiocracy (2006)
Totally different situation. President Camacho found the smartest man in the world to fix his problems.
Good point. In our timeline America found the dumbest man in the world to fix its problems.
To be fair, they took the two most average Americans and sent them to the future in the movie. We skipped steps and chose someone the most average person could completely understand today. Apparently, the future is now.
The movie also sent Upgrayedd but left that story arc for a sequel.
The movie also sent Upgrayedd but left that story arc for a sequel.
> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government.
Turns out the "deep state" is just some made up bullshit to make people distrustful, angry, and easier to manipulate.
> Is some other faction at work now, or is it the same people as before? Are the power networks changing?
Nope, it's always been this dynamic. It's made of people after all. But that doesn't work as well to get people lapping up Trumpty Dumpty propaganda.
Turns out the "deep state" is just some made up bullshit to make people distrustful, angry, and easier to manipulate.
> Is some other faction at work now, or is it the same people as before? Are the power networks changing?
Nope, it's always been this dynamic. It's made of people after all. But that doesn't work as well to get people lapping up Trumpty Dumpty propaganda.
bgwalter(1)
> Can someone elucidate the power networks involved here?
Major players, regarding the Gaza/Hamas issue:
- Harvard itself. The administration, not the faculty or students.
- The US Eastern Establishment, the Ivy League and its graduates. They once ran the US, and still run finance, but are less influential politically than a few decades ago.
- The Netanyahu faction in Israel. Understanding this requires more info about Israeli politics than is worth posting here. Wikipedia has a summary.[1] There are a huge number of factions. Netanyahu leads a coalition. The coalition seems to need an enemy to hold it together.
- MAGA. "Project 2025" is the MAGA playbook. Despite some denials, the Trump administration has mostly been following that playbook.
- Israel's lobby in the US, starting with AIPAC. American Jews as a group average left of center, but the Israel lobby is hard-right.
- Major donors to Harvard. Some are closely associated with the Israel lobby and vocal about it. Others aren't.
- The US courts. Anyone can bring a case to court, and courts have to do something about it.
- Trump.
Minor players:
- Fox News. 23 of Trump's appointees came from Fox News. The MAGA base listens to Fox News.
- The United Nations. Provides some aid, but hasn't been able to do more than that.
- US Congress. Has the real power, but is too divided to do anything with it.
- Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. They're the ones most affected, but lack any real power at this point. It's not even suggested that they be represented in international meetings.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel
Major players, regarding the Gaza/Hamas issue:
- Harvard itself. The administration, not the faculty or students.
- The US Eastern Establishment, the Ivy League and its graduates. They once ran the US, and still run finance, but are less influential politically than a few decades ago.
- The Netanyahu faction in Israel. Understanding this requires more info about Israeli politics than is worth posting here. Wikipedia has a summary.[1] There are a huge number of factions. Netanyahu leads a coalition. The coalition seems to need an enemy to hold it together.
- MAGA. "Project 2025" is the MAGA playbook. Despite some denials, the Trump administration has mostly been following that playbook.
- Israel's lobby in the US, starting with AIPAC. American Jews as a group average left of center, but the Israel lobby is hard-right.
- Major donors to Harvard. Some are closely associated with the Israel lobby and vocal about it. Others aren't.
- The US courts. Anyone can bring a case to court, and courts have to do something about it.
- Trump.
Minor players:
- Fox News. 23 of Trump's appointees came from Fox News. The MAGA base listens to Fox News.
- The United Nations. Provides some aid, but hasn't been able to do more than that.
- US Congress. Has the real power, but is too divided to do anything with it.
- Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. They're the ones most affected, but lack any real power at this point. It's not even suggested that they be represented in international meetings.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel
Fox and the rest of the media network is the main player. They spend the energy required to present an alternative reality for their base, and have insulated their viewers from any discussion on a shared common reality.
Furthermore, they are effectively part of the Republican Party. So they create and maintain a political reality which is purpose built to achieve political goals.
The underlying assumption of western liberal democracies is that participants can figure things out together. You cannot figure things out when you have one side intentionally creating alternate narratives to stymie conversation and debate, to shore up negotiating power for the leaders of their bloc.
Furthermore, they are effectively part of the Republican Party. So they create and maintain a political reality which is purpose built to achieve political goals.
The underlying assumption of western liberal democracies is that participants can figure things out together. You cannot figure things out when you have one side intentionally creating alternate narratives to stymie conversation and debate, to shore up negotiating power for the leaders of their bloc.
The government controls the migration system independent of Harvard.
The prestige networks people perceive as existing are actually just plot devices for Hollywood.
Obvious answer is obvious.
The prestige networks people perceive as existing are actually just plot devices for Hollywood.
Obvious answer is obvious.
I am not entirely sure what you mean but I will disagree with other commenters that there are no factions at war with each other. If you look at the prosecutors who went after Trump in the past few years, they were disproportionately Harvard Law grads. So that is Merrick Garland, Matthew Colangelo, Alvin Bragg, and Jack Smith. I do think that law schools in particular have cultivated a particular political view and are not independent or nonpartisan but I very much disagree with what Trump is doing.
I think there are almost certainly factions here. I personally think Trump is targeting Harvard because of the above reason. Overall I think the situation is quite bad but that isn't what you asked.
I think there are almost certainly factions here. I personally think Trump is targeting Harvard because of the above reason. Overall I think the situation is quite bad but that isn't what you asked.
You're overthinking this. The university is vocal about keeping its independence. That's enough to warrant retaliation from this president.
Or, perhaps more simply, the days of the "Good Ol' Boys" who all went to the same power school and use that as a way to influence politics are over?
I'm reminded of the infamous George Carlin bit "It's a big club, and you ain’t in it"[1]. Maybe not anymore... and that's a most likely a good thing.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/964648-but-there-s-a-reason...
I'm reminded of the infamous George Carlin bit "It's a big club, and you ain’t in it"[1]. Maybe not anymore... and that's a most likely a good thing.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/964648-but-there-s-a-reason...
Going by Occam's razor, grandparent's hypothesis is more likely to be correct than yours.
rat87(1)
It's also the pinnacle university, at least in optics.
It is like getting Zuck to kneel and donate $1M. Once he did that, everyone else donated a $1M and peaced out.
It is like getting Zuck to kneel and donate $1M. Once he did that, everyone else donated a $1M and peaced out.
ethbr1(1)
Isn't a lot of the appeal of Trump that he does not owe anything to these power networks? Others in the Republican party may do so, but Trump has the Republican party well under control, and so doesn't have to listen to anyone. Trump has drained the previous swamp and erected a new one, and Harvard never got an invitation.
The previous swamp hasn’t gone anywhere, your just not noticing it due to the enormous size of the new one.
I think its a few reasons/things here...(some already noted in some way by others)
* Trump does not care or maybe lacks the understanding of the concept of a network and influence with entities outside the U.s.
* Trump probably figures that he can use this as sort of leverage against negotiations with non-U.s. entities...but using a blunt instrument instead of nuance, or backchannels.
* Trump is foolishly following the guidelines from the architects of project 2025...whether those folks are educated enough to understand value of schools of higher educatioin, or worse, these architects fear having an educated population - regardless if that population are U.S. citizens or folks outside of U.S.
* Trump is behaving like a child having a tantrum, and is demolishing the "swamp" of current political arenas, and re-building it for himself/his party...and Harvard and other entities (that typically might be invited) are not invited in the upcoming new world order.
* Trump has little desire in any/all of this, and this is simply another stab at pushing the envelope of what the U.s. Executive branch can/can not do...much like a child who pushes boundaries to see how far they can get...and if no one pushes back/challenges (at least in meaningful ways), then they will keep pushing until greater power has been obtained.
...of course, it could be a combination of many of the above at the same time as well...and could be other stuff that i didn't note above too. In other words, welcome to the modern U.S. tyranny. ;-)
* Trump does not care or maybe lacks the understanding of the concept of a network and influence with entities outside the U.s.
* Trump probably figures that he can use this as sort of leverage against negotiations with non-U.s. entities...but using a blunt instrument instead of nuance, or backchannels.
* Trump is foolishly following the guidelines from the architects of project 2025...whether those folks are educated enough to understand value of schools of higher educatioin, or worse, these architects fear having an educated population - regardless if that population are U.S. citizens or folks outside of U.S.
* Trump is behaving like a child having a tantrum, and is demolishing the "swamp" of current political arenas, and re-building it for himself/his party...and Harvard and other entities (that typically might be invited) are not invited in the upcoming new world order.
* Trump has little desire in any/all of this, and this is simply another stab at pushing the envelope of what the U.s. Executive branch can/can not do...much like a child who pushes boundaries to see how far they can get...and if no one pushes back/challenges (at least in meaningful ways), then they will keep pushing until greater power has been obtained.
...of course, it could be a combination of many of the above at the same time as well...and could be other stuff that i didn't note above too. In other words, welcome to the modern U.S. tyranny. ;-)
> project 2025...whether those folks are educated enough to understand value of schools of higher educatioin, or worse, these architects fear having an educated population
They may or may not be educated, but they're openly and actively against an educated populace for a multitude of reasons, from resistance to their ideas, to "get to work and start having babies for Christ". They will openly say that the first preference for a male school leaver/graduate should be to find a job, not further education.
They may or may not be educated, but they're openly and actively against an educated populace for a multitude of reasons, from resistance to their ideas, to "get to work and start having babies for Christ". They will openly say that the first preference for a male school leaver/graduate should be to find a job, not further education.
Most of Trump's behavior makes sense when you realize his dealmaking strategy is bullying:
1. Exert maximun possible pressure
2. Strike the best deal possible
Reasons only matter in the sense of selecting initial targets. Once into dealmaking, it's anything and everything thrown at an opponent.
You can see this in terms of what stops him: equal counterpressure (China) or consequences (US stocks and treasuries being dumped)
Similarly, once a deal is struck, reasons again don't matter.
1. Exert maximun possible pressure
2. Strike the best deal possible
Reasons only matter in the sense of selecting initial targets. Once into dealmaking, it's anything and everything thrown at an opponent.
You can see this in terms of what stops him: equal counterpressure (China) or consequences (US stocks and treasuries being dumped)
Similarly, once a deal is struck, reasons again don't matter.
The problem is that deals made under duress have little lasting value. The bullied party feels little moral compunction to uphold the terms a moment longer than necessary, plus they will naturally be skeptical of the bullying party's commitment to do so in the future.
Oh, it's absolutely asinine. Which is why international geopolitics and real estate differ.
>> Are the power networks changing?
Yes and this can't be overstated. Interests that were previously aligned are now going to fracture. Everything is up for grabs now.
Yes and this can't be overstated. Interests that were previously aligned are now going to fracture. Everything is up for grabs now.
I'm going to guess there may be a great deal many people who are Harvard Alumni who agree with the Trump Administration on this.
Disregarding whatever surface-level motivations Trump might have, let's look at some things attacking Harvard accomplishes.
1. Maybe most importantly, attacking academic institutions is part of the fascist coup playbook. [1] That could really be enough motivation on its own - these steps have lead to the desired outcome before, if you follow them closely enough they will probably work again. Just like the seemingly out-of-the-left-field framing of DEI, of all things, as the big Enemy that is corrupting art, science and the American people itself. It seems crazy, but notice how well it's working.
2. It's another vase to throw in the air, forcing you to catch it, cartoon-style. People who care and believe in process will spend time and energy going through the court system to limit the damage done, but the defenders will lag behind, their focus divided, while the attackers can just keep breaking bigger and bigger things, since they not care much what damage they do to people or their country.
3. It lets them target pro-Palestine protesters gradually starting from the most extreme. The genocide in Gaza can go a lot further. It is mutually beneficial for Trump, Netanyahu and Putin to divide both domestic and international outrage between them (see point 2.) By the time the full scale of the atrocities are clear, arresting and prosecuting protesters for "antisemitism" will be routine. And if you're not willing to stand up and protest, and therefore be removed, chances are you won't stick your neck out when they instate "temporary" changes to federal elections - only out of some extreme necessity, of course.
[1] https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/higher-education-i...
1. Maybe most importantly, attacking academic institutions is part of the fascist coup playbook. [1] That could really be enough motivation on its own - these steps have lead to the desired outcome before, if you follow them closely enough they will probably work again. Just like the seemingly out-of-the-left-field framing of DEI, of all things, as the big Enemy that is corrupting art, science and the American people itself. It seems crazy, but notice how well it's working.
2. It's another vase to throw in the air, forcing you to catch it, cartoon-style. People who care and believe in process will spend time and energy going through the court system to limit the damage done, but the defenders will lag behind, their focus divided, while the attackers can just keep breaking bigger and bigger things, since they not care much what damage they do to people or their country.
3. It lets them target pro-Palestine protesters gradually starting from the most extreme. The genocide in Gaza can go a lot further. It is mutually beneficial for Trump, Netanyahu and Putin to divide both domestic and international outrage between them (see point 2.) By the time the full scale of the atrocities are clear, arresting and prosecuting protesters for "antisemitism" will be routine. And if you're not willing to stand up and protest, and therefore be removed, chances are you won't stick your neck out when they instate "temporary" changes to federal elections - only out of some extreme necessity, of course.
[1] https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/higher-education-i...
The best source I've seen for understanding the underlying power dynamics at play is the DHS's Press Release: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses...
Here's the beginning:
WASHINGTON – Today, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered DHS to terminate the Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification.
This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.
Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment. Many of these agitators are foreign students. Harvard’s leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide.
“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” said Secretary Noem. “It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”
On April 16, 2025, Secretary Noem demanded Harvard provide information about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus. Secretary Noem warned refusal to comply with this lawful order would result in SEVP termination.
This action comes after DHS terminated $2.7 million in DHS grants for Harvard last month.
Harvard University brazenly refused to provide the required information requested and ignored a follow up request from the Department’s Office of General Council. Secretary Noem is following through on her promise to protect students and prohibit terrorist sympathizers from receiving benefits from the U.S. government.
I think a fair answer might be that this immediate action is primarily about Israel, and Harvard's toleration and apparent support of organizations that the US government considers to be terrorists. Harvard has quite consciously taken an antagonistic approach here, and the government feels it is responding in kind.
Secondarily, it's about the way that elite schools have aligned themselves with the progressive politics associated with the Democratic party. Harvard is the target here because they are strongest, not necessarily because they are the most liberal. If the government can humble Harvard, they expect that all the weaker institutions will fold without a fight.
Here's the beginning:
WASHINGTON – Today, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered DHS to terminate the Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification.
This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.
Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment. Many of these agitators are foreign students. Harvard’s leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide.
“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” said Secretary Noem. “It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”
On April 16, 2025, Secretary Noem demanded Harvard provide information about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus. Secretary Noem warned refusal to comply with this lawful order would result in SEVP termination.
This action comes after DHS terminated $2.7 million in DHS grants for Harvard last month.
Harvard University brazenly refused to provide the required information requested and ignored a follow up request from the Department’s Office of General Council. Secretary Noem is following through on her promise to protect students and prohibit terrorist sympathizers from receiving benefits from the U.S. government.
I think a fair answer might be that this immediate action is primarily about Israel, and Harvard's toleration and apparent support of organizations that the US government considers to be terrorists. Harvard has quite consciously taken an antagonistic approach here, and the government feels it is responding in kind.
Secondarily, it's about the way that elite schools have aligned themselves with the progressive politics associated with the Democratic party. Harvard is the target here because they are strongest, not necessarily because they are the most liberal. If the government can humble Harvard, they expect that all the weaker institutions will fold without a fight.
> Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.
Remember when people were really mad about weaponizing the government? I guess that's okay now. Good to know.
Remember when people were really mad about weaponizing the government? I guess that's okay now. Good to know.
I'll take this opportunity to mention that I don't think the DHS press release should be taken as "authoritative" on anything other than the government's intentions. As you point out, the administration is being wonderfully clear that they intend to make an example of Harvard and punish those who would side with them.
I'm glad that despite being immediately being voted to a negative score and pushed to the bottom, some people like you are reading the link. If the goal is to understand what Harvard is up against, I think it's really useful to read what the government is actually claiming. I wasn't expecting that many people here would be persuaded by it!
I'm glad that despite being immediately being voted to a negative score and pushed to the bottom, some people like you are reading the link. If the goal is to understand what Harvard is up against, I think it's really useful to read what the government is actually claiming. I wasn't expecting that many people here would be persuaded by it!
Bill Ackman is mad at Harvard for allowing the Palestine protests. He switched his support to Trump for that one reason. This is the payoff.
> Bill Ackman is mad at Harvard for allowing the Palestine protests. He switched his support to Trump for that one reason
Ackman voted for Trump in 2016.
Ackman voted for Trump in 2016.
A lot of people don't want to hear it but Trump isn't really a part of the Washington elite and is bringing in his own circle of people from his first pass at being President. Along the way he has picked up various sycophants and of course likes to hob knob with other billionaires. That is the clique you are dealing with, not the traditional washington crowd from Ivy Leagues. Harvard has a history of standing up to Trrump and he doesn't like that and is a very veangeful person, whether he was in the wrong or not. Unless you bend the knee (he can be very "forgiving" then if it benefits him or his ego) you are going to be a target. Mix that with his sociopathy and zero concern over rule of law and it doesn't look good for Harvard or Columbia for the next few years, unless courts move quickly
lupusreal(9)
nashashmi(6)
FridayoLeary(3)
If you speak out against the government, the government will retaliate. Simple as that.
That is not how it is supposed to work in the US.
There are historical precedents though:
>1798
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
>1918
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
>>notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds
>1798
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
>1918
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
>>notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds
You are describing the inability for dissent as normal. In fact, it's considered an international human right. Despite it also being in our constitution, the Trump Administration's actions resemble your comment closely.
I don't disagree. It's where we've ended up, and I don't see any viable solutions to the problem.
Arguably, this is part of the intent. It’s important to see through/past it even if for nothing else than your own personal sanity. Personally, I have found a lot of comfort in local protests; There are a lot of people who really don’t want this regime to stick around.
@neliv I’d like to encourage you to do a few searches and maybe ask an LLM for that ELI5 - and include what you learned!
I think it's fine to ask these kinds of questions, in the hope that the HN audience may include individuals with particular insights. A response like this has the same ring to it as posting a link to LMGTFY, which is disallowed here.
[deleted]
Government policy in the form of personal grudges rather than law and good policy.
Expect much much more of this as Slicon Valley scum continue to get their way. They have very loudly expressed their desire for a sort of fuedal power and hace polluted the current administration with some of their ideas.
Very true. A feudal relationship once established was never going to conform to their political interests. They simply pushed too far, too fast, and for too long for that to be a possibility.
The us government, using the appropriate mechanism like passing laws etc, can change the policies like they see fit.
However I don't understand how it's possible to single out a specific university.
Are there precedents for this kind of behaviour?
However I don't understand how it's possible to single out a specific university.
Are there precedents for this kind of behaviour?
It's called a bill of attainder and it's prohibited by the Constitution. Courts have said this also applies to executive orders though it's not as crystal clear.
He's already done this to the Associated Press for ignoring his stupid Gulf of Mexico rename as well as to several law firms for representing democrats.
He's already done this to the Associated Press for ignoring his stupid Gulf of Mexico rename as well as to several law firms for representing democrats.
> it's prohibited by the Constitution
Even if it is illegal, does not mean that anybody will actually do anything about it beside challenging the administration in court and giving them a slap on the wrist at best.
Even if it is illegal, does not mean that anybody will actually do anything about it beside challenging the administration in court and giving them a slap on the wrist at best.
No; it’s illegal but he controls the justice department and is attempting to silence the courts. He’s singling them out because they refused to bend the knee. This is not okay. And it is not normal.
And when Harvard sues the administration will call on the over 1 billion in pro-bono "fighting antisemitism" legal work they extorted from the nations largest law firms.
Ctrl + F "Yarvin" only returns one comment. Kind of surprised, neutering Harvard's power has been one of that guy's main objectives for what feels like, well, forever at this point. He finally has his man.
I've tried to avoid going down that rabbit hole but I'm curious, why has that been such a big objective for Yarvin?
I haven't read everything he's written (who has?) but my take on the literature tells me Harvard is a stand-in for his "Cathedral", and so degrading its power and influence would be a worthy goal for his political project. Take that with a grain of salt, it's been a few years since I actually engaged with what he writes. Though, I should probably try again since NYT did interview him recently. His style is just hard to deal with. It's like Rushdie, in a way, where you need a deep understanding of whatever it is he's talking about for the metaphors to make sense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in...
He's patiently waiting for his tanks in Harvard Yard.
The truly depressing thing is, a lot of people are actually happy about this action. How did things get so bad, so quickly?
People who lived under authoritarian regimes have long said that things move slowly at first, but after an inflection point, get real bad, real fast. It's one thing to understand that intellectually, quite another to witness it first hand.
Hopefully, the judiciary will block this particular madness, but then again, given the concerted effort over the past decade by Republicans to appoint right wing judges, the odds are not that great.
People who lived under authoritarian regimes have long said that things move slowly at first, but after an inflection point, get real bad, real fast. It's one thing to understand that intellectually, quite another to witness it first hand.
Hopefully, the judiciary will block this particular madness, but then again, given the concerted effort over the past decade by Republicans to appoint right wing judges, the odds are not that great.
> People who lived under authoritarian regimes have long said that things move slowly at first, but after an inflection point, get real bad, real fast.
If you want an indication why the US could go into dictatorship mode, look no further than to what is happening now. Dictatorship coups are extremely fragile in the initial phase. The very recent example is South Korea. It only takes a few determined people to sabotage the coup. In the same fashion, Trump would immediately stop if enough people were to take it to the street. So far, the silence is extremely loud.
If you want an indication why the US could go into dictatorship mode, look no further than to what is happening now. Dictatorship coups are extremely fragile in the initial phase. The very recent example is South Korea. It only takes a few determined people to sabotage the coup. In the same fashion, Trump would immediately stop if enough people were to take it to the street. So far, the silence is extremely loud.
> How did things get so bad, so quickly?
It didn't. Conservatives in this country have explicitly been headed this direction since they decided to never let another Nixon happen. Not that they would prevent another criminal Republican. But they would ensure that Republicans are never punished for behavior like this. It led to Fox News and Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson, etc. The writing has been on the wall in plain sight for everyone to see for literally decades. The people who have been pointing it out and stating this is exactly where the country has been headed are called radicals and casually dismissed. The only reason Romney lost is because he didn't lean into the hatred his base was demanding[1]. Trump delivered what they wanted.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/romney-...
It didn't. Conservatives in this country have explicitly been headed this direction since they decided to never let another Nixon happen. Not that they would prevent another criminal Republican. But they would ensure that Republicans are never punished for behavior like this. It led to Fox News and Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson, etc. The writing has been on the wall in plain sight for everyone to see for literally decades. The people who have been pointing it out and stating this is exactly where the country has been headed are called radicals and casually dismissed. The only reason Romney lost is because he didn't lean into the hatred his base was demanding[1]. Trump delivered what they wanted.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/romney-...
I believe that this is entirely the correct answer.
If anyone has any counterarguments, I would genuinely love to read them.
If anyone has any counterarguments, I would genuinely love to read them.
I dont, and instead would build on this argument further.
There is no political winning, at any time in the future, unless the structural issue with information and news ecosystems is dealt with. The best evidence I have seen, shows that news consumption on the right in America is sealed, and has no traffic with the center or left.
There is no future for ANY liberal democracy, if there is no fair debate between its citizenry. We aren’t even fighting for the table stakes of informed citizenry, but we are talking about the scraps of not debating fantasy.
This isn’t even about misinformation; the total consumption of misinformation as a portion of total content can only shift so much, given the number of hours in a day. It’s not the production of more misinformation which matters - it is the championing of misinformation by leaders that makes it a ‘fact’.
This then decides the talking points for debates. The side which has to do research that requires interrogating reality - slower, probabilistic, uncertain processes - is inefficient when competing with a party that can create facts.
The reason that the Stanford Internet Observatory and other content moderation arms are being targeted, is because for all their warts and issues, these teams were trying to ensure a fair market place of ideas, and as a result ended up slowing the spread of narratives on the right. Or potential new recruits.
There is no political winning, at any time in the future, unless the structural issue with information and news ecosystems is dealt with. The best evidence I have seen, shows that news consumption on the right in America is sealed, and has no traffic with the center or left.
There is no future for ANY liberal democracy, if there is no fair debate between its citizenry. We aren’t even fighting for the table stakes of informed citizenry, but we are talking about the scraps of not debating fantasy.
This isn’t even about misinformation; the total consumption of misinformation as a portion of total content can only shift so much, given the number of hours in a day. It’s not the production of more misinformation which matters - it is the championing of misinformation by leaders that makes it a ‘fact’.
This then decides the talking points for debates. The side which has to do research that requires interrogating reality - slower, probabilistic, uncertain processes - is inefficient when competing with a party that can create facts.
The reason that the Stanford Internet Observatory and other content moderation arms are being targeted, is because for all their warts and issues, these teams were trying to ensure a fair market place of ideas, and as a result ended up slowing the spread of narratives on the right. Or potential new recruits.
I think it is a product of raising stakes as wall between the public sphere and government control collapses.
Norms around free speech and free behavior been eroding for decades. Now that they are gone, each side sees it as an existential struggle. In an existential struggle, it makes sense to sacrifice any values you had because the alternative is worse.
e.g. if there is going to be a oppressive government, you want one that will oppressive others for your benefit.
e.g. even if you don't want a race war, if you are convinced will be one, you want your side to win.
You see similar situations in national wars (strike first before they strike you), or prisoners dilemma where both parities defect.
Society at large is an unstable solution to the prisoners dilemma built on trust.
IMO we got here from erosion of trust in government and society in general.
Norms around free speech and free behavior been eroding for decades. Now that they are gone, each side sees it as an existential struggle. In an existential struggle, it makes sense to sacrifice any values you had because the alternative is worse.
e.g. if there is going to be a oppressive government, you want one that will oppressive others for your benefit.
e.g. even if you don't want a race war, if you are convinced will be one, you want your side to win.
You see similar situations in national wars (strike first before they strike you), or prisoners dilemma where both parities defect.
Society at large is an unstable solution to the prisoners dilemma built on trust.
IMO we got here from erosion of trust in government and society in general.
> The only reason Romney lost is because he didn't lean into the hatred his base was demanding.
John McCain too ?
John McCain too ?
Somewhat yes
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk
But it was also that the great recession was a bit painful for enough of these people.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk
But it was also that the great recession was a bit painful for enough of these people.
If you only allow the loud-crazies of one side to be in the public sphere for about a decade, people will associate those crazies with one side of the political aisle. While being under the impression that the other side is far more sane.
If they can do this to Harvard, what hope do other universities have?
They’re trying to make an example of Harvard so they don’t need to force anyone else to tow the line. Other universities will self censor.
nit: fyi it's "toe the line"
Most the universities will do the thing asked in order to re-instate their student visa certification. i.e. provide intel needed to deport any students that they believe have opinions that are not in the interest of national security.
Most likely Harvard will try to fight it in court and then give in if they lose. It's not likely we see the future decertification continue into the academic year.
Most likely Harvard will try to fight it in court and then give in if they lose. It's not likely we see the future decertification continue into the academic year.
> they believe have opinions that are not in the interest of national security
So people committing thought crimes huh?
This is the US in 2025 - indefinitely imprisoning people without any actual charges for having opinions the current administration doesn't like.
So people committing thought crimes huh?
This is the US in 2025 - indefinitely imprisoning people without any actual charges for having opinions the current administration doesn't like.
This is the country of free speech zones away from the main event in the early 2000s and sending WWI dissenters to jail in 1914. You’ve long pretended to have freedoms you’ve never actually been given and this is hardly new.
More like those freedoms get violated on occasion in the name of national security, because administrations are largely able to get away with it during certain crisis.
Great question, right to the heart of the matter. First higher learning, somewhere down the line, ordinary people? In my small world, I'm very clear I'm anti-trump on every issue. As an ordinary person, how long before I get on some Stalin type radar? If trump lobbies for and gets a third term, will there be an awakening to how far the abuse will go?
I expect some government AI will soon be trawling through the databases of every social media network and assembling a political profile of every US resident. (They’re already starting to do this for tourists and visitors: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2479045-us-government-i...)
dictators always start with the groups they hate most and then move down the list. Trump has always hated elite universities and academia.
Can they really do this? You're telling me this is real and not one of those "just for show" things that have no real teeth and will eventually get overturned by a judge?
Checks and balances are just words. So yes, they can and will do everything they want.
I mean Harvard will fight back in court. The courts are last bastion. Once the executive branch stops following what the courts order the checks and balances are gone.
How is the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in favor of returning Garcia working out?
The courts have been beaten months ago. We are well into crazy train territory.
The courts have been beaten months ago. We are well into crazy train territory.
Lol Rubio told Xinis on national TV he was intentionally stonewalling any information to her, and she took it like a bitch and just kept rolling with keeping most their 'secrets' under seal (despite earlier talking big game of exposing them to sunlight).
The courts aren't even trying, they could order someone into contempt, but they won't.
The courts aren't even trying, they could order someone into contempt, but they won't.
"Ninth Circuit? Never heard of them. How many divisions do they have?"
We are in a non-constitutional crazy train territory, which will continue unless the right leaning voters do something about it at mid-terms. We're in the beginning of a very dangerous era.
They're not going to do anything about it. This is what they voted for. They thrive on our fear and anger. This is their revenge for the perceived wrongs of the Obama and Biden administrations.
[deleted]
> Checks and balances are just words.
By that logic, Trump's orders are just words. The Trump administration obeys the courts - they push the envelope way too far, but it is still rule of law.
By that logic, Trump's orders are just words. The Trump administration obeys the courts - they push the envelope way too far, but it is still rule of law.
They deported a man to El Salvador against a court order and then ignored an order from the Supreme Court to return him.
That's one person. While it's very important, it doesn't at all mean the courts don't exit.
> order from the Supreme Court to return him.
The Supreme Court did not order that.
Edit: If you object to these things, realize you are helping the Trump administration by spreading exaggerated fears about what's happening. They want people to believe they are super-powerful, unstoppable, inevitable; it intimidates people into inaction. Also, without accurate information, people can't make good decisions and act - you are helping a propaganda campaign (unwittingly). And finally, spreading fear is not what good, responsible leaders - or teammates - do.
> order from the Supreme Court to return him.
The Supreme Court did not order that.
Edit: If you object to these things, realize you are helping the Trump administration by spreading exaggerated fears about what's happening. They want people to believe they are super-powerful, unstoppable, inevitable; it intimidates people into inaction. Also, without accurate information, people can't make good decisions and act - you are helping a propaganda campaign (unwittingly). And finally, spreading fear is not what good, responsible leaders - or teammates - do.
> The Trump administration obeys the courts
We have multiple judges beginning contempt proceedings against the administration, so this is open to debate.
And, there's recent action in the budget bill to attempt to defang judges' contempt powers, seemingly in response.
"No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued"
We have multiple judges beginning contempt proceedings against the administration, so this is open to debate.
And, there's recent action in the budget bill to attempt to defang judges' contempt powers, seemingly in response.
"No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued"
> The Trump administration obeys the courts
No they don't:
https://apnews.com/article/deportation-immigration-south-sud...
No they don't:
https://apnews.com/article/deportation-immigration-south-sud...
That is happening, but it's a narrow instance. It doesn't mean there aren't serious issues, but the GGP said, "Checks and balances are just words." Obviously that is not true.
Also, Trump is relying on Congress to pass bills, for example. It's not rule by decree.
Also, Trump is relying on Congress to pass bills, for example. It's not rule by decree.
Would you consider habeas corpus a critical element of rule of law?
There's been loose talk, but no violations of habeas corpus orders.
Have there been violations of the priciple of habeas corpus?
[flagged]
> will eventually get overturned by a judge
Will the people who had to transfer or leave be made whole? Even if a judge overturns this it will take time that the students impacted by this will have to pay, regardless of outcome.
Will the people who had to transfer or leave be made whole? Even if a judge overturns this it will take time that the students impacted by this will have to pay, regardless of outcome.
Absolutely they have explicit powers to do this. Harvard is refusing to comply with the requirements of the visa program that allows them to bring student into the country so the administration is removing Harvard from the program.
There is little to no chance of this getting overturned.
There is little to no chance of this getting overturned.
That's a weird way of phrasing things. Harvard isn't "bringing students into the country" in the way an employer might relocate an employee.
People want to study in the US, and the administration is revoking Harvard's ability to be on the list of study destinations.
The students want to go to Harvard, it's not that Harvard wants the students (of course they do, but that's not the direct concern here).
People want to study in the US, and the administration is revoking Harvard's ability to be on the list of study destinations.
The students want to go to Harvard, it's not that Harvard wants the students (of course they do, but that's not the direct concern here).
There is a 99% chance of this getting overturned.
Harvard will sue, lose in court, and then give DHS everything they want at which point they'll get their visas back.
They just want to pretend to be the victim for a while so that their overwhelmingly far-left faculty don't leave.
Harvard will sue, lose in court, and then give DHS everything they want at which point they'll get their visas back.
They just want to pretend to be the victim for a while so that their overwhelmingly far-left faculty don't leave.
Seems most universities don't really care as long as the money keeps flowing. They jumped quickly on the DEI bandwagon and they will quickly hop off too.
Many already have.
Yea, that’s the message they are trying to send.
> When a University’s SEVP certification is revoked, currently enrolled international students must choose between transferring to a different institution, changing their immigration status, or leaving the country, according to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement website.
It's crazy they're punishing tons of students who don't even have anything to do with these protests
It's crazy they're punishing tons of students who don't even have anything to do with these protests
It’s also crazy (read: unconstitutional) to punish students who do have everything to do with these protests.
This is exactly how division works. Threaten all and they turn on each other. "Why me? I'm not the one you want! Take them!" It's not so much about the Gaza protests, that's just another occassion to normalize division and mistrust within all parts of society.
Often, these protests were overtly supporting an organization officially classed as "terrorist" (HAMAS). The Americans making foreigners who are found to openly support a known terrorist organization leave is par for the course, I would say. If you showed up at the German border and told them you were a HAMAS supporter, my guess is you wouldn't get in.
Now, the Trump admin is not this careful, and many people who are not overt HAMAS supporters have probably been affected. But I wish to make the point that there is a substantial group of students (non-citizen HAMAS supporters) for whom punishment is not crazy.
Now, the Trump admin is not this careful, and many people who are not overt HAMAS supporters have probably been affected. But I wish to make the point that there is a substantial group of students (non-citizen HAMAS supporters) for whom punishment is not crazy.
None of this allows the government to compel Harvard to do something. The government can revoke visas and deport people (after due process) if it wishes to and believes it can make its case.
We agree!
'often'? Do you have some statistics?
Enough with this “known terrorist” nonsense. Verbally expressing support for terrorist groups is still protected speech.
Few understand this. You’re allowed to openly advocate for whatever absolutely insane, horrific ideas you want.
You’re allowed to be a Nazi, you’re allowed to be a Hamas (non-financial) supporter, you’re allowed to be a pro-Gaza genocide advocate if you want. You can advocate for the extermination or enslavement of all black or white or Christian or atheist or gay people if you want.
You may (and probably should) become a social pariah and private parties can decline to affiliate with you, but the government isn’t allowed to do a damn thing about it.
You’re allowed to be a Nazi, you’re allowed to be a Hamas (non-financial) supporter, you’re allowed to be a pro-Gaza genocide advocate if you want. You can advocate for the extermination or enslavement of all black or white or Christian or atheist or gay people if you want.
You may (and probably should) become a social pariah and private parties can decline to affiliate with you, but the government isn’t allowed to do a damn thing about it.
YES!
The question is: To whom do these rights extend in the U.S.?
They certainly don't extend to foreigners at the border (any country would rightly turn away an avowed Al-Qaeda member). Foreigners in the U.S. are in the U.S. at the pleasure of the government.
Do foreigners currently in the U.S. have these rights? I don't know for sure, maybe it's not a settled issue. My guess is that the U.S. gov't asks "Are you a terrorist?" at the border for good reasons, and one reason is so they can kick you out for lying to them when they learn you're a HAMAS supporter.
Should they have these rights? I'm honestly not sure of my feeling on this. Perhaps the way to handle it is to prevent the renewal of a visa or re-entry, but not actually kick anyone out for it.
The question is: To whom do these rights extend in the U.S.?
They certainly don't extend to foreigners at the border (any country would rightly turn away an avowed Al-Qaeda member). Foreigners in the U.S. are in the U.S. at the pleasure of the government.
Do foreigners currently in the U.S. have these rights? I don't know for sure, maybe it's not a settled issue. My guess is that the U.S. gov't asks "Are you a terrorist?" at the border for good reasons, and one reason is so they can kick you out for lying to them when they learn you're a HAMAS supporter.
Should they have these rights? I'm honestly not sure of my feeling on this. Perhaps the way to handle it is to prevent the renewal of a visa or re-entry, but not actually kick anyone out for it.
It's not that complicated.
The country obviously has no obligation to give visas to anyone. However, once you are within US jurisdiction (i.e. in the country), you have a suite of Constitutional rights including (unambiguously) 1st Amendment and 5th Amendment rights. So, correct, they definitely cannot be deported without due process. They cannot be deported even with due process for protected speech. They cannot even lose their visas for protected speech. There are a million different reasons the government may decline to give someone a visa or they may revoke one, but "engaging in protected speech" is not one of them.
And yes, yelling "kill all X" during a protest is protected speech in this country, which AFAIK is far beyond what any of these people are alleged to have done.
The country obviously has no obligation to give visas to anyone. However, once you are within US jurisdiction (i.e. in the country), you have a suite of Constitutional rights including (unambiguously) 1st Amendment and 5th Amendment rights. So, correct, they definitely cannot be deported without due process. They cannot be deported even with due process for protected speech. They cannot even lose their visas for protected speech. There are a million different reasons the government may decline to give someone a visa or they may revoke one, but "engaging in protected speech" is not one of them.
And yes, yelling "kill all X" during a protest is protected speech in this country, which AFAIK is far beyond what any of these people are alleged to have done.
"Noncitizens Have (Some) First Amendment Rights"
"It is well established that noncitizens have at least some First Amendment rights," wrote Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District of Massachusetts. "Although case law defining the scope of noncitizens' First Amendment rights is notably sparse, the Plaintiffs have at least plausibly alleged that noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, are being targeted specifically for exercising their right to political speech."
So it seems less than clear.
From: https://reason.com/2025/05/02/immigrants-and-radicals-have-t...
"It is well established that noncitizens have at least some First Amendment rights," wrote Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District of Massachusetts. "Although case law defining the scope of noncitizens' First Amendment rights is notably sparse, the Plaintiffs have at least plausibly alleged that noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, are being targeted specifically for exercising their right to political speech."
So it seems less than clear.
From: https://reason.com/2025/05/02/immigrants-and-radicals-have-t...
It's protected speech if you're a citizen, but it's not clear to me that non-citizens, especially when they're at the border rather than within the country, would be so-protected.
Aren’t we talking about a green card holder who is a resident here, specifically, in this sub thread?
sorcerer-ma’s comment made it sound like we are speaking of Mahmoud Khalil and others.
I am under the impression that the settled law is that 1A applies to everyone physically present in the country.
sorcerer-ma’s comment made it sound like we are speaking of Mahmoud Khalil and others.
I am under the impression that the settled law is that 1A applies to everyone physically present in the country.
It's an interesting question.
A little reading leads me to believe:
- 1A limits what congress may do, "Congress shall make no law...". It does not positively define what people may do, and therefore doesn't pick out a class of people to whom it applies.
- It is settled that the U.S. government may condition immigration-related decisions on your speech and actions. They don't have to let in an Al-Qaeda member when he shows up at the border, and they don't have to give a pro-HAMAS agitator in the country on a temporary visa a green card. It's still not totally clear to me if a green card might have some sort of special-but-noncitizen status, and maybe it's not clear in general.
- The U.S. government asks people who are applying for entry or a visa questions like, "Are you a terrorist, or have you ever belonged to or supported terrorist organizations?". Part of the reason they do this is to catch you in a lie if it then turns out that you are e.g. supporting HAMAS. If you lied on your immigration documents, they can throw you out.
- For this reason, it seems like e.g. refusing to renew a visa on the grounds of HAMAS support would be fine. But maybe canceling a visa and kicking someone out wouldn't be fine?
A little reading leads me to believe:
- 1A limits what congress may do, "Congress shall make no law...". It does not positively define what people may do, and therefore doesn't pick out a class of people to whom it applies.
- It is settled that the U.S. government may condition immigration-related decisions on your speech and actions. They don't have to let in an Al-Qaeda member when he shows up at the border, and they don't have to give a pro-HAMAS agitator in the country on a temporary visa a green card. It's still not totally clear to me if a green card might have some sort of special-but-noncitizen status, and maybe it's not clear in general.
- The U.S. government asks people who are applying for entry or a visa questions like, "Are you a terrorist, or have you ever belonged to or supported terrorist organizations?". Part of the reason they do this is to catch you in a lie if it then turns out that you are e.g. supporting HAMAS. If you lied on your immigration documents, they can throw you out.
- For this reason, it seems like e.g. refusing to renew a visa on the grounds of HAMAS support would be fine. But maybe canceling a visa and kicking someone out wouldn't be fine?
gosub100(1)
[deleted]
s/crazy/deliberately evil/g
They might prefer to start with certain targets, but all international students are target of opportunity [0] the same way they've attacked people with lawful residency.
[1] Though perhaps with some very particular and suspicious quasi-ethnic exceptions. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crljn5046epo
[0] Ex. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/us/immigration-green-card..., https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article304988381.html
They might prefer to start with certain targets, but all international students are target of opportunity [0] the same way they've attacked people with lawful residency.
[1] Though perhaps with some very particular and suspicious quasi-ethnic exceptions. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crljn5046epo
[0] Ex. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/us/immigration-green-card..., https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article304988381.html
The target is Harvard University and the Woke Masterminds Who Are Destroying America.
The champions of One True America are just using international students as pawns to force Harvard's hand.
The champions of One True America are just using international students as pawns to force Harvard's hand.
gosub100(1)
Harvard as an institution is older than the USA. It will survive 4 years of a lunatic's presidency.
This is quite literally the appeal to tradition or inertia fallacy. Just because they've been around for a while does not mean they are not facing an existential threat. Every structure humans create will one day collapse. This certainly looks difficult for Harvard and could be their end because there is no divine protection, only the decision that will be made by an extremely conservative Supreme Court and the willingness of authoritarian minded government employees in the trump admin to listen to the courts.
Things that have been around for a long time are the ones most likely to continue to exist, it's not a fallacy.
They are not, that is expectation of future performance based upon past. Reality is too complex and dynamic for that.
Reality is complex and dynamic, and through all of that Harvard's endurance pre-dates the US, therefore I would expect it to endure a 4 year term of Government. Not to say with a 100% certainty, but I would expect it to with a greater degree of confidence than many other things, based on its history.
However I wouldn't extend that line of thinking to stock markets, superannuation etc.
However I wouldn't extend that line of thinking to stock markets, superannuation etc.
I worked for a foundry that had been at the same location for 120 years. GE ran it into the ground and closed it 2 years after acquiring it.
Lehman Brothers
Appeal to tradition is reasonable in this context because of the Lindy effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect.
The longer something has been around, the more likely it's going to be around in the future.
The longer something has been around, the more likely it's going to be around in the future.
Tsinghua survived the Cultural Revolution. DU survived the Emergency. Cal survived Nixon. Harvard will survive this
That said, I personally believe Harvard's public reputation is significantly overstated - Stanford has become the new Harvard for at least 2 decades now.
That said, I personally believe Harvard's public reputation is significantly overstated - Stanford has become the new Harvard for at least 2 decades now.
I'm glad we're testing the guardrails by making our country unappealing the best talent in the world and wasting government resources on a revenge tour.
I would hope that people with a better reading of history understand how necessary it is to fight lunatics in power.
or 8+ years
Their goal is for forever+ years.
Shit needs to get ugly fast enough to make the masses take notice or they may just get their way.
Shit needs to get ugly fast enough to make the masses take notice or they may just get their way.
He will already have serves his second (and therefore last) term, or what do you mean?
Probably this:
https://www.trumpstore.com/product/trump-2028-hat/
https://www.trumpstore.com/product/trump-2028-hat/
Huh, that page actually seems to admit that the third term is not valid:
> Rewrite the rules with the Trump 2028 high crown hat.
Or perhaps I misunderstand what they mean with "rewrite the rules".
> Rewrite the rules with the Trump 2028 high crown hat.
Or perhaps I misunderstand what they mean with "rewrite the rules".
They know it's not valid. That's why they want to rewrite the rules.
Sure, but it’s still couched in legal theory that seeks to legitimize it. That phrasing suggests the rules need to be changed to legitimize it, which tracks with my understanding but not the rhetoric.
I find it unlikely but…
Much of my extended family would absolutely join a civil war on side Trump to get him into a permanent position of power if given the opportunity. Some of them are in the military. So it’s not unreasonable by world history standards that he could get a subset of the military on his side in a coup scenario.
I think people in large urban centers or outside of the US don’t realize how much certain parts of the country truly worship him above anything else. I know many people like this, I have to see them at family events, so you can’t tell me it’s an exaggeration. I’m not sure there are enough to do anything substantial, but the seeds are there.
Much of my extended family would absolutely join a civil war on side Trump to get him into a permanent position of power if given the opportunity. Some of them are in the military. So it’s not unreasonable by world history standards that he could get a subset of the military on his side in a coup scenario.
I think people in large urban centers or outside of the US don’t realize how much certain parts of the country truly worship him above anything else. I know many people like this, I have to see them at family events, so you can’t tell me it’s an exaggeration. I’m not sure there are enough to do anything substantial, but the seeds are there.
Yeah the amount of people I heard praising God when he was elected was disturbing. People literally believe he is a messiah. It's terrifying.
He has spoken repeatedly about running for a third term.
You do realize that the last time he was voted out an angry crowd literally stormed the capitol to overturn the election? What more can they do with better preparation?
Trump has repeatedly asserted he wants to run for a "third term" and his base worship him.
His electorate's beliefs are whatever he tells them they are. The same is true for the Republican Party. Trump is effectively free to ignore the constitution without consequence.
His electorate's beliefs are whatever he tells them they are. The same is true for the Republican Party. Trump is effectively free to ignore the constitution without consequence.
I took it to mean whoever succeeds him could be just as bad.
You are assuming Trump will step down?
You are quite naive, aren't you?
Martial law will be declared, for whatever reason they can come up with. Maybe the "invasion" excuse again, maybe Greenland, maybe Canada, maybe Mexico. But one thing is sure: Trump will be the last president of this democracy iteration.
You are quite naive, aren't you?
Martial law will be declared, for whatever reason they can come up with. Maybe the "invasion" excuse again, maybe Greenland, maybe Canada, maybe Mexico. But one thing is sure: Trump will be the last president of this democracy iteration.
Trump is not the problem, he's a symptom. Don't forget he got reelected, together with a republican congress who does everything he tells them to do.
This. If Trump is suddenly gone for whatever reason, the succeeding President is going to continue with the MAGA/Project 2025 agenda. Trump may be dumb and stupid, but imagine a US President who is young, energetic and speaks coherently that continues with the same agenda. (Hint: look at DeSantis and what happened in Florida.)
As it’s going, probably 8 years.
Lack a kings in the history is major problem. Four years are far from enough to fix it.
This is Fascism. With a Capital F.
I wonder how many foreign heads of state have children at Harvard
It's likely foreign heads of state can obtain a different visa for their children, if they are even on student visas to begin with.
They will be accommodated.
They will be accommodated.
It’s so painful to hear HackerNews talk about visas. It’s pathetic how little people know about the system despite it running a large chunk of the tech industry.
Insane how freely the US is giving away its status as a brain drain magnet (context: I'm European).
Has there ever been an empire that committed suicide at the height of power?
All of them. "Height of their power" is a retrospective take.
Doesn't mean their death was by suicide, though.
Lots of them, though it's usually through unwinnable wars. See Kaiser Willhelm II, Napoleon, Imperial Japan, etc.
Is it is really Trump holding a 'box cutter' to America's throat, or is it a 'controlled demolition' of an "empire" that presents obstacles for a grand plan for the future of global governance ..
[p.s. bravo to the one who downvoted as soon as I hit submit! Wow, that was quick. Bots on HN?]
[p.s. bravo to the one who downvoted as soon as I hit submit! Wow, that was quick. Bots on HN?]
It is not a suicide.
We are in a global war, and US and the west is taking damage.
We are in a global war, and US and the west is taking damage.
They still are, they just flipped the poles.
Trump is acting in the manner of all previous authoritarians: What is good for him is what's good for the country and the laws that align with this are proper, and those that do not will be ignored or changed where possible. The rule of law is anathema to authoritarians, and hence why they detest it. As individuals we might even feel the same about some laws. But in totality, the rule of, law and not by law is the foundation of our society, because its benefits are immense and usually taken for granted.
"To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law"
I was curious how this could legally be done. It's through this:
https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/schools/apply/getting-start...
As far as I can tell, the headlines are not quite accurate. From my reading, a more accurate description would be that one cannot obtain a student visa to go to Harvard.
So presumably, if someone could acquire legal residence in another way, they would be free to attend Harvard.
https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/schools/apply/getting-start...
As far as I can tell, the headlines are not quite accurate. From my reading, a more accurate description would be that one cannot obtain a student visa to go to Harvard.
So presumably, if someone could acquire legal residence in another way, they would be free to attend Harvard.
Yes ish, see my other comment.
Foreign students normally enter via a non-immigrant visa (F1), or rather they are eligible to apply for that visa at an embassy, if a registered sponsor supports it. The visa permits a request for entry into the country for the purpose of study (at a port of entry). The most important document that you need day to day is a DS-2019 and you must remain "in F1 status" in the SEVIS system for the duration of your program. If you don't leave the US, you don't need another visa even if your original one expires, the university can issue you a new DS-2019 annually until your end-of-program date. That's up to 5 years dependent on the category. If you leave after your visa expires you have to renew it out of the country, which is normally straightforward (using the dropbox system).
The government has not prevented foreign people from studying or working at Harvard, they have withdrawn their ability to maintain status while at Harvard. Hence why they can transfer to another institution.
Foreign students normally enter via a non-immigrant visa (F1), or rather they are eligible to apply for that visa at an embassy, if a registered sponsor supports it. The visa permits a request for entry into the country for the purpose of study (at a port of entry). The most important document that you need day to day is a DS-2019 and you must remain "in F1 status" in the SEVIS system for the duration of your program. If you don't leave the US, you don't need another visa even if your original one expires, the university can issue you a new DS-2019 annually until your end-of-program date. That's up to 5 years dependent on the category. If you leave after your visa expires you have to renew it out of the country, which is normally straightforward (using the dropbox system).
The government has not prevented foreign people from studying or working at Harvard, they have withdrawn their ability to maintain status while at Harvard. Hence why they can transfer to another institution.
Ah thanks, that makes sense.
It's a pretty weird system.
It's a pretty weird system.
You can view the DS-2019 as more like a work permit. The visa lets you leave and re-enter the country.
Some European countries work in a comparable way where you don't need a visa at all (depending where you're from), but you can't stay unless you have a valid work permit.
Some European countries work in a comparable way where you don't need a visa at all (depending where you're from), but you can't stay unless you have a valid work permit.
Well, good thing they can do that for the small price of $5 million.
Remember when Trump said you should get a green card with your diploma? Wasn't even a year ago:
https://x.com/DKThomp/status/1925631602589151325#m
https://x.com/DKThomp/status/1925631602589151325#m
I do find it kind of absurd that we invite people to come study in the USA, let them work on a visa at our corporations to gain experience, and then send them home.
[deleted]
I am going to get downvoted and flagged because I will bring up a topic that is not to be discussed here:
From a similar CNN article:
"Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered her department to terminate Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, making good on a promise made last month when she demanded the university hand over detailed records on its international students’ “illegal and violent activities” before April 30 or face the loss of its certification."
Okay, who could they possibly be talking about? Right. The Gaza protesters.
Miriam Adelson - $150m donated to Trump, second highest
Elon Musk is not the only one that bought the White House. So there is a genocide that if any of us tech people had some courage we could easily make some pretty wild visualizations of the before/after of Gaza maps, and the current full scale ethnic cleansing of it, but we can't bring it up. We're failing as tech people on this, but so is the whole world.
From a similar CNN article:
"Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered her department to terminate Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, making good on a promise made last month when she demanded the university hand over detailed records on its international students’ “illegal and violent activities” before April 30 or face the loss of its certification."
Okay, who could they possibly be talking about? Right. The Gaza protesters.
Miriam Adelson - $150m donated to Trump, second highest
Elon Musk is not the only one that bought the White House. So there is a genocide that if any of us tech people had some courage we could easily make some pretty wild visualizations of the before/after of Gaza maps, and the current full scale ethnic cleansing of it, but we can't bring it up. We're failing as tech people on this, but so is the whole world.
It could be Gaza protesters sure but it could be anyone. Previously legal residents were deported for minor traffic violations.
They’re trying to hit some targets for deportation numbers and shipping home “criminal” foreign students is an easy win.
They’re trying to hit some targets for deportation numbers and shipping home “criminal” foreign students is an easy win.
Of course it's about the Gaza protestors, let's not pretend otherwise.
No, it can't be anyone. Please don't do this. This is about the Palestinian situation. They tried to pressure the TikTok purchase so they change their algorithm to show less Gaza deaths. It is simply about that, and there is also a money trail of top donors that corroborate this. They also made a show of arresting the Columbia Palestinian organizer. They are not looking for illegal Mexicans in the Ivy League.
Authoritarian regimes aren't exactly known for going "ah, good, we've done enough oppression now!"
They're targeting everyone they can find. Russian refugees (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/11/science/russian-scientist...), Danish people who missed a form (https://www.mississippifreepress.org/ice-arrests-mississippi...), etc.
They're targeting everyone they can find. Russian refugees (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/11/science/russian-scientist...), Danish people who missed a form (https://www.mississippifreepress.org/ice-arrests-mississippi...), etc.
Yes, the Admin is even more pro-Israel (and by that I mean pro-Israeli gov/Netanyahu) than previous ones. But it's also using accusations of anti-Semitism at these universities as a cover to generally bring these "liberal" institutions to heel (as outlined in Project2025).
So it's not really about Gaza, Palestinians, or Jews. It's about control.
So it's not really about Gaza, Palestinians, or Jews. It's about control.
See this NY Times article from the other day:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/18/us/project-esther-heritag...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/18/us/project-esther-heritag...
[deleted]
Sure, but do you think that if nothing had ever happened in Gaza, the Trump administration wouldn't have found some other pretext to go after higher education, and foreign students in particular? They're defunding research programs all across the board and are sending people to gulags for having tattoos.
If you read the original list of demands[1],very few of the bullet points seems to be actually about the protests and anti-semitism, with the bulk of the demands involving DEI , reverse-DEI (i.e. more inclusion of white, conservative voices ) and greater federal control and oversight over Harvard's administration. If you read Harvards's response[2], you will see that the university is more than willing to co-operate on 'anti-semitism' and suppression of the protestors, but are pushing back against all the other items.
It seems that what is portrayed as a dispute over Palestine, antisemitism and qamas is actually a cover for a power-struggle between the liberals and conservatives ( such as the Heritage foundation, Project 2025, and Yarvinites)
[1] - https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/...
[2] - https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/...
edit : But when i think of it more, maybe it is about Israel and Zionism but over a longer time-scale than recent events. If you look at some of the early anti-'woke' and anti-left movements like the self-proclaimed 'Intellectual dark web', lot of them are zionists who viewed the growing liberal disenchantment with zionism in the college campus and left-wing activism (including pro-palestine activism like the BDS movement) as an existential threat to Israel.
It seems that what is portrayed as a dispute over Palestine, antisemitism and qamas is actually a cover for a power-struggle between the liberals and conservatives ( such as the Heritage foundation, Project 2025, and Yarvinites)
[1] - https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/...
[2] - https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/...
edit : But when i think of it more, maybe it is about Israel and Zionism but over a longer time-scale than recent events. If you look at some of the early anti-'woke' and anti-left movements like the self-proclaimed 'Intellectual dark web', lot of them are zionists who viewed the growing liberal disenchantment with zionism in the college campus and left-wing activism (including pro-palestine activism like the BDS movement) as an existential threat to Israel.
this is so absurd authoritarian
the core of free speech isn't if you can insult officers or similar in the larger picture irrelevant things, but the freedom of teaching, education, books etc. And freedom doesn't just means "its theoretical possible" but the absence of suppression, retaliatory actions and similar
the core of free speech isn't if you can insult officers or similar in the larger picture irrelevant things, but the freedom of teaching, education, books etc. And freedom doesn't just means "its theoretical possible" but the absence of suppression, retaliatory actions and similar
It's not just enrolling new students:
> In a news release, the Department of Homeland Security sent a stark message to Harvard’s international students: “This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students, and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.”
So DHS revoked the visas for all existing students at Harvard? That doesn't seem quite possible?
Doesn't give them a timeline either.
The best and the brightest from around the world will prioritize top universities at other countries, and this will damage one of the US' biggest attractions and advantages.
Unbelievable.
> In a news release, the Department of Homeland Security sent a stark message to Harvard’s international students: “This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students, and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.”
So DHS revoked the visas for all existing students at Harvard? That doesn't seem quite possible?
Doesn't give them a timeline either.
The best and the brightest from around the world will prioritize top universities at other countries, and this will damage one of the US' biggest attractions and advantages.
Unbelievable.
They didn't revoke the visas. They revoked Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students.
I mean ... it's still nuts, but slightly different.
Instead of breaking the "keys" (visas) that unlock the doors to Harvard, they're just putting glue in the locks.
I mean ... it's still nuts, but slightly different.
Instead of breaking the "keys" (visas) that unlock the doors to Harvard, they're just putting glue in the locks.
As a staffer at Cornell and person who lives in the area, I worry most about losing students from mainland China. Whether this is an arbitrary Trumpism or the lid blows off in Taiwan matters little.
I heard University of Illinois bought a policy to protect against losing cash tuitions from Chinese grad students. Perhaps other universities have done the same.
> I heard University of Illinois bought a policy to protect against losing cash tuitions from Chinese grad students
Who's selling that policy?
edit: looks like they started this in 2017! https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/29/university-il...
That's some forward thinking!
Who's selling that policy?
edit: looks like they started this in 2017! https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/29/university-il...
That's some forward thinking!
Hilarious if it's the CCP, who would probably have the greatest incentive to sell such a policy.
I think it is more undergrads than grads that pay money, but I think that depends on the field.
For a physics PhD for instance at Cornell you usually get paid to teach your first two years and if all goes right do your actual research on a grant. In my case the prof had written a grant for the work I wanted to do which didn't get funded, I spent a summer thinking about the problem which helped us come back with a great grant proposal that got funded.
I know Masters of Engineering students pay their own way, maybe other departments are different. I remember there being a lot of Chinese graduate students 25 years ago but now I see lots of undergrads.
For a physics PhD for instance at Cornell you usually get paid to teach your first two years and if all goes right do your actual research on a grant. In my case the prof had written a grant for the work I wanted to do which didn't get funded, I spent a summer thinking about the problem which helped us come back with a great grant proposal that got funded.
I know Masters of Engineering students pay their own way, maybe other departments are different. I remember there being a lot of Chinese graduate students 25 years ago but now I see lots of undergrads.
MBAs are a cash cow
that's underselling it - they're also making it so every single existing interrnational student has to leave the US very soon, and in the meantime can be kidnapped by ICE.
They can (try and) transfer to another college / university.
But, I suspect, if suddenly all international students transferred to MIT, the administration would simply do the same to MIT. So it would become one big game of whack-a-mole, and the smaller players would just bend over to the rules.
International students are cash cows for some institutions. They wouldn't dare to have that cow put down.
But, I suspect, if suddenly all international students transferred to MIT, the administration would simply do the same to MIT. So it would become one big game of whack-a-mole, and the smaller players would just bend over to the rules.
International students are cash cows for some institutions. They wouldn't dare to have that cow put down.
The Trump administration is not targeting the students, they're targeting Harvard. The students are collateral damage.
So transferring to another college will be fine as long as they pick one that has already kowtowed to Trump. And have never posted to social media or taken any action that could be construed as opposition to the policies of the Dear Leader.
So transferring to another college will be fine as long as they pick one that has already kowtowed to Trump. And have never posted to social media or taken any action that could be construed as opposition to the policies of the Dear Leader.
> The Trump administration is not targeting the students, they're targeting Harvard.
The Trump Administration is targeting Harvard, foreign students (and foreigners, especially non-White foreigners, generally), free speech, due process, limited government, and constraints on executive power, and a whole bunch of other things simultaneously.
"It's this, not that" is the wrong mental model. It is more like, everything, everywhere, all at once.
The Trump Administration is targeting Harvard, foreign students (and foreigners, especially non-White foreigners, generally), free speech, due process, limited government, and constraints on executive power, and a whole bunch of other things simultaneously.
"It's this, not that" is the wrong mental model. It is more like, everything, everywhere, all at once.
Anyone who thinks they are immune or on the "good side" of this political movement is naive. Harvard has cranked out plenty of powerful conservatives, but it doesn't matter because their "crime" is that they have hurt the current administration's feelings. This is going well beyond one party winning - this is a cult of personality.
History is repeating itself as a farce. It's not wild speculation to guess what might happen if these actions continue unchecked. It's education now, but it will be lawyers and judges next, and after that it will be leaders of tech and business. Anyone who brokers power.
History is repeating itself as a farce. It's not wild speculation to guess what might happen if these actions continue unchecked. It's education now, but it will be lawyers and judges next, and after that it will be leaders of tech and business. Anyone who brokers power.
> It's education now, but it will be lawyers and judges next
It already is this. Their attack on the judicial branch is the most frightening IMO, since it is directly attacking checks and balances.
It already is this. Their attack on the judicial branch is the most frightening IMO, since it is directly attacking checks and balances.
To illustrate your point, three of the current justices on the Supreme Court earned their law degree from Harvard: Jackson, Gorsuch, and (Chief Justice) Roberts.
It's already been lawyers and judges, not going great...
Wouldn't it be easier for Harvard to move to where it can function as a university, instead of putting up with this? It's not entirely unprecedented. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_University .
This might not be a bad idea. Setting up satellite institutions in other countries as backup, for example.
Updated archive: https://archive.ph/UxKGi
Related story in The Crimson:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/5/23/trump-admin-rev...
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/5/23/trump-admin-rev...
Fascists.
So now the Presidency is punishing institutions that refuse to create and share spy-dossiers on what their adult students are using their free-speech for.
In the last three months, we've collected many data points which are each each further down a slope. I suggest the slope is slippery, and has a very unfortunate end.
__________
[Edit] Predicting a future that might resonate more with YC folks: "Pursuant to Trump Executive Order XYZ, you must submit regular firewall logs and social-media handles for activity by your staff. Failure to comply will result in losing the ability to post H1-B positions."
In the last three months, we've collected many data points which are each each further down a slope. I suggest the slope is slippery, and has a very unfortunate end.
__________
[Edit] Predicting a future that might resonate more with YC folks: "Pursuant to Trump Executive Order XYZ, you must submit regular firewall logs and social-media handles for activity by your staff. Failure to comply will result in losing the ability to post H1-B positions."
[deleted]
[deleted]
DHS said that in addition to barring enrollment of future international students, “existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.”
damn, Trump is really gunning for Harvard
not sure what rolling over for Trump looks like, but a lot of existing foreign students will be screwed unless something gives
damn, Trump is really gunning for Harvard
not sure what rolling over for Trump looks like, but a lot of existing foreign students will be screwed unless something gives
So much for "law and order" - this is about sycophancy toward an authoritarian who chooses his own rules.
That's what "conservatives" mean by "law and order". You obey them so they can put you in your place. They want to impose upon the rest of us, not be imposed upon.
AKA Wilhoit's Law
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Baron is at NYU, Malia got the big envelope...
Trump was elected roughly on 3 issues - economy, immigration and culture war.
So he has to deliver at least on two to have meaningful legacy. Because of the idiocy around tariffs - the economy at the midterms will be at best slightly above where he got it. So it leaves immigration and culture war. The border crossings are way down - so halfway there, but deporting meaningful numbers will be hard. Which means that he must deliver on the third issue big. So probably he will continue to bash the soft targets and the institutions that are perceived to be left leaning.
So he has to deliver at least on two to have meaningful legacy. Because of the idiocy around tariffs - the economy at the midterms will be at best slightly above where he got it. So it leaves immigration and culture war. The border crossings are way down - so halfway there, but deporting meaningful numbers will be hard. Which means that he must deliver on the third issue big. So probably he will continue to bash the soft targets and the institutions that are perceived to be left leaning.
No :) The 3 issues are
1. Racism
2. Racism
3. Racism
1. Racism
2. Racism
3. Racism
I find steelmanning to be more intellectually fulfilling than strawmanning.
algorias(1)
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-decline-of-the-democrat...
If you are right - then it seems that racism is quite broadly popular among all ethnic groups in USA because Trump made inroads with everyone.
If you are right - then it seems that racism is quite broadly popular among all ethnic groups in USA because Trump made inroads with everyone.
Yeah, cause he lied to them, and they believed it. Now that his actions are speaking and not his bloviating, his support is eroding. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5271036-trump-ap...
I don't see the US surviving the Trump administration.
We basically get two chances if you want to follow the normal procedure. Swing congress during the midterms and lock him up for the remainder of his term and or elect a democrat in four years who will tear up the stack of executive orders and make the rounds apologizing to everyone.
There are many autocrats around the world, look up what happened to free elections after they came into power.
Spoiler alert: they quickly deteriorate and the next 3-4 cycles become far less free than the election cycle that put them into power.
Spoiler alert: they quickly deteriorate and the next 3-4 cycles become far less free than the election cycle that put them into power.
We won't even get those chances if either Roberts or Barrett roll over.
I mean both of those options (minus the locking up) were tried last time. Even if Democrats were to win elections as described, another round of apologies and saying nice things about institutionalism is not going to cut. I felt pretty sure Trump had a good chance of being re-elected from 2022 onward, Democrats simply didn't want to believe that a large part of the electorate are assholes or that they would need to change up their policy/electoral/comms game. Some of them still don't want to believe it.
Oh please
I think you have your head in the sand.
This Harvard thing is just one example. Just saw a report this morning (Aus time) of an Australian detained, stripped, and held overnight in a US federal prison. She was just coming in to visit her husband.
Who the hell will want to come to the US now? You are going to suffer a massive reverse brain drain. You got a 30% tariff tax, kidnapping of random people off the street including US citizens, blatant and overwhelming corruption at the highest levels, weaponizing of government to target people, institutions and private companies.
Good luck in the midterm 'elections'.
This Harvard thing is just one example. Just saw a report this morning (Aus time) of an Australian detained, stripped, and held overnight in a US federal prison. She was just coming in to visit her husband.
Who the hell will want to come to the US now? You are going to suffer a massive reverse brain drain. You got a 30% tariff tax, kidnapping of random people off the street including US citizens, blatant and overwhelming corruption at the highest levels, weaponizing of government to target people, institutions and private companies.
Good luck in the midterm 'elections'.
It will all depend if he is able to keep control past the 2028 elections. If he can, it's a dictatorship for life with family successors.
He is openly lining up the whole thing already: being able to do another term, "stolen elections", etc.
He is openly lining up the whole thing already: being able to do another term, "stolen elections", etc.
Wanna bet?
Yes.
So the US won't survive until 2029. That means it won't exist as a country? Or GDP will be down by at least 50%? Happy to bet against either at even odds.
I'm not the guy you were arguing with. But let me take a stab at defining "US".
To me, the US isn't just a geographic boundary. It's not even a collection of people. It's primarily the Constitution, and the limited government that flows from it.
If in 2029 we have a Constitution that is still theoretically in force, but in practice is ignored by the government, does the US still exist, or not? To me, even if something with that name exists, it's not the same US that existed in November 2024.
So I think that, if you're going to do this bet, you have to define the boundary conditions very carefully. Something with the "US" name will most likely exist in 2029. But will it be a zombie, or will it still be the same entity as it was before? And if it's a zombie, which of you wins the bet?
To me, the US isn't just a geographic boundary. It's not even a collection of people. It's primarily the Constitution, and the limited government that flows from it.
If in 2029 we have a Constitution that is still theoretically in force, but in practice is ignored by the government, does the US still exist, or not? To me, even if something with that name exists, it's not the same US that existed in November 2024.
So I think that, if you're going to do this bet, you have to define the boundary conditions very carefully. Something with the "US" name will most likely exist in 2029. But will it be a zombie, or will it still be the same entity as it was before? And if it's a zombie, which of you wins the bet?
Hah, my parents are in Australia. They're already unsure if they can/will come to my wedding next year in the US because of all of this.
Thanks, Trump.
Thanks, Trump.
> Trump administration halts Harvard's ability to enroll international students
Sounds catastrophic!
Ah, at no risk are the books and papers, the famous research professors, and their late grad students, and apparently in simple terms (except for just money), that's about all such a university cares about.
So, not much of a catastrophe! Only partially sarcastic!
Sounds catastrophic!
Ah, at no risk are the books and papers, the famous research professors, and their late grad students, and apparently in simple terms (except for just money), that's about all such a university cares about.
So, not much of a catastrophe! Only partially sarcastic!
TRO in 5, 4, 3...
Yeah this seems like it'll follow the script of the AP and Perkins Coïe.
Blocked in only 20 hours!
Judge blocks Trump administration from revoking Harvard enrollment of foreign students
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harvard-sues-trump-administ...
The TRO:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.285...
Judge blocks Trump administration from revoking Harvard enrollment of foreign students
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harvard-sues-trump-administ...
The TRO:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.285...
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.
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.
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.
What isn't comparable? I agree what's going on is unprecedented in living memory.
> What isn't comparable?
So-called pressure from the Biden admin on universities to implement DEI type policies vs blackmail-level coercion from the Trump admin to get rid of them and lean the other way.
Also, the notion that DEI policies came about through Biden admin is patently false. Institutions and companies started implementing these years ago in response to public attitudes, and this really took off after the Floyd murder which was during Trump 1.0 admin.
So-called pressure from the Biden admin on universities to implement DEI type policies vs blackmail-level coercion from the Trump admin to get rid of them and lean the other way.
Also, the notion that DEI policies came about through Biden admin is patently false. Institutions and companies started implementing these years ago in response to public attitudes, and this really took off after the Floyd murder which was during Trump 1.0 admin.
I agree with all of this
>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.
Source?
Source?
I was there and saw these emails.
Another day, different shit. This is what flooding the zone means.
I feel US higher education, which brain drains the rest of the world, is easily one of the best strategic advantages it could have for the next 100 years.
Let’s throw that all away because learning is liberal.
Let’s throw that all away because learning is liberal.
The action by itself comes as a punishment which imply that this is indeed great resource but because Harvard was a naughty boy means that can't have it.
I want to note that when Brexit happened EU citizens had about 2 years period to move to UK and just like that get their full rights there and those with enough years of stay had the right to obtain British citizenship. Streamlined process through scanning your id using an app, little to no hassle.
IIRC half of the EU citizens left despite having all those rights and streamlined bureaucracy. My observation was that those desperate or those who ware having their perfect life stayed, those who had other options left UK because it wasn't worth the stress and you future being bargaining chips for politicians.
I bet you, if this continues for some more time USA will no longer receive the best and the brightest. Those have options and their parents will prefer the options where their golden kids don't risk being subject to life changing actions or even abuse.
I want to note that when Brexit happened EU citizens had about 2 years period to move to UK and just like that get their full rights there and those with enough years of stay had the right to obtain British citizenship. Streamlined process through scanning your id using an app, little to no hassle.
IIRC half of the EU citizens left despite having all those rights and streamlined bureaucracy. My observation was that those desperate or those who ware having their perfect life stayed, those who had other options left UK because it wasn't worth the stress and you future being bargaining chips for politicians.
I bet you, if this continues for some more time USA will no longer receive the best and the brightest. Those have options and their parents will prefer the options where their golden kids don't risk being subject to life changing actions or even abuse.
Even if it stopped immediately, we'll still get a lot fewer of these people. The US is now a country where anonymous government thugs can snatch foreigners off the street and put them in jail for saying the wrong things. Even if we stop doing that today, what's to say we won't start it up again at any time? Who's going to risk that just to go to an American university? Our universities are good but not that good.
Oxford, Cambridge, ETHZ, EPFL, etc. are probably salivating right now.
Oxbridge suffered a lot of collateral damage from Brexit because of EU funding cuts and massive loss of EU staff and EU students, who now have to pay foreign fees (4-5x regular home fees). An increase in fees also made it prohibitively expensive to hire EU PhD students.
The situation is slowly recovering, as the UK has now first-class access to EU funding programs and there is an open negotiation to bring back home fees for EU students. However, visas are becoming more restrictive and the exceptionally high fees associated with them might be again increasing, which is putting off potential new employees.
Besides, I am not sure Oxbridge has sufficient extra spots for overseas students diverted from the US due to its peculiar tutorial system. There are lots of top EU universities that could collectively benefit from this as they are much cheaper and larger: Heidelberg, TUM, KU, DTU, KI, KTH, etc.
The situation is slowly recovering, as the UK has now first-class access to EU funding programs and there is an open negotiation to bring back home fees for EU students. However, visas are becoming more restrictive and the exceptionally high fees associated with them might be again increasing, which is putting off potential new employees.
Besides, I am not sure Oxbridge has sufficient extra spots for overseas students diverted from the US due to its peculiar tutorial system. There are lots of top EU universities that could collectively benefit from this as they are much cheaper and larger: Heidelberg, TUM, KU, DTU, KI, KTH, etc.
Harvard is liberal arts, so maybe Oxford.
[deleted]
> I bet you, if this continues for some more time USA will no longer receive the best and the brightest.
International students are heavily selected for wealth rather than brightness.
International students are heavily selected for wealth rather than brightness.
There's certainly an allotment for the rich and connected(Erdoğan's son studied at Harvard and he is a meme for his brains in Turkey, having trouble to understand his father's commands on leaked police surveillance tape. Turks don't say ELI5, they say ELI Bilal - the Harvard boy) but hardy its the majority. Maybe for BS and on some lighter majors, definitely not on the real deal.
Just check papers for ground breaking research, you'll see the names are predominantly foreign. This recent AI breakthrough is heavily done by people from Europe, Israel, Canada and China. That's why the speakers at AI videos have funny accents.
People with options will start avoiding USA unless the have to.
Just check papers for ground breaking research, you'll see the names are predominantly foreign. This recent AI breakthrough is heavily done by people from Europe, Israel, Canada and China. That's why the speakers at AI videos have funny accents.
People with options will start avoiding USA unless the have to.
Be that as it may, look at the names on any random research paper or journal article that originates from any randomly-chosen American university, and see what they tell you.
Nope! Harvard and some of the top ivies offer full, need-blind financial aid to all students, especially international. I attended and did not have to spend much at all, coming from a poor country. Many such cases and it is a lifeline for gifted students in developing countries
Yeah, getting the worlds top brainiancs and enticing them with a good education and having some of them build their lives here is one of our greatest imports.
"The worlds top brainiacs" were a huge part of what "Made America Great" in the first place. The MAGA "leadership" is doing the exact literal polar opposite of the stated mission of their slogan (and with far more than just education; wrecking the economy, alienating our allies, destroying freedom of speech, enabling and even encouraging pollution [and trying to even mandate it in California apparently] ... the list goes on).
MAGA isn’t trying to make America great in any meaningful way. They want to make it theirs.
MAGA sincerely thinks they’re the real brainiacs.
There's probably some truth to this idea (https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/84/1/24/575807...), even though it comes across as a low effort comment up front.
Waterloo, McGill, and U of Toronto admissions offices should be spending the entire day tomorrow calling the full international Harvard roster ASAP.
If Canada wasn't having it's own immigration and post-secondary issues, this would be great. But no, we already shot ourselves in the foot with that...
Honestly as an American, I would seriously consider how my daughter can go to these top Canadian or EU schools.
Consider ETH Zurich too, although if truth be told, K12+4+2 education is 100% obsoleted now by AI; only PhD is still very relevant.
The AI didn't tell you that the idiom is "if truth be told", so how useful is it really?
By the time LLMs are routinely writing, or even proof-reading, the majority of Hacker News comments, it's already game over for the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
Tho non trivial for non-swiss educated people to enter (and need German fluency for bachelor).
Eth is hard-core science and engineering like mit. Harvard is liberal arts.
This is essentially cultural revolution from the right.
Education is obsolete thanks to AI. US is just ahead of the curve as usual.
(/s in case it wasn't obvious)
(/s in case it wasn't obvious)
I'm sure all the foreigners denied entry to Harvard will be happy to attend Trump University instead.
/s in case not obvious
/s in case not obvious
They couldn't even if they wanted to, because that scam was shut down in 2011.
> Let’s throw that all away because learning is liberal.
Makes me think of:
"Reality has a well known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert
The amount of "burn it all down because I don't like the people that like this thing" is depressing.
Makes me think of:
"Reality has a well known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert
The amount of "burn it all down because I don't like the people that like this thing" is depressing.
It's not even clear that higher education produces liberals. Half of Trump-land went to Ivy Leagues.
[deleted]
What is taught matters a lot. Suppose a foreign adversary were able to infiltrate key US higher education institutions and subtly change the curriculum to be pro-communism and avoid STEM subjects.
Suppose a foreign adversary were able to infiltrate the key US institution that determines if higher education institutions have been infiltrated and subtly accuses them of being pro communist?
What if a foreign adversary infiltrates the institution that appoints the individuals who run the institution that determines whether a higher education institution has been infiltrated!?
What if a foreign adversary infiltrates the… !?!
The beauty of a system where many different and independent institutions compete for students and teachers independently, develop and share ideas and technologies, cross examine each other, and collectively build knowledge, is that they don’t have some single point in the system that can be infiltrated, and all have to compete in the arena of ideas.
The closest thing to a single point that can be infiltrated is the federal government, which can be used to put pressure on the whole system from a point of higher power.
What if a foreign adversary infiltrates the institution that appoints the individuals who run the institution that determines whether a higher education institution has been infiltrated!?
What if a foreign adversary infiltrates the… !?!
The beauty of a system where many different and independent institutions compete for students and teachers independently, develop and share ideas and technologies, cross examine each other, and collectively build knowledge, is that they don’t have some single point in the system that can be infiltrated, and all have to compete in the arena of ideas.
The closest thing to a single point that can be infiltrated is the federal government, which can be used to put pressure on the whole system from a point of higher power.
Competition is a beautiful system so let those independent institutions compete without the government playing favorites by funding some and not others.
I was curious why they are attacking Harvard. I'm a Brit so not very up on US stuff. Googling came up with:
>The right-wing conspiracy behind Trump’s war on Harvard
>Back in 2021, far-right blogger Curtis Yarvin, who supports abolishing American democracy and replacing it with a dictatorship...
>...“the real power centers” in the US — the elite media and academic institutions exemplified by “Harvard and the New York Times” — would fight back.
>“That’s right,” Yarvin agreed. “That’s why, basically, you can’t continue to have a Harvard or a New York Times past the start of April.” https://www.vox.com/politics/409600/trump-harvard-rufo-yarvi...
Not sure if that is what's behind it?
>The right-wing conspiracy behind Trump’s war on Harvard
>Back in 2021, far-right blogger Curtis Yarvin, who supports abolishing American democracy and replacing it with a dictatorship...
>...“the real power centers” in the US — the elite media and academic institutions exemplified by “Harvard and the New York Times” — would fight back.
>“That’s right,” Yarvin agreed. “That’s why, basically, you can’t continue to have a Harvard or a New York Times past the start of April.” https://www.vox.com/politics/409600/trump-harvard-rufo-yarvi...
Not sure if that is what's behind it?
I find Trump's behavior to be incoherent. In some quarters he's virtually an anarcho-capitalist. In others, like this, he's anti-capitalist, intensely regulating a private business for no actual benefit.
Because he's not either of those things. He's a self serving tyrant. He has no philosophy of governing the state because he doesn't care about governing the state.
I wish more people would realize this. There is no plan behind what he is doing. The only thing that guides him is his psychopathic impulse to do harm.
There is no coherent ideology. Only what he thinks is good for him at the present moment, which may in some cases be influenced by the most recent person he spoke with.
He doesn't conform to a political ideology, everything he does is for personal benefit/gratification and punishing his enemies. In this case Harvard didn't capitulate to his oversight demands.
Trump honest to God thought the literal letters "MS13" were tattooed on that guy's hands and Terry Morgan was gaslighting him..
I don't think Trump is really running the show here.
I don't think Trump is really running the show here.
If you are a Republican and didn’t sign up for this, can you please write your representatives about impeachment? This is getting ridiculous. We’d be much better off with a president Vance.
> We’d be much better off with a president Vance.
Vance literally defended the eating cats and dogs lie during the debate. The entire fucking point of this platform is to fuck the immigrants, legal or otherwise.
Or is this actually a surprise to anyone with half a brain?
Vance literally defended the eating cats and dogs lie during the debate. The entire fucking point of this platform is to fuck the immigrants, legal or otherwise.
Or is this actually a surprise to anyone with half a brain?
His defense of those lies was incredible. According to him, it is perfectly fine to make up and repeat fabrications because they advanced the narrative they wanted to push, full stop. The truth doesn't matter, no regrets.
You were downvoted, but here is him saying exactly that:
https://youtu.be/vVJ_Icosa3s?si=urohSO8q_iLFJpg2
https://youtu.be/vVJ_Icosa3s?si=urohSO8q_iLFJpg2
Donald Trump is genuinely an idiot and deeply and obviously corrupt. I don’t like Vance, I’m still going to be mad at his agenda, but he’s generally intelligent. He’s not going to run the country into the ground because he doesn’t understand how fixed income securities work or give away national security to fly in an obviously bugged luxury plane for funsies.
At the end of the day, there are different levels of terrible things that can happen to us, and right now we are staring down multi-generational damage to our country.
At the end of the day, there are different levels of terrible things that can happen to us, and right now we are staring down multi-generational damage to our country.
Lots of people are "intelligent", yet you would never want to be under their rule.
Vance is a useful stooge handpicked by Peter Thiel. If push comes to shove, do you think his Yale degree is going to give him any backbone if he's ordered to do something that violates the Constitution? Did Yale provide John Yoo with one when he wrote legal memos justifying the torture of detainees held without charge in Guantanamo 20 years ago? Yoo was ready to ignore the Geneva Conventions then, and Vance is ready to deport US citizens now.
Vance is a useful stooge handpicked by Peter Thiel. If push comes to shove, do you think his Yale degree is going to give him any backbone if he's ordered to do something that violates the Constitution? Did Yale provide John Yoo with one when he wrote legal memos justifying the torture of detainees held without charge in Guantanamo 20 years ago? Yoo was ready to ignore the Geneva Conventions then, and Vance is ready to deport US citizens now.
Why haven't any of the other intelligent and uncorrupt republicans done anything to prevent the "running the country into the ground"?
There has to be more than a few of them, right? They could halt or correct this agenda at any time they choose.
There has to be more than a few of them, right? They could halt or correct this agenda at any time they choose.
The Trump administration is a loyalty-based hierarchy. The intelligent advisors know that it is better for there careers do demonstrate loyalty than actual do anything to improve his policies. This is not rationalists paradigm, it’s a survivalist paradigm.
In fact the reason why it’s so bad now is that he blames his (more intelligent) advisers in his previous administration for his problems.
In fact the reason why it’s so bad now is that he blames his (more intelligent) advisers in his previous administration for his problems.
> he’s generally intelligent. He’s not going to run the country into the ground
I think you're having a hard time grasping the concept of people who care more about rolling back social and cultural change than they care about the United States being a strong and prosperous country. The tension between those priorities in the Republican party has been resolved. The current leaders in the party, including Vance, rose because they understood that their voters are ready to let go of world leadership, including technological leadership and economic competitiveness, in order to roll back social progress.
If you ask them directly, they'll invoke some magical thinking about how this is going to unleash a golden age of prosperity and technology, but they don't care if they believe it or if anyone believes it, because they don't actually care anymore. That's why they don't blink when Trump talks about backwards, impoverished countries with admiration. There's no contradiction for them. They really do look at a country like Russia and think, yes, I want the U.S. to be an American-flavored version of that.
I think you're having a hard time grasping the concept of people who care more about rolling back social and cultural change than they care about the United States being a strong and prosperous country. The tension between those priorities in the Republican party has been resolved. The current leaders in the party, including Vance, rose because they understood that their voters are ready to let go of world leadership, including technological leadership and economic competitiveness, in order to roll back social progress.
If you ask them directly, they'll invoke some magical thinking about how this is going to unleash a golden age of prosperity and technology, but they don't care if they believe it or if anyone believes it, because they don't actually care anymore. That's why they don't blink when Trump talks about backwards, impoverished countries with admiration. There's no contradiction for them. They really do look at a country like Russia and think, yes, I want the U.S. to be an American-flavored version of that.
I grew up in a wildly religious family, and was in wildly conservative areas for part of that time. There are a lot of people who want to roll back social and cultural change for good-faith religious reasons. I think are wrong for thinking these things. However, they still also want to have a strong and prosperous nation. My point is not to say that I want the future they want. It's to say I also don't want the future they don't want. We can meet in the middle, where the world is less shitty, even though it's still shitty.
> There are a lot of people who want to roll back social and cultural change for good-faith religious reasons.
What makes you believe that they are engaging with their religious views in good faith?
I know a great many friends and acquaintances that take their religious studies seriously. I also have met a great many more whose approach is far more cavalier, simply using their beliefs to justify their existing biases and gut feelings, as well as justifying and excusing their own anti-social behavior.
What makes you believe that they are engaging with their religious views in good faith?
I know a great many friends and acquaintances that take their religious studies seriously. I also have met a great many more whose approach is far more cavalier, simply using their beliefs to justify their existing biases and gut feelings, as well as justifying and excusing their own anti-social behavior.
"An imaginary man in the sky told me to hate you" is not a good-faith reason.
Unfortunately, it is if you really believe it.
> 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
+-------
I'm not thinking that Religion is the problem here.
+-------
I'm not thinking that Religion is the problem here.
I think you're describing a part of the Republican Party that is now almost irrelevant, one that kept expecting the voters to turn against Donald Trump. They're the ones who thought, what the hell is Trump doing sucking up to Putin? Our voters are patriots who have no hesitation about calling the United States the greatest nation on earth. Surely they're going to be shocked at Trump fawning over a sad sack country like Russia. Surely patriotic voters are going to be offended at the president of their precious eagle scream U! S! A! showing open admiration for an ex-superpower with a ruined economy, zero cultural capital, a laughingstock of a democratic system, and a crumbling military with zero global reach.
That point of view still exists in the Republican Party, but it has been eclipsed by something sadder and smaller-minded. Liberal progressives have long used national greatness as a lever on patriotic conservatives, telling them, look, our "national greatness" comes from our embrace of education, cultural change, new people, new ideas. If conservatives love our supposed national greatness, they should embrace the progressive liberal ideals that built it. Now, it's like the Republican Party has been taken over by conservatives who... decided the liberals were right? It's like they gave up and said, y'all are right, national greatness requires education, continual learning and self-criticism, openness to new ideas and new people, and acceptance of creative destruction, both economic and cultural. They accepted that, grieved, faced the choice with clear eyes, and decided that national greatness isn't worth the cost. They look at Russia and see a country that is marinating in its own chauvinism, and they want that instead.
That point of view still exists in the Republican Party, but it has been eclipsed by something sadder and smaller-minded. Liberal progressives have long used national greatness as a lever on patriotic conservatives, telling them, look, our "national greatness" comes from our embrace of education, cultural change, new people, new ideas. If conservatives love our supposed national greatness, they should embrace the progressive liberal ideals that built it. Now, it's like the Republican Party has been taken over by conservatives who... decided the liberals were right? It's like they gave up and said, y'all are right, national greatness requires education, continual learning and self-criticism, openness to new ideas and new people, and acceptance of creative destruction, both economic and cultural. They accepted that, grieved, faced the choice with clear eyes, and decided that national greatness isn't worth the cost. They look at Russia and see a country that is marinating in its own chauvinism, and they want that instead.
The Republican party is, in fact, a coalition. When parts of that coalition become alienated enough, and that is very much happening right now, then we have a chance to coordinate with our coalition.
You sound like you don't know any decent Republicans who are really upset at what's happening. I do. They ought to be encouraged to speak up.
You sound like you don't know any decent Republicans who are really upset at what's happening. I do. They ought to be encouraged to speak up.
> The Republican party is, in fact, a coalition.
It really isn't anymore. I agree that there are many decent "old-time" Republicans, but they've been neutered and/or they've "self-deported" themselves from politics.
Romney might've been able to run and split the vote.
Bush the younger could've put his thumb on the scale, too.
Murkowski says "we are all afraid" [of MAGA].
Many traditional Republican congressmen have simply bowed out and not sought re-election.
McCain is dead.
The only one that I can think of that actually stood up is Liz Cheney.
To use a programming phrase, the country is in an "error state" and has been since 2017.
I don't know what the re-set is.
It really isn't anymore. I agree that there are many decent "old-time" Republicans, but they've been neutered and/or they've "self-deported" themselves from politics.
Romney might've been able to run and split the vote.
Bush the younger could've put his thumb on the scale, too.
Murkowski says "we are all afraid" [of MAGA].
Many traditional Republican congressmen have simply bowed out and not sought re-election.
McCain is dead.
The only one that I can think of that actually stood up is Liz Cheney.
To use a programming phrase, the country is in an "error state" and has been since 2017.
I don't know what the re-set is.
A lot of the "alienated" Republicans already split from the party. They're no longer in the coalition. The fundamental demographics of the party are different than they were 10-20 years ago. And this is a continuous process.
The fact of the matter is that "the party" is MAGA now, there is effectively no internal resistance, and mounting one is basically intractable. Trump won the primary with 80% of the vote despite "strong" opposition.
The fact of the matter is that "the party" is MAGA now, there is effectively no internal resistance, and mounting one is basically intractable. Trump won the primary with 80% of the vote despite "strong" opposition.
Sorry, we've been hearing that since before Trump clinched the nomination in 2016, but political parties change, and there's no enduring Republican norm that is going to imminently reassert itself. I do know some "decent Republicans," though they've been voting Democratic for a while now. When I was growing up in the 1980s and 1990s, a lot of people saw the Republican Party as a party of educated, foreign policy-savvy, business friendly elite pragmatists. For some people I know, that brand is cemented in their minds as the soul of the Republican Party, regardless of 30+ years of various radically different factions dominating the party since then.
But now those "decent Republicans" vote Democrat. Their feeling about it, to repurpose a saying from a different context, could be summed up as, "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." They never wanted to be Democrats and still have a sentimental attachment to the Republican Party, but here they are.
But now those "decent Republicans" vote Democrat. Their feeling about it, to repurpose a saying from a different context, could be summed up as, "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." They never wanted to be Democrats and still have a sentimental attachment to the Republican Party, but here they are.
If you are a Republican, you DID sign up for this. None of this has been kept secret.
Sometimes you sign up for things, because the advertisment did look great. But then, at one point, you want to cancel that subscription.
My point is, this was the advertisement. If you thought it looked great, you signed up for it. And if you didn't vote for this, but you voted for something ridiculous like banning around dozen people from playing sports, well, I have the same amount of sympathy for you too.
Yes and no. It seems obvious it was the advertisement but I know people who voted for Trump that are otherwise fairly liberal. They were either grossly uninformed, misinformed, or simply _didn't believe_ the reporting about various issues.
The last is the most frustrating to me because there is a hint of the truth there - the stuff reported about Trump _is_ insane. They're doing things so openly and brazenly that there are kneejerk reactions to either ask "is it really so bad if they're doing it in the open" or "surely the reporting must be a lie because no one would be that shameless".
The last is the most frustrating to me because there is a hint of the truth there - the stuff reported about Trump _is_ insane. They're doing things so openly and brazenly that there are kneejerk reactions to either ask "is it really so bad if they're doing it in the open" or "surely the reporting must be a lie because no one would be that shameless".
I'm not buying it. The guy was president for 4 years, tried to steal an election, and before all of that, challenged Obamas eligibility based entirely on his name and the color of his skin.
Being "grossly uninformed" is no excuse anymore.
Being "grossly uninformed" is no excuse anymore.
I don't disagree. I'm furious with these people. They're close to me.
They aren't stupid... just not paying attention and skeptical due to a combination of propaganda (fake news!) and rightful incredulity at the state of things.
But I can't excuse them.
They aren't stupid... just not paying attention and skeptical due to a combination of propaganda (fake news!) and rightful incredulity at the state of things.
But I can't excuse them.
Shouldn’t voters at least try in good faith to inform themselves? How else can we expect democracy to work?
For example - The day after Brexit - so many people regretted voting to leave. They could’ve thought about it 24 hours earlier, no? “I was misinformed, uninformed” sounds lazy and shallow, isn’t it? How hard can it be to spend an hour less on Netflix and an hour more learning about what’s on the ballot?
For example - The day after Brexit - so many people regretted voting to leave. They could’ve thought about it 24 hours earlier, no? “I was misinformed, uninformed” sounds lazy and shallow, isn’t it? How hard can it be to spend an hour less on Netflix and an hour more learning about what’s on the ballot?
Dude's last major act was to turn a mob loose on Congress in order to get SCOTUS to repeat 2000. It wasn't obscure news.
Anyone pikachufacing here is a liar.
Anyone pikachufacing here is a liar.
If that's the case, you're an easily-duped sucker of a customer and deserve to lose your money.
How funny this comment is, when we take into consideration of us being on an industry full of dark patterns.
But you're not allowed to call them low-informed, uneducated, or any slightly negative/offensive qualifier. Otherwise you get the "this is why Trump won" lecture.
Lots and lots of people accurately predicted this multiple years out at this point. They were continually dismissed as alarmists by supposedly “serious people”.
~raises hand~ Been there, Done that...
(Been ridiculed for it. Still get ridiculed for pointing out the current reality of it, with or without the additional "I told you so!" included.)
(Been ridiculed for it. Still get ridiculed for pointing out the current reality of it, with or without the additional "I told you so!" included.)
I've been like fuckin' Nostradamus since early in the Dubya admin just because I skim GAO and CBO reports on big legislation sometimes, can read graphs, take the things Republicans say they want to do seriously, and have a half-decent grasp on 20th century history, including the latter half of it.
There is something I think that a lot of people find very self soothing by just refusing to see what is actually in front of them so that they don’t have to actually do anything about it. There is a certain satisfaction that people get by telling others they are overreacting.
This was all advertised. And you can’t cancel a subscription for a president. You got it for for years, more if he figures out a way to stay.
And yet some have held that subscription for years..
> We’d be much better off with a president Vance.
J.D. Vance gave a big speech at the Nationalism Conservatism Conference titled "The Universities are the Enemy": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FR65Cifnhw
Destroying universities has been his schtick since long before he was a VP candidate.
He has stated that he believes 4-year degrees make people dumber.
I'm constantly amazed by how many people don't know that waging wars on Universities has been Vance's thing for years.
J.D. Vance gave a big speech at the Nationalism Conservatism Conference titled "The Universities are the Enemy": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FR65Cifnhw
Destroying universities has been his schtick since long before he was a VP candidate.
He has stated that he believes 4-year degrees make people dumber.
I'm constantly amazed by how many people don't know that waging wars on Universities has been Vance's thing for years.
I used to think that the Republican officials just put on a mask and perform kabuki for their Dear Leader. But the signalgate texts proved otherwise. This kind of thinking has penetrated deep into the party. It's not going away. Not with Vance.
The influence and dominance of conservative media is striking. They have sane-washed and explained away things that would have ended 10 other politicians careers. Trump is Asimovs "mule". His appeal to large groups of people is inexplicable. Vance is certainly NOT that. It's open question how much success the Mule's successor would have. Surely momentum and conservative media will carry him far (should that come to pass).
https://newrepublic.com/article/128107/classier-two-evils
https://newrepublic.com/article/128107/classier-two-evils
A curious thing about the very article you linked to is how it proved to be so wrong about this:
"Trump, on the other hand, is so anomalous a figure that the GOP establishment can console themselves with the knowledge that he leads no faction. Even if he wins the nomination, Trump can be safely relegated to the category of a one-off, a freak mutation, never to be repeated. "
Now that he's in a second term whose winding course to fruition just about nobody could have easily predicted in early 2016, and totally dominates the Republican party, its base and most of its thinking, the above seems laughable.
Trump looks less like "The Mule" than ever today and even if he can't be replaced by anyone quite like him, he's put into motion normalizations of deviance that will reverberate through US politics for many years after he's out, either legally or through natural causes.
"Trump, on the other hand, is so anomalous a figure that the GOP establishment can console themselves with the knowledge that he leads no faction. Even if he wins the nomination, Trump can be safely relegated to the category of a one-off, a freak mutation, never to be repeated. "
Now that he's in a second term whose winding course to fruition just about nobody could have easily predicted in early 2016, and totally dominates the Republican party, its base and most of its thinking, the above seems laughable.
Trump looks less like "The Mule" than ever today and even if he can't be replaced by anyone quite like him, he's put into motion normalizations of deviance that will reverberate through US politics for many years after he's out, either legally or through natural causes.
If you've ever waded into ragebaity online discussions, for example Europeans taunting Americans about the lack of public healthcare or basic worker rights, there will always be a loud contingent of Americans spouting counter-arguments based in American Exceptionalism, claiming that everyone else somehow, magically, has the US to thank for its standard of living.
It was always easy to dismiss those as uninformed morons, but Signalgate showed that at least Vance and Hegseth truly believes it, and who knows how many more of their ilk.
Up until 2016, the US was predominantly governed by people who understood the post-WWII world order, who understood the immense benefit of Pax Americana to the US itself. People who understood soft power and diplomacy, people who understood that although the upfront costs of maintaining the military hegemony, of playing world police, the benefits far outweighed the costs. People who understood mutually beneficial trade agreements, and that a trade deficit is a small price to pay to maintain the USD as the world's reserve currency.
But now, it's the spoiled grandchildren who are in power, who have been brought up suffused with the exceptionalism such that they take America's position for granted in eternity. And they look at the cost of all of these things, how much it directly benefits other countries, and react with stupid short-sighted greed, thinking that getting rid of the "free-loaders" will make them richer.
I remember the TPP trade deal. It took eight years to negotiate and the US strong-armed everyone else into accepting its provisions on IP, which would have allowed the US to maintain its position at the top of the value chain, countering the ascendancy of China.
All gone, in the trash, because the people who are once again in power fundamentally do not understand how it would have strengthened the US. So now we're back to some kind of mercantilistic trade-war, that the US will lose.
It was always easy to dismiss those as uninformed morons, but Signalgate showed that at least Vance and Hegseth truly believes it, and who knows how many more of their ilk.
Up until 2016, the US was predominantly governed by people who understood the post-WWII world order, who understood the immense benefit of Pax Americana to the US itself. People who understood soft power and diplomacy, people who understood that although the upfront costs of maintaining the military hegemony, of playing world police, the benefits far outweighed the costs. People who understood mutually beneficial trade agreements, and that a trade deficit is a small price to pay to maintain the USD as the world's reserve currency.
But now, it's the spoiled grandchildren who are in power, who have been brought up suffused with the exceptionalism such that they take America's position for granted in eternity. And they look at the cost of all of these things, how much it directly benefits other countries, and react with stupid short-sighted greed, thinking that getting rid of the "free-loaders" will make them richer.
I remember the TPP trade deal. It took eight years to negotiate and the US strong-armed everyone else into accepting its provisions on IP, which would have allowed the US to maintain its position at the top of the value chain, countering the ascendancy of China.
All gone, in the trash, because the people who are once again in power fundamentally do not understand how it would have strengthened the US. So now we're back to some kind of mercantilistic trade-war, that the US will lose.
>there will always be a loud contingent of Americans spouting counter-arguments based in American Exceptionalism, claiming that everyone else somehow, magically, has the US to thank for its standard of living.
The entire second part of your comment shores up exactly this notion that everyone else has the US to thank for its standard of living and that the country is exceptional.
Underlying all the things you list: the post-WWII order, the Pax Americana, the military hegemony, the position of the dollar as the World's reserve currency and so forth all underscore exactly the fact that the US is or at least has been exceptional and that the rest of the world has been heavily benefited by it.
That some of these people then took this and spun it into idiocy about cutting off "freeloaders" without being aware that this means having to take a hit to the country's exceptional position doesn't change the truth of the U.S being exceptional and many countries having many indirect benefits to thank it for
The entire second part of your comment shores up exactly this notion that everyone else has the US to thank for its standard of living and that the country is exceptional.
Underlying all the things you list: the post-WWII order, the Pax Americana, the military hegemony, the position of the dollar as the World's reserve currency and so forth all underscore exactly the fact that the US is or at least has been exceptional and that the rest of the world has been heavily benefited by it.
That some of these people then took this and spun it into idiocy about cutting off "freeloaders" without being aware that this means having to take a hit to the country's exceptional position doesn't change the truth of the U.S being exceptional and many countries having many indirect benefits to thank it for
The post-WWII order was deliberately designed by clever American politicians who realised they could leverage the untouched industrial base and built-up military capability to become a world superpower, in an alliance with Western Europe. All of these policies were and are 100% America First, because the US has always been the primary benefactor of it all, but they've been marketed as some kind of benevolent altruistic goodwill-project that "leader of the free world" simply "has to do" because it's "the right thing".
Bullshit. It's naked greed all the way down. Exceptional? Exceptionally greedy more like it.
Bullshit. It's naked greed all the way down. Exceptional? Exceptionally greedy more like it.
Greedy or not, somebody was going to become the dominant and even hegemonic world power after that colossal war and the nation state dynamics that followed it. Would you have preferred that it be something like the then still Stalinist USSR, or later perhaps the deeply authoritarian (and under Mao batshit crazy on its internal policies) China?
Given the inevitable rise of at least one dominant power, I prefer that it was the United States with its generally benevolent democratic traditions to model off of (even if it itself often poorly applied them overseas)
Given the inevitable rise of at least one dominant power, I prefer that it was the United States with its generally benevolent democratic traditions to model off of (even if it itself often poorly applied them overseas)
When people show you who they are, believe them.
This is what the Republican party is about.
This is what the Republican party is about.
The probability of impeachment succeeding at this time is effectively zero.
Anything difficult is effectively impossible until you decide to begin working on it.
Sure, but there are "get your kid to eat veggies" levels of "effectively impossible", and then there's "quantum teleport into the bank vault" levels of it.
This is more like the latter. There aren't many signs of us hitting the bottom thus far.
This is more like the latter. There aren't many signs of us hitting the bottom thus far.
The ONLY time a sitting POTUS has been politically removed from power by the mechanism of impeachment, or even seriously handicapped by it, was after the GOP constituency began howling at their congresspeople about the egregious behavior of the POTUS. They resisted caring up until that moment, and that was 50 years ago.
The current GOP doesn't flinch when their candidate is found guilty of SA, with a long history of fraud and embezzlement. If Trump approved a simple burglary of a Democrat's office, it would barely make the news at this point.
Not all infinitessimals are equal, just as not all infinities are equal.
The current GOP doesn't flinch when their candidate is found guilty of SA, with a long history of fraud and embezzlement. If Trump approved a simple burglary of a Democrat's office, it would barely make the news at this point.
Not all infinitessimals are equal, just as not all infinities are equal.
Even if it were possible for Dems to get control of the house and impeach the prez, there is no way that Senate will convict unless the GOP Senate goes back to becoming the GOP instead of the MAGA-GOP, which seems extremely unlikely.
Its interesting, you don't have enough republicans united to pass any of the agenda as law instead of executive orders but you also don't have 3 republicans willing to break to impeach for doing stuff they don't want (otherwise they'd pass it as law).
> Its interesting, you don't have enough republicans united to pass any of the agenda as law instead of executive orders
No, the decision to use executive fiat to normalize dictatorship is not undertaken because of the absence of support for the policy, but because of presence of support for normalizing dictatorship and avoiding the public in-advance debate of the legislative process.
No, the decision to use executive fiat to normalize dictatorship is not undertaken because of the absence of support for the policy, but because of presence of support for normalizing dictatorship and avoiding the public in-advance debate of the legislative process.
a) You need 2/3 of senators to vote to convict, so you would need ~20 Republicans to get on board.
b) Impeachment is a political action; plenty of politicians can disagree with portions of their party's legislature enough to vote against it without saying "I'd like to burn down my party's control of the government (and thereby my career) over this".
b) Impeachment is a political action; plenty of politicians can disagree with portions of their party's legislature enough to vote against it without saying "I'd like to burn down my party's control of the government (and thereby my career) over this".
Impeachment (in the senate its conviction, technically) requires 2/3 majority. So a few republicans breaking ranks isn't going to cut it. This is why impeachment over the Jan 6 coup attempt failed even though 7 "old guard" Republicans (i.e., Cheney) voted in favor.
A few million to Fusion GPS would be a good start
It’s zero if nobody actually says anything. The legislature has the power to reign in the president. They only have to threaten a bipartisan impeachment.
Unfortunately I don't see a route where Republicans vote for impeachment, ever. They're already refusing to listen to constituents, hiding from their elected duties and letting Trump freely crash the economy on a whim.
Republicans will not give up power unless doing so saves their fortunes or saves their lives.
Impeachment of Kristi Noem could be more likely to succeed though.
Even if impeachment is off the cards, is it impossible to imagine that there could be any sort of impact from Republican lawmakers hearing Republican voters that, or other things are not what they voted for or want?
Not at this time, and I don't see it changing enough in 3 years to make any difference. The fear of being attacked by MAGA is still very high, I think the (older) republican leadership has decided to just wait this out.
Impeachment is the wrong tactic at this moment. Eroding support of the less hardline members of the party is key. Call your reps and say I didn’t sign up for this: [specific list of things]
Most Republicans around me are extremely happy with this.
The politicians that matter most are the marginally elected representatives for their party, and they care about the marginal voter in their district. The median Republican does not matter when it comes to impeachment and removal. What matters is about one standard deviation in views left of the median.
People need to write their representatives. Volume of responses is what Congresscritters respond to.
Party doesn't matter. Ds need to inform their R Congresscritters every bit as much as any other combination.
For what it's worth, Republican constituents overwhelmingly voted for Trump in the R primary. Any number of candidates would have provided boilerplate Republican policies, but that wasn't what they wanted.
What Trump is doing is what these voters want.
And there's no limit. It's become an illiberal pro-authoritarian movement. It's in-progress.
Pick something you care about and defend it. It can't be everything all at once at all times, no one can do that.
Party doesn't matter. Ds need to inform their R Congresscritters every bit as much as any other combination.
For what it's worth, Republican constituents overwhelmingly voted for Trump in the R primary. Any number of candidates would have provided boilerplate Republican policies, but that wasn't what they wanted.
What Trump is doing is what these voters want.
And there's no limit. It's become an illiberal pro-authoritarian movement. It's in-progress.
Pick something you care about and defend it. It can't be everything all at once at all times, no one can do that.
> People need to write their representatives. Volume of responses is what Congresscritters respond to
Maybe in reruns of The West Wing. America is a long way past that now.
Maybe in reruns of The West Wing. America is a long way past that now.
Republicans signed up for this. Some of them want plausible deniality, but that is about it.
Harvard is a systematically racist institution. They even went to the Supreme Court to fight for the right to discriminate against white and Asian students.
Republicans and Trump-voting independents signed up for this. They want to see Harvard treated the same way it treats others.
Republicans and Trump-voting independents signed up for this. They want to see Harvard treated the same way it treats others.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
What is the better path forward? Republican voters led by their representative Trump were unhappy about certain policies and events at Ivy league institutions. Voters have the right to feel this way and elect representatives to carry out their views even if this is not how you feel as a feature of democracy. Proxies of the representatives of the voters reached out to a few institutions requesting changes to be made or else face consequences. The institutions said "we are unwilling to make all of the changes that you would like to see because we think they are not reasonable". The administration's response is now to try and hurt these institutions (Harvard for now) by going after their pocketbook.
As someone with some "right-leaning" views I am indeed very sad that the US is losing our edge as an international destination for higher education but I do want to see major reforms at elite institutions. I don't see a good way to accomplish these reforms without being willing to go after institutions in the only way they really care about (hurting the budget). I think we would reach a better place if we could agree to compromises where the universities concede on the "less important points" (e.g. make an earnest effort to drop everything the right calls DEI and reduce the administration to student ratio back to ~1980 levels) while the right agrees to leave funding and privileges in place but if we cannot compromise then we unfortunately end up in a position that is worse for everyone. I suspect most of the left will blame the right for being unable to compromise while most of the right will blame the right but this is kind of the same theme for every major party-aligned disagreement.
As someone with some "right-leaning" views I am indeed very sad that the US is losing our edge as an international destination for higher education but I do want to see major reforms at elite institutions. I don't see a good way to accomplish these reforms without being willing to go after institutions in the only way they really care about (hurting the budget). I think we would reach a better place if we could agree to compromises where the universities concede on the "less important points" (e.g. make an earnest effort to drop everything the right calls DEI and reduce the administration to student ratio back to ~1980 levels) while the right agrees to leave funding and privileges in place but if we cannot compromise then we unfortunately end up in a position that is worse for everyone. I suspect most of the left will blame the right for being unable to compromise while most of the right will blame the right but this is kind of the same theme for every major party-aligned disagreement.
Btw, I am a University employee who serves (among other things) children affected by parents who abuse drugs.
My organization employs hundreds of people working on everything from low income nutrition education to researching Medicaid expenditure.
We belong to the University, but we don’t have anything to do with undergraduate education.
This is the problem with looking at higher-Ed ratios like that…there are a lot of good things happening at a University which don’t reduce to “teacher in classroom.”
My organization employs hundreds of people working on everything from low income nutrition education to researching Medicaid expenditure.
We belong to the University, but we don’t have anything to do with undergraduate education.
This is the problem with looking at higher-Ed ratios like that…there are a lot of good things happening at a University which don’t reduce to “teacher in classroom.”
I don't have first hand experience with your situation and I would imagine that you believe you are doing a great thing for society and I don't want to disparage thats so I don't intend my comments to speak to your specific institution or situation. I apologize if you see my comments this way.
---
Broadly speaking the spending and staff levels at universities have grown over time while the number of enrolled students have stagnated and tuition costs per student have risen. There is a desire to reduce the per-student cost without providing additional subsidy and a straightforward way to do this is to look at the side of the university that doesn't have anything to do with undergraduate eduction and see where cuts may be made. One clear example of what we perceive as administrative bloat in the recent past was the Stanford Harmful Language Initiative (https://stanforddaily.com/2023/01/08/university-removes-harm...). Every institution makes mistakes but if a tax-exempt and grant receiving institution has the bandwidth to produce something that to the eyes of the right appears to be fairly silly while charging ~$60k for tuition, this does raise some eyebrows.
---
Broadly speaking the spending and staff levels at universities have grown over time while the number of enrolled students have stagnated and tuition costs per student have risen. There is a desire to reduce the per-student cost without providing additional subsidy and a straightforward way to do this is to look at the side of the university that doesn't have anything to do with undergraduate eduction and see where cuts may be made. One clear example of what we perceive as administrative bloat in the recent past was the Stanford Harmful Language Initiative (https://stanforddaily.com/2023/01/08/university-removes-harm...). Every institution makes mistakes but if a tax-exempt and grant receiving institution has the bandwidth to produce something that to the eyes of the right appears to be fairly silly while charging ~$60k for tuition, this does raise some eyebrows.
I think where we agree is that we need to reduce the social costs of college, one way or another.
But we don’t agree on how that should happen.
The underlying problem as I see it is that there aren’t enough slots for students in schools that are socially viewed as “reputable.” It’s not much different from beachfront property in that way.
We’ve allowed schools to build up a “mystique” for generations that a Harvard education or a state school education was the only ticket to the upper middle class…of course it’s expensive. As long as there are waitlists a mile long at nearly every state school, we will never see meaningful reduction in costs. The other way to fix that issue is to insist they build a plan to enroll 30% more students over 5 years.
But we don’t agree on how that should happen.
The underlying problem as I see it is that there aren’t enough slots for students in schools that are socially viewed as “reputable.” It’s not much different from beachfront property in that way.
We’ve allowed schools to build up a “mystique” for generations that a Harvard education or a state school education was the only ticket to the upper middle class…of course it’s expensive. As long as there are waitlists a mile long at nearly every state school, we will never see meaningful reduction in costs. The other way to fix that issue is to insist they build a plan to enroll 30% more students over 5 years.
US College enrollment peaked in 2012 and has been declining every since. It is projected based on demographics to continue declining. I'm not buying that a shortage of slots is responsible for the increased cost. This could be true at select institutions (e.g. Harvard like you mention) but I don't agree that the data supports the overall trend across the board.
Replace "Harvard" with "Trump University" in this conversation, and I believe many HN types would have a different opinion of the policies. The argument is, if educational institutions can't be ideologically neutral, why should they get the benefit from grants, tax free endowments, and a tax funded international customer acquisition pipeline? Especially as they become outrageously expensive debt traps, with worse ROIs.
I don't agree with this international student, and other policies, or implementations, and you can't run government like you run a "move fast and break things" startup, which seems to be how the administration is operating.
But, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it, and try to separate Trump's execution from the underlying ideological sentiment.
I don't agree with this international student, and other policies, or implementations, and you can't run government like you run a "move fast and break things" startup, which seems to be how the administration is operating.
But, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it, and try to separate Trump's execution from the underlying ideological sentiment.
Please. They don’t care about higher education. These aren’t old-school white shoe Republicans. These are the people teaching the “truth” about the 2020 election in Oklahoma public schools. If our schools have lost any edge, it’s since Trump came back to power.
I am one of "them" and I care deeply about higher education which is why I am very sad that we could not achieve reform without resorting to measures such as threatening the international student admission process. I don't know anything about the people teaching the “truth” about the 2020 election in Oklahoma public schools but if this is happening I agree with you it is very wrong.
"If our schools have lost any edge, it’s since Trump came back to power." I completely 100% disagree with this statement. My partner is an education at a University and remote learning had a huge negative impact on our schools and student outcomes. US academic achievement has been flat for decades despite spending and pupil rations going way up https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf. Public schools in certain areas of the country are a complete failure for every student enrolled https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/at-13-baltim... (I choose an example of a left leaning area but obviously there are right leaning examples as well!)
Let me propose what I see as a couple of common sense reforms. Mandate the availability of pre-k nationwide starting at 4. Increase the school year from 180 days to 195 days by reducing the length of summer. If needed make this optional at first. Allow professors to fail students who have not learned the course material and make it illegal for the department to pressure professors to offer the students a way to pass the course.
"If our schools have lost any edge, it’s since Trump came back to power." I completely 100% disagree with this statement. My partner is an education at a University and remote learning had a huge negative impact on our schools and student outcomes. US academic achievement has been flat for decades despite spending and pupil rations going way up https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf. Public schools in certain areas of the country are a complete failure for every student enrolled https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/at-13-baltim... (I choose an example of a left leaning area but obviously there are right leaning examples as well!)
Let me propose what I see as a couple of common sense reforms. Mandate the availability of pre-k nationwide starting at 4. Increase the school year from 180 days to 195 days by reducing the length of summer. If needed make this optional at first. Allow professors to fail students who have not learned the course material and make it illegal for the department to pressure professors to offer the students a way to pass the course.
In what way does this or anything else Trump has done or indicated to do advance the state of education towards the goals of the reform you are talking about?
I also don't think I claimed that "Trump has done or indicated to do advance the state of education". His administration has addressed grievances that I agree with but they have not introduced the positive reforms that I would support.
Fair enough, but this did read that way to me:
> why I am very sad that we could not achieve reform without resorting to measures such as threatening the international student admission process
> why I am very sad that we could not achieve reform without resorting to measures such as threatening the international student admission process
Oh I see - did you reply to the correct comment initially?
So far Trump's administration has seemed to address perceived grievances that they have with the university administration. In the comment you replied to I outlined some positive reforms that I would personally like to see as someone who cares deeply about education and wants to see a successful system. Trump's administration hasn't and probably won't make progress in this direction. In other words they are saying "don't do X" and aren't saying "Do Y". I approve of their progress on the former and think they are unlikely to make progress on the latter.
So far Trump's administration has seemed to address perceived grievances that they have with the university administration. In the comment you replied to I outlined some positive reforms that I would personally like to see as someone who cares deeply about education and wants to see a successful system. Trump's administration hasn't and probably won't make progress in this direction. In other words they are saying "don't do X" and aren't saying "Do Y". I approve of their progress on the former and think they are unlikely to make progress on the latter.
bigbacaloa(1)
The problems at Harvard and other high ed organizations are real. They've become pretty unhinged and concentrated, they really need to work on getting back to "open forum for discussing all ideas" rather than the "Open forum for discussing all correct ideas" that they have drifted into. I can see it first hand through my mother, who works at a major school.
That being said, republicans decided to chose an M1 Abrams tank to kill the pesky mice in the system.
That being said, republicans decided to chose an M1 Abrams tank to kill the pesky mice in the system.
That isn't actually relevant to the policy being discussed.
Trump is a child, he doesn't have diversified, compartmentalized thoughts. Harvard is "woke" and he will use any avenue to blast shells at it.
Don't give the guy the credit of being a reasonable adult.
Don't give the guy the credit of being a reasonable adult.
But Trump adminstration is so much worse here, they ban stuff based on word lists and kick people with wrong ideas out of the country.
In the hiring process for these institutions, until recently you had to write a "Diversity Statement" which was evaluated as part of the hiring process. This was an attempt to keep people with the "wrong ideas" out of the hiring pool. Similarly the H1B process asks you a long list of questions that you are required to answer "correctly" in order to be admitted. If you fail, you are kicked out.
I think the question is which set of ideas are not ok (e.g. clearly "I want to commit violence" is not an ok idea) which set of ideas are a grey area ("I have attended a major event of a US designated terror organization such as a funeral of a leader from a a terror organization") and which set of ideas are ok ("I want to advocate for peacefully advocate for more bike lanes"). There are very strong party affiliations for what ideas are considered ok vs forbidden (e.g. trans rights in the sports world).
I think the question is which set of ideas are not ok (e.g. clearly "I want to commit violence" is not an ok idea) which set of ideas are a grey area ("I have attended a major event of a US designated terror organization such as a funeral of a leader from a a terror organization") and which set of ideas are ok ("I want to advocate for peacefully advocate for more bike lanes"). There are very strong party affiliations for what ideas are considered ok vs forbidden (e.g. trans rights in the sports world).
The point of a diversity statement for the candidate to ruminate on their teaching practices with respect to a diverse classroom, which is a fact of the job rather than a political or ideological matter.
Most people in the course of their job do not closely work with people of diverse backgrounds. People who work at universities will work with people of all backgrounds and abilities. It’s not just about race or gender, but language, mobility, mental disabilities, and so forth. People in roles that deal with so many diverse people need to be able to articulate how in a statement. That’s not unreasonable or political, but just a reality of the job.
Most people in the course of their job do not closely work with people of diverse backgrounds. People who work at universities will work with people of all backgrounds and abilities. It’s not just about race or gender, but language, mobility, mental disabilities, and so forth. People in roles that deal with so many diverse people need to be able to articulate how in a statement. That’s not unreasonable or political, but just a reality of the job.
To a gun advocate the point of a concealed carry would be self defense which is a reality of living in certain areas rather than a political or ideological matter. Nevertheless it is ok for a political parties to have opinions about whether concealed carry is right or wrong and some would say that "civilized" countries have made gun ownership very difficult because the pros may outweigh the cons.
Likewise the right does not agree with you that the diversity statement is a positive and non-ideological contribution to the hiring process and if your response is going to be "this is not up for discussion because it is not a political or ideological matter" well... they are going to disagree with you and if they are in charge might respond by cutting funding and support for your institution. That's just a reality of living in a democracy.
Likewise the right does not agree with you that the diversity statement is a positive and non-ideological contribution to the hiring process and if your response is going to be "this is not up for discussion because it is not a political or ideological matter" well... they are going to disagree with you and if they are in charge might respond by cutting funding and support for your institution. That's just a reality of living in a democracy.
> the right does not agree with you that the diversity statement is a positive and non-ideological contribution to the hiring process
Most of these people haven't read a single "diversity statement" and cannot articulate what exactly the hiring process at a university is, and what actual role these statements play in the process. It's mostly ideological posturing about something that sounds scary to them. I'm not saying this isn't up for discussion, but the discussion better be around what the facts are and not the boogey man "the right" created.
At the end of the day the people who are being hired to teach in a classroom that will include a diverse group of students need to articulate and demonstrate that they can do this task. There are real language and cultural barriers, as well as disability barriers than an instructor needs to consider. How can this be done in a way that is acceptable to "the right"? They don't have an answer, all they know is they don't like the current process, even though they can't explain what it is.
Most of these people haven't read a single "diversity statement" and cannot articulate what exactly the hiring process at a university is, and what actual role these statements play in the process. It's mostly ideological posturing about something that sounds scary to them. I'm not saying this isn't up for discussion, but the discussion better be around what the facts are and not the boogey man "the right" created.
At the end of the day the people who are being hired to teach in a classroom that will include a diverse group of students need to articulate and demonstrate that they can do this task. There are real language and cultural barriers, as well as disability barriers than an instructor needs to consider. How can this be done in a way that is acceptable to "the right"? They don't have an answer, all they know is they don't like the current process, even though they can't explain what it is.
> It's mostly ideological posturing about something that sounds scary to them.
I think it's fair to be frustrated that a lot of political discourse is driven by appealing to fear rather than discussing facts in goodwill but I'm not sure that's isolated to only one particular party. I do think we tend to notice when people we don't like are not operating in good faith and tend to look the other way when people we do like are not operating in good faith so to someone firmly on one side of the spectrum it can definitely look like the opposition is particularly slimy.
> people who are being hired to teach in a classroom that will include a diverse group of students
I don't remotely understand how this is relevant to whether a particular instructor should be hired or not. If I need to learn math, then I want my instructor to be knowledgeable, personable, patient, good at explanations, and dedicated to their work. I don't care what equipment they have between their legs, what color it is, or who they want to use it with. We can take a look at example diversity statements online https://physicalsciences.ucsd.edu/_files/examples-submitted-... and we will notice people feel empowered to talk about their sexuality, race, gender etc but they never proudly mentioned things like "I am a white heterosexual man from the US" but if you swap words to a new value in the relevant categories i.e. "I am a Latinx queer woman from Mexico" this suddenly becomes relevant to the exercise. If changing the color, sexuality, gender, or place of origin for an applicant is relevant to the outcome then this seems like a discriminatory process (https://www.justice.gov/crt/nondiscrimination-basis-race-col...).
I do think it's perfectly ok for people to disagree with me here and I expect that if their representatives get in power we will see funding and priorities shift back towards more required diversity statements while also shifting to allow admissions processes to take into account things like race, sexuality, and gender etc which is just the reality of living in a democracy.
> people who are being hired to teach in a classroom that will include a diverse group of students
I don't remotely understand how this is relevant to whether a particular instructor should be hired or not. If I need to learn math, then I want my instructor to be knowledgeable, personable, patient, good at explanations, and dedicated to their work. I don't care what equipment they have between their legs, what color it is, or who they want to use it with. We can take a look at example diversity statements online https://physicalsciences.ucsd.edu/_files/examples-submitted-... and we will notice people feel empowered to talk about their sexuality, race, gender etc but they never proudly mentioned things like "I am a white heterosexual man from the US" but if you swap words to a new value in the relevant categories i.e. "I am a Latinx queer woman from Mexico" this suddenly becomes relevant to the exercise. If changing the color, sexuality, gender, or place of origin for an applicant is relevant to the outcome then this seems like a discriminatory process (https://www.justice.gov/crt/nondiscrimination-basis-race-col...).
I do think it's perfectly ok for people to disagree with me here and I expect that if their representatives get in power we will see funding and priorities shift back towards more required diversity statements while also shifting to allow admissions processes to take into account things like race, sexuality, and gender etc which is just the reality of living in a democracy.
> I'm not sure that's isolated to only one particular party.
Of course, but I haven't brought up parties, you did. I'm taking an apolitical position from the perspective of an educator looking to just do their job free from interference of political parties. I'm not sure what you do, but I don't suppose you'd enjoy "the left" or "the right" barging in and micromanaging your hiring committee, thinking they know how to do your job better than you.
> I don't remotely understand how this is relevant
Exactly, and that's kind of my point. You are very eager to quote the law at me, but you aren't first willing to spend the time to actually understand the reason for the diversity statements, how they are used, and why they might be necessary at all.
I think that has to do with this:
> I want my instructor to be knowledgeable, personable, patient, good at explanations, and dedicated to their work. I don't care what equipment they have between their legs, what color it is, or who they want to use it with.
You are looking at this from the perspective of a student, who view the job of the instructor as to teach. But the job is not to just teach, it is actually to be a member of the faculty, which comes with may other. One of our primary directives is to build a community that is conducive to learning. And how we do this is by selecting top students for admittance based on scholastic achievement, regardless of background.
Turns out when you do this, and you cast a wide net, a lot of different people end up in your classroom. Get past the culture war nonsense and put yourself in the shoes of an instructor of a math class of 100 students...
85 are from the US, 15 are immigrants and speak English as a second language. For some of them it's the first time in another country.
3 of them have ADHD. 1 is autistic. 8 have a learning disability. 5 have a motor disability. 1 is undergoing treatment for a major medical issue. 20 of them are neurodivergent in some way. 30 of them are suffering symptoms of depression. 1 of them is a psychopath. 30 are first generation students. 35 are low income. 1 is trans.
Your job is to help all those people succeed at math. How might this affect a math instructor? Here are some ways:
- Have you chosen your course materials to take into account low income individuals that can't afford a $200 textbook? Are they accessible by people with disabilities, for example are they available in electronic form?
- Is your lecture style and content appropriate for people from various backgrounds? For example, if all of your material relates back to local anecdotes, are foreign students going to perform well? Does your use of sarcasm and idioms make your content inaccessible to students who do not speak English as a first language, or who do not readily recognize sarcasm?
- What are your course policies for students with learning disabilities? How do you handle the fact that some students need 2x time than others? How do you structure your exams so that students who can't take them during the test time are able to? How do you handle students who have permission to miss instruction to deal with medical treatments?
The classroom is where the culture war meets reality. Most online culture warriors are talking about people they'll never meet in hypothetical situations they will never find themselves in. But in the classroom, things get real. For example, when a trans student asks you to call them by their preferred pronoun, what do you do in that situation? For most professors it's not a hypothetical, it's just something that happens on the job. So you need to have a real answer for these things, and not a political answer or a talking point.
The diversity statement is a really good way to open up a dialogue about these topics. So let's look at the diversity statements you brought up, and what you had to say about them:
> they never proudly mentioned things like "I am a white heterosexual man from the US"
Because the purpose here isn't to recite some sort of identity credentials, but to articulate how one approaches diversity. Many people take the route of talking about how their experience as some sort of minority has given them a unique perspective. If a white male feels they have something similar to say, at least I know I would be happy to read that. Today men are a minority on many campuses and this is becoming an issue. Many faculty I know would love to hear more about that.
But I fail to see anything egregious in these examples. From these letters we learn that people have experience running programs for underserved youth, running a lab that people from all backgrounds join, starting programs that build community, etc. These are all good things that are articulated, and reading these statements makes me want to meet them and ask them more questions!
Anyway, you dodged this question:
Of course, but I haven't brought up parties, you did. I'm taking an apolitical position from the perspective of an educator looking to just do their job free from interference of political parties. I'm not sure what you do, but I don't suppose you'd enjoy "the left" or "the right" barging in and micromanaging your hiring committee, thinking they know how to do your job better than you.
> I don't remotely understand how this is relevant
Exactly, and that's kind of my point. You are very eager to quote the law at me, but you aren't first willing to spend the time to actually understand the reason for the diversity statements, how they are used, and why they might be necessary at all.
I think that has to do with this:
> I want my instructor to be knowledgeable, personable, patient, good at explanations, and dedicated to their work. I don't care what equipment they have between their legs, what color it is, or who they want to use it with.
You are looking at this from the perspective of a student, who view the job of the instructor as to teach. But the job is not to just teach, it is actually to be a member of the faculty, which comes with may other. One of our primary directives is to build a community that is conducive to learning. And how we do this is by selecting top students for admittance based on scholastic achievement, regardless of background.
Turns out when you do this, and you cast a wide net, a lot of different people end up in your classroom. Get past the culture war nonsense and put yourself in the shoes of an instructor of a math class of 100 students...
85 are from the US, 15 are immigrants and speak English as a second language. For some of them it's the first time in another country.
3 of them have ADHD. 1 is autistic. 8 have a learning disability. 5 have a motor disability. 1 is undergoing treatment for a major medical issue. 20 of them are neurodivergent in some way. 30 of them are suffering symptoms of depression. 1 of them is a psychopath. 30 are first generation students. 35 are low income. 1 is trans.
Your job is to help all those people succeed at math. How might this affect a math instructor? Here are some ways:
- Have you chosen your course materials to take into account low income individuals that can't afford a $200 textbook? Are they accessible by people with disabilities, for example are they available in electronic form?
- Is your lecture style and content appropriate for people from various backgrounds? For example, if all of your material relates back to local anecdotes, are foreign students going to perform well? Does your use of sarcasm and idioms make your content inaccessible to students who do not speak English as a first language, or who do not readily recognize sarcasm?
- What are your course policies for students with learning disabilities? How do you handle the fact that some students need 2x time than others? How do you structure your exams so that students who can't take them during the test time are able to? How do you handle students who have permission to miss instruction to deal with medical treatments?
The classroom is where the culture war meets reality. Most online culture warriors are talking about people they'll never meet in hypothetical situations they will never find themselves in. But in the classroom, things get real. For example, when a trans student asks you to call them by their preferred pronoun, what do you do in that situation? For most professors it's not a hypothetical, it's just something that happens on the job. So you need to have a real answer for these things, and not a political answer or a talking point.
The diversity statement is a really good way to open up a dialogue about these topics. So let's look at the diversity statements you brought up, and what you had to say about them:
> they never proudly mentioned things like "I am a white heterosexual man from the US"
Because the purpose here isn't to recite some sort of identity credentials, but to articulate how one approaches diversity. Many people take the route of talking about how their experience as some sort of minority has given them a unique perspective. If a white male feels they have something similar to say, at least I know I would be happy to read that. Today men are a minority on many campuses and this is becoming an issue. Many faculty I know would love to hear more about that.
But I fail to see anything egregious in these examples. From these letters we learn that people have experience running programs for underserved youth, running a lab that people from all backgrounds join, starting programs that build community, etc. These are all good things that are articulated, and reading these statements makes me want to meet them and ask them more questions!
Anyway, you dodged this question:
There are real language and cultural barriers, as well as disability barriers that an instructor needs to consider. How can this be done in a way that is acceptable to "the right"?
>Is your lecture style and content appropriate for people from various backgrounds? For example, if all of your material relates back to local anecdotes, are foreign students going to perform well? Does your use of sarcasm and idioms make your content inaccessible to students who do not speak English as a first language, or who do not readily recognize sarcasm?
As someone who has twice had to completely switch their life from one country to another, entirely different one, I'd say that for one, you should give people more credit for being able to adapt and still get the gist of what's being communicated even if it's done through local cultural color, and secondly, that adapting is exactly what these people should have to do if they came to this new country and its schools.
One can appreciate and respect the foreign cultural roots of immigrant students (in this example) without having to bend over backwards to change one's own to suit their notions of the world.
Asking otherwise is no less absurd than having an American attend a school in China and expect local teachers to communicate with him in English, using humor and anecdotes of an expressly American sort.
As someone who has twice had to completely switch their life from one country to another, entirely different one, I'd say that for one, you should give people more credit for being able to adapt and still get the gist of what's being communicated even if it's done through local cultural color, and secondly, that adapting is exactly what these people should have to do if they came to this new country and its schools.
One can appreciate and respect the foreign cultural roots of immigrant students (in this example) without having to bend over backwards to change one's own to suit their notions of the world.
Asking otherwise is no less absurd than having an American attend a school in China and expect local teachers to communicate with him in English, using humor and anecdotes of an expressly American sort.
On the one hand, I agree. But on the other hand, I've run into actual issues in doing what I had said. So through experience I've learned it's better to take a different tactic.
I think we could nitpick each other's position but at the end of the day we just have philosophical differences so I won't dive into every detail before making my broader point.
> I'm taking an apolitical position We've been over this already.
Just because you do not wish that your position is political doesn't make it so.
> Your job is to help all those people succeed at math.
Yes. Well our job is at least to help some of them succeed at math because they won't all succeed statistically https://umbc.edu/stories/math-awareness-needed-to-raise-math... "For instance, in 2022, only 31% of graduating high school seniors were ready for college-level math – down from 39% in 2019.". We disagree on how best to accomplish this but metrics (e.g. PISA, NAEP or any way we have come up to evaluate this) indicate we have not achieved any incremental progress in decades even though cost per pupil has dramatically increased (e.g. student teacher ratio has declined dramatically). So I might humbly suggest that the approaches we have taken so far have not been successful.
> Most online culture warriors are talking about people they'll never meet in hypothetical situations
Are you trying to suggest that most of us who disagree with you and others like you haven't set foot in a classroom? This is unhinged.
> There are real language and cultural barriers, as well as disability barriers that an instructor needs to consider. How can this be done in a way that is acceptable to "the right"?
It's likely that many of your goals regarding language, cultural, and "disability" (I put this in quotes because some are real and other times people pretend to have a "disability" in order to turn in their homework late) cannot be met in a way that is acceptable to the right so you need to either drop these goals or accept that you are going to lose funding in support if you attempt to accomplish these goals.
"We" are asking you to drop things that "we" consider harmful. Initially "we" attempted to negotiate (https://president.columbia.edu/news/our-next-steps, https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/...) but "we" were rebuffed. I believe the strategy now is a to make a few prominent examples of what will happen if "your" side is unwilling to budge on "your" position regarding things like diversity letters in the hiring process in the hopes that the next tier of institutions has a change of heart or at least pretend to for a few years. You and I have a difference of opinion much like I might have a difference of opinion with a fundamentalist christian who wants to use taxpayer money to teach about creationism. I and many others like me will happily vote for candidates who will take a sledgehammer to any institution that wishes to institute things like diversity statements. Now that "we" are in power the onus is on educators to decide if this is the hill they want to die on. I still find it very sad that we couldn't reach a compromise that left American institutions in a strong position to be scientific leaders in their space but unfortunately the levers available to political leadership are crude and time is short (I would also argue that "my" leadership is headed up by a geriatric unintelligent narcissist who does a lot of damage when he lashes out but I guess that can't be helped right now).
I hope you have a great rest of your day - I'm done here but I do wish you all the best!
> I'm taking an apolitical position We've been over this already.
Just because you do not wish that your position is political doesn't make it so.
> Your job is to help all those people succeed at math.
Yes. Well our job is at least to help some of them succeed at math because they won't all succeed statistically https://umbc.edu/stories/math-awareness-needed-to-raise-math... "For instance, in 2022, only 31% of graduating high school seniors were ready for college-level math – down from 39% in 2019.". We disagree on how best to accomplish this but metrics (e.g. PISA, NAEP or any way we have come up to evaluate this) indicate we have not achieved any incremental progress in decades even though cost per pupil has dramatically increased (e.g. student teacher ratio has declined dramatically). So I might humbly suggest that the approaches we have taken so far have not been successful.
> Most online culture warriors are talking about people they'll never meet in hypothetical situations
Are you trying to suggest that most of us who disagree with you and others like you haven't set foot in a classroom? This is unhinged.
> There are real language and cultural barriers, as well as disability barriers that an instructor needs to consider. How can this be done in a way that is acceptable to "the right"?
It's likely that many of your goals regarding language, cultural, and "disability" (I put this in quotes because some are real and other times people pretend to have a "disability" in order to turn in their homework late) cannot be met in a way that is acceptable to the right so you need to either drop these goals or accept that you are going to lose funding in support if you attempt to accomplish these goals.
"We" are asking you to drop things that "we" consider harmful. Initially "we" attempted to negotiate (https://president.columbia.edu/news/our-next-steps, https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/...) but "we" were rebuffed. I believe the strategy now is a to make a few prominent examples of what will happen if "your" side is unwilling to budge on "your" position regarding things like diversity letters in the hiring process in the hopes that the next tier of institutions has a change of heart or at least pretend to for a few years. You and I have a difference of opinion much like I might have a difference of opinion with a fundamentalist christian who wants to use taxpayer money to teach about creationism. I and many others like me will happily vote for candidates who will take a sledgehammer to any institution that wishes to institute things like diversity statements. Now that "we" are in power the onus is on educators to decide if this is the hill they want to die on. I still find it very sad that we couldn't reach a compromise that left American institutions in a strong position to be scientific leaders in their space but unfortunately the levers available to political leadership are crude and time is short (I would also argue that "my" leadership is headed up by a geriatric unintelligent narcissist who does a lot of damage when he lashes out but I guess that can't be helped right now).
I hope you have a great rest of your day - I'm done here but I do wish you all the best!
> Just because you do not wish that your position is political doesn't make it so.
Look, I get the idea that "everything is political" because of how politics touches every aspect of life. But that doesn't actually mean everyone who has an opinion on a topic that is hot in the political arena is a political actor, nor does it make their opinion political. People working in universities have had to deal with the question of how to build a close-knit diverse community long before DEI became a hot-button issue. So I'll throw it right back at you: just because you want my opinion to be political, doesn't make it any less based on a practical reality of my job.
> So I might humbly suggest that the approaches we have taken so far have not been successful.
These stats are about graduating seniors so now I'm unsure of the relevance of why you brought this up.
> Are you trying to suggest that most of us who disagree with you and others like you haven't set foot in a classroom? This is unhinged.
Yeah that would be unhinged if I said or suggested that, alas I did not. But you yourself have made it clear that while you have experience taking a class, that has not qualified you to have a cogent opinion on the topic of how to manage a classroom. The same way the experience of eating food doesn't necessarily qualify you to have an opinion on how it's made.
> in a way that is acceptable to the right
Again... this elusive "acceptable way" is left unstated. I guess we will never learn what that might be.
> but "we" were rebuffed. I believe the strategy now is a to make a few prominent examples
Of course you're going to be rebuffed if your position doesn't even pretend to understand the other side of the issue. So then apparently instead of gaining an understanding and working toward common ground, the next step is domination in hopes of total capitulation. And you call this democracy?! The current actions against Harvard are a mockery of democracy.
> I and many others like me will happily vote for candidates who will take a sledgehammer to any institution that wishes to institute things like diversity statements.
And yet, despite wanting to destroy them so badly, you have admitted you have no real understanding of why they exist, how they are used, nor can you offer a suggestion for how to replace them in a way that is ideologically palatable to you. That is a political opinion. If you want to draw a distinction, your impulse to smash diversity statements has a political impetus that you can't really define; whereas my impulse to defend them is based on the fact they demonstrably help me do my job.
> I do wish you all the best!
You spent an entire paragraph before this statement talking about how you want to come into my place of work, disrupt it for no reason that you can articulate, and that if I don't like it tough, because you're in charge now. If that's you wishing the best, I'd hate to hear you wish someone the worst.
Look, I get the idea that "everything is political" because of how politics touches every aspect of life. But that doesn't actually mean everyone who has an opinion on a topic that is hot in the political arena is a political actor, nor does it make their opinion political. People working in universities have had to deal with the question of how to build a close-knit diverse community long before DEI became a hot-button issue. So I'll throw it right back at you: just because you want my opinion to be political, doesn't make it any less based on a practical reality of my job.
> So I might humbly suggest that the approaches we have taken so far have not been successful.
These stats are about graduating seniors so now I'm unsure of the relevance of why you brought this up.
> Are you trying to suggest that most of us who disagree with you and others like you haven't set foot in a classroom? This is unhinged.
Yeah that would be unhinged if I said or suggested that, alas I did not. But you yourself have made it clear that while you have experience taking a class, that has not qualified you to have a cogent opinion on the topic of how to manage a classroom. The same way the experience of eating food doesn't necessarily qualify you to have an opinion on how it's made.
> in a way that is acceptable to the right
Again... this elusive "acceptable way" is left unstated. I guess we will never learn what that might be.
> but "we" were rebuffed. I believe the strategy now is a to make a few prominent examples
Of course you're going to be rebuffed if your position doesn't even pretend to understand the other side of the issue. So then apparently instead of gaining an understanding and working toward common ground, the next step is domination in hopes of total capitulation. And you call this democracy?! The current actions against Harvard are a mockery of democracy.
> I and many others like me will happily vote for candidates who will take a sledgehammer to any institution that wishes to institute things like diversity statements.
And yet, despite wanting to destroy them so badly, you have admitted you have no real understanding of why they exist, how they are used, nor can you offer a suggestion for how to replace them in a way that is ideologically palatable to you. That is a political opinion. If you want to draw a distinction, your impulse to smash diversity statements has a political impetus that you can't really define; whereas my impulse to defend them is based on the fact they demonstrably help me do my job.
> I do wish you all the best!
You spent an entire paragraph before this statement talking about how you want to come into my place of work, disrupt it for no reason that you can articulate, and that if I don't like it tough, because you're in charge now. If that's you wishing the best, I'd hate to hear you wish someone the worst.
I think it’s also reasonable to want to see some assurance that Harvard has reckoned with the frankly racist and discriminatory admissions policy that was well-documented in the filings for Students for Fair Admissions @ SCOTUS.
[deleted]
[flagged]
Even more specific: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
That is extremely concerning
Curtis Yarvin really needs to become a household name in a know-thy-enemy sort of way.
That should've happened back when J.D. Vance was even announced as Trump's VP pick. That should've happened even more back when Yarvin attended Trump's inaugural gala as a guest of honour.
That should've happened back when J.D. Vance was even announced as Trump's VP pick. That should've happened even more back when Yarvin attended Trump's inaugural gala as a guest of honour.
From the wikipedia article:
> Curtis Yarvin began constructing the basis of the ideology in the late 2000
Ah yes of course this dude is involved. The more I read about Curtis Y, the more I believe he suffers from some sort of undiagnosed mental illness.
> Curtis Yarvin began constructing the basis of the ideology in the late 2000
Ah yes of course this dude is involved. The more I read about Curtis Y, the more I believe he suffers from some sort of undiagnosed mental illness.
No work of fiction prepared me for the most influential "intellectual" to be a dude with a Substack blog that acts as a how-to guide on how to overturn a democracy, which is then followed by the most powerful country in the world a full election cycle after it started being written.
From what I remember, not that far from Peter Wiggin's character in Ender's Game?
At this point, if it turns out Yarvin's real name is Randall Flagg, I wouldn't even blink.
neo-fascism because eggs were expensive, nice job American voters.
It's not surprising that people chose being able to afford food over intellectualism.
Lol no. White Americans are upset that theyre being held responsible for our racist and bigoted past.
Trump is a result of white Americans having to deal with our racist past and the reaction.
Unfortunately nobody likes to be told their success is built on slavery and theft, so we wind up with this wild backlash.
This is a tantrum from white Americans who don't want to be called racist, transphobic, even though they are.
A month or two ago a podcast, I believe Radiolab, straight up asked the woman who was responsible for many of the book bans in the US. Her reply was seriously that she didn't want her kids to feel bad for what their ancestors did.
It's seriously just a tantrum from white Americans who want to deny our history. That's the most American thing I can possibly imagine.
I wish I was kidding but that's really what it is. White Americans get suuuuper upset if you bring up these things.
Remember when Hilldog called trump supporters "deplorables" and his ratings shot up?
Trump is a result of white Americans having to deal with our racist past and the reaction.
Unfortunately nobody likes to be told their success is built on slavery and theft, so we wind up with this wild backlash.
This is a tantrum from white Americans who don't want to be called racist, transphobic, even though they are.
A month or two ago a podcast, I believe Radiolab, straight up asked the woman who was responsible for many of the book bans in the US. Her reply was seriously that she didn't want her kids to feel bad for what their ancestors did.
It's seriously just a tantrum from white Americans who want to deny our history. That's the most American thing I can possibly imagine.
I wish I was kidding but that's really what it is. White Americans get suuuuper upset if you bring up these things.
Remember when Hilldog called trump supporters "deplorables" and his ratings shot up?
Americans can afford food. We are nowhere close to 19th century french peasant levels of problems.
Imagine throwing 300 years of democracy and tradition out the window because food prices went up 30%. It went up all over the world but America is the only place that is actively throwing bricks through our own windows.
reads more like a childish temper tantrum than any coherent political move.
Imagine throwing 300 years of democracy and tradition out the window because food prices went up 30%. It went up all over the world but America is the only place that is actively throwing bricks through our own windows.
reads more like a childish temper tantrum than any coherent political move.
I think poet Maya Angelou got this right with:
“I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”
Seems like lot of voters weren't feeling good in previous administration.
“I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”
Seems like lot of voters weren't feeling good in previous administration.
Newt Gingrich dropped the famous "feels over reals" line on CNN.
"You have your facts on the left and we have our facts on the right" is basically what he said. Along with "If people feel one way then that's real." He isn't wrong, but he openly admitted to manipulating people to get them to feel certain ways.
https://youtu.be/xnhJWusyj4I
"You have your facts on the left and we have our facts on the right" is basically what he said. Along with "If people feel one way then that's real." He isn't wrong, but he openly admitted to manipulating people to get them to feel certain ways.
https://youtu.be/xnhJWusyj4I
Quite so. The country's current travails are the product of a decades-long effort:
https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html
https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
They chose transphobia and xenophobia over intellectualism. Eggs were just an excuse to nudge them in the way their amygdalae wanted to go. See: Trump telling his base to suck it up on egg prices, and suddenly no one cares anymore.
it's hard to tell if you're acknowledging the false dichotomy, or advocating for one side of it.
The name is as dumb as the movement. Do they not realize that the word “enlightenment” has the word “light” right there inside it? It’s like asking for cold hot water.
Using cognitive dissonance is a tried and true way to stop people from thinking too much about what you're really trying to say.
[deleted]
What will the HN crowd do when Y Combinator's banned from foreign participants?
The HN crowd here? A mixture of 'I told you so' posts, some fascists posting with glee that their perceived enemies are getting kicked in the knees and probably a few centrists desperately still trying to find a way to spin it in a positive manner.
The people running Y Combinator? They'll donate a few million to the Trump fund, maybe donate a jet or two and hope that gets him to stop for a little bit while claiming this 'isn't what we stand for' and 'i can't believe this happened (to us)'.
Make no mistake, they have no problem with these decisions until it has direct and material impact on them. That's why they invite the people directly responsible for this to their AI Startup school and give them privileged speaking opportunities. They don't care nor do they think that far into the future. Hell, you can go to the AI startup school page now and see them sharing the AI Ghibli shit [1]
[1] https://events.ycombinator.com/ai-sus
The people running Y Combinator? They'll donate a few million to the Trump fund, maybe donate a jet or two and hope that gets him to stop for a little bit while claiming this 'isn't what we stand for' and 'i can't believe this happened (to us)'.
Make no mistake, they have no problem with these decisions until it has direct and material impact on them. That's why they invite the people directly responsible for this to their AI Startup school and give them privileged speaking opportunities. They don't care nor do they think that far into the future. Hell, you can go to the AI startup school page now and see them sharing the AI Ghibli shit [1]
[1] https://events.ycombinator.com/ai-sus
As if the powers that be at YCombinator wouldn't roll over for Trump like all the other tech quislings.
Would you characterize Harvard as rolling over for Trump?
[deleted]
No, the opposite!
YC has been funding and mentoring foriegn startups for a long time.
During the pandemic, the remote first model lead to a number of fairly successful early stage investments such as Orange Health and BharatX
During the pandemic, the remote first model lead to a number of fairly successful early stage investments such as Orange Health and BharatX
write blogposts about how the real threat has always been wokeness
[deleted]
The techbros aren't too worried. Elon, Peter Thiel and the Paypal mafia put Trump into the white house and have a direct line and special carvout exemptions. JD Vance was groomed by Thiel and is a heartbeat away from the presidency.
[deleted]
If you voted for this admin, please go get your own flag and give me mine back.
Careful what you wish for, the last change to the US flag appears to have been accomplished through an executive order. If isn't a red field with a gold T in the middle come July, I'll be moderately surprised.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-3351-...
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-3351-...
[deleted]
I get flak for hating Republican voters with the general feeling of most people being that voters are not responsible for the officials THEY elected to represent them.
I still haven't found a valid argument for why a voter isn't held responsible for the actions of representatives. Especially if the actions would be likely to occur.
I still haven't found a valid argument for why a voter isn't held responsible for the actions of representatives. Especially if the actions would be likely to occur.
In what way would you like to hold them responsible? If there are reprisals for voting, do we live in a liberal democracy?
Edit: If by "hold responsible" you mean "be mad at them" then yes, of course you can, I can't read a comment section that isn't mostly that, and you knew that before making this comment.
Edit: If by "hold responsible" you mean "be mad at them" then yes, of course you can, I can't read a comment section that isn't mostly that, and you knew that before making this comment.
>If there are reprisals for voting
That's what's happening now..
>"hold responsible" you mean "be mad at them"
You make it sound simplistic. I mean calling them out, demanding an explanation. You have friends who support this then let them know you think they are wrong.
All these horrific regimes throughout history, how did it happen? The majority of people agreed with it or was a vocal minority left alone because most people just wanted to avoid conflict?
I call this selfish. It's like hoping the problem gets solved later that way you get to maintain your relationships.
That's what's happening now..
>"hold responsible" you mean "be mad at them"
You make it sound simplistic. I mean calling them out, demanding an explanation. You have friends who support this then let them know you think they are wrong.
All these horrific regimes throughout history, how did it happen? The majority of people agreed with it or was a vocal minority left alone because most people just wanted to avoid conflict?
I call this selfish. It's like hoping the problem gets solved later that way you get to maintain your relationships.
If you want to blow up personal relationships over politics because you think it will help, be my guest. People do it routinely. If it is "good" is an open question.
Why would it ruin a relationship to give your opinion or to ask for an explanation from them?
Because you stated you "hate Republican voters". If you hate Republicans (as a method of "holding them responsible"), it doesn't really make sense to remain friends.
> In what way would you like to hold them responsible?
Being shamed into a little introspection wouldn't hurt.
Being shamed into a little introspection wouldn't hurt.
This goes both ways.
Why would you feel the need to state this? Obviously it would and it should. If Trump was a Democrat and the same situation was occurring then Democrat voters should be called out
[deleted]
Voters face the consequence for their voting. So, in that meaning, they are responsible for the actions of the representatives.
Except sometimes the first order consequences are far greater than second order, and you vote for people who have first order consequences on others.
yes, but that is just a form a political attrition war
What Republican voter is facing consequences for this specific situation?
I do appreciate this notion as I read articles of government workers fired who supported Trump (why a person working for the government would vote Republican is beyond me).
Many of Trumps actions attack those that would either likely never vote Republican or can't vote (illegals, groups on special visas that lost them, foreign students, etc)
I do appreciate this notion as I read articles of government workers fired who supported Trump (why a person working for the government would vote Republican is beyond me).
Many of Trumps actions attack those that would either likely never vote Republican or can't vote (illegals, groups on special visas that lost them, foreign students, etc)
I do not know if you will see this.. however, the consequence is faced by the society for electing someone. It is not that the republican voters face something separate.
If you agree that the actions of the current administration are detrimental to the US over long term, those are the consequences.
Take Alabama or Oklahoma for example - their policies have made those states backward. People in those states have poor education outcomes, less wealth and less health, lower social mobility etc. It impacts everyone in those states. Either the opposition needs to mobilize, message better etc. or the voters need to compare and realize what they are missing. If not, they will continue to face the consequences.
If you agree that the actions of the current administration are detrimental to the US over long term, those are the consequences.
Take Alabama or Oklahoma for example - their policies have made those states backward. People in those states have poor education outcomes, less wealth and less health, lower social mobility etc. It impacts everyone in those states. Either the opposition needs to mobilize, message better etc. or the voters need to compare and realize what they are missing. If not, they will continue to face the consequences.
Most people don't think hard or carefully about politics, and their political views are a very tiny fraction of what they give to the world (this is true even for most people who do think hard and carefully about politics, by the way). Their vote is never pivotal, and their views do not shape any major institutions.
>Most people don't think hard or carefully about politics
If they vote they should
> Their vote is never pivotal..
Votes are pivotal as a sum. This is like not recycling because as an individual action it has no effect.
>and their political views are a very tiny fraction of what they give to the world
So?
If they vote they should
> Their vote is never pivotal..
Votes are pivotal as a sum. This is like not recycling because as an individual action it has no effect.
>and their political views are a very tiny fraction of what they give to the world
So?
Do you hate anyone who doesn't recycle? If so, I think you should set a higher bar for the sins necessary to earn your hatred.
Why would you want a valid argument for holding a voter responsible for the actions of representatives? Arguments have nothing to do with it. Just hold them responsible, or not, for any reason. It makes no difference.
Voters don't really choose a representative. They are given choices. Two choices, of which, let's face it, most people will just pick whichever one is on "their side". Those choices are created by outside forces. And those choices, once chosen, will do... whatever the hell they want. There's no consequence to them doing whatever the hell they want. So it doesn't really matter what the choice is to begin with. You're as likely to get what you want by praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as by voting. The "choices" are just gonna do whatever the hell they want anyway. Whether you get what you want or not is incidental.
But let's assume you do hold somebody responsible for choosing something they have no control over. What does that mean to "hold them responsible" ? You gonna actually do something? Throw them in jail? Kill them? Probably not. You're probably just gonna say nasty things about them on Facebook. Which you could do at any time, for any reason. So who gives a shit what the argument is? It makes no difference to anything at all. You might as well ask for a valid argument for why the sky is blue. Ain't gonna change the sky.
Voters don't really choose a representative. They are given choices. Two choices, of which, let's face it, most people will just pick whichever one is on "their side". Those choices are created by outside forces. And those choices, once chosen, will do... whatever the hell they want. There's no consequence to them doing whatever the hell they want. So it doesn't really matter what the choice is to begin with. You're as likely to get what you want by praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as by voting. The "choices" are just gonna do whatever the hell they want anyway. Whether you get what you want or not is incidental.
But let's assume you do hold somebody responsible for choosing something they have no control over. What does that mean to "hold them responsible" ? You gonna actually do something? Throw them in jail? Kill them? Probably not. You're probably just gonna say nasty things about them on Facebook. Which you could do at any time, for any reason. So who gives a shit what the argument is? It makes no difference to anything at all. You might as well ask for a valid argument for why the sky is blue. Ain't gonna change the sky.
>Why would you want a valid argument..
I want them to think about it because... "let's face it, most people will just pick whichever one is on "their side"."
>And those choices, once chosen, will do... whatever the hell they want
What does this mean? It's not even close to being random or unpredictable.
>There's no consequence to them doing whatever the hell they want.
Elections
>So it doesn't really matter what the choice is to begin with.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, do you mean an elected person has full control of their position's power? Then yes, obviously but you can predict what they will do, you are giving them power.
Yes, the options are two choices externally picked. And?
I want them to think about it because... "let's face it, most people will just pick whichever one is on "their side"."
>And those choices, once chosen, will do... whatever the hell they want
What does this mean? It's not even close to being random or unpredictable.
>There's no consequence to them doing whatever the hell they want.
Elections
>So it doesn't really matter what the choice is to begin with.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, do you mean an elected person has full control of their position's power? Then yes, obviously but you can predict what they will do, you are giving them power.
Yes, the options are two choices externally picked. And?
Exactly what “consequence” are you talking about? Voting by design is protected from retribution.
There are consequences that can follow in response to protected actions that don't rise to the level of prohibited retribution.
For example I can give a speech in a public square where I advocate some completely stupid conspiracy theory and I do it in the most offensive language possible pissing off everyone who hears, and be protected by the First Amendment.
That doesn't stop you from inferring from that speech that (1) I'm an idiot and (2) I'm a very unpleasant person to be around and then based on those inferences declining to hire me if I apply to you for a job. Neither idiots nor assholes are protected classes so you are free to discriminate against me. That you learned that I'm an idiot and asshole through my First Amendment protected speech shouldn't be relevant.
If someone lets it be known who they voted for and their reasons something similar could happen.
For example I can give a speech in a public square where I advocate some completely stupid conspiracy theory and I do it in the most offensive language possible pissing off everyone who hears, and be protected by the First Amendment.
That doesn't stop you from inferring from that speech that (1) I'm an idiot and (2) I'm a very unpleasant person to be around and then based on those inferences declining to hire me if I apply to you for a job. Neither idiots nor assholes are protected classes so you are free to discriminate against me. That you learned that I'm an idiot and asshole through my First Amendment protected speech shouldn't be relevant.
If someone lets it be known who they voted for and their reasons something similar could happen.
Retribution from the government, I meant socially.
That’s why there is a secret ballot. There cant be retribution unless you advertise your vote.
Either way, at the point you’re talking of socially ostracizing a majority of the US population since Trump won the popular vote too.
Either way, at the point you’re talking of socially ostracizing a majority of the US population since Trump won the popular vote too.
> Either way, at the point you’re talking of socially ostracizing a majority of the US population since Trump won the popular vote too.
75~ million vs 300 million. Don't confuse population with voters.
>That’s why there is a secret ballot. There cant be retribution unless you advertise your vote.
By the government and this shouldn't change. However people who freely broadcast who they support are open to attack by others
75~ million vs 300 million. Don't confuse population with voters.
>That’s why there is a secret ballot. There cant be retribution unless you advertise your vote.
By the government and this shouldn't change. However people who freely broadcast who they support are open to attack by others
Registered voters was 174m, voter eligible population is estimated at 244m. The number who actually voted in 2024 was 154m. So he did win the popular vote. The total population doesn’t count when checking for popular vote winnings.
It's more of an ethical question. Were the people who voted for Hitler bad people because they voted for a bad person? I'd argue that they were. You can't just vote for a horrible person and then say you had nothing to do with the consequences. I'm not the one you replied to, but I assume this is something family related, a la "just because grandpa voted for Trump doesn't mean he's a bad person".
>Were the people who voted for Hitler bad people because they voted for a bad person?
Depends on what they know or heard. The situation is very different today. The internet gives each person access to all the information. I'm sure time can be a factor but in Germany you have more an excuse.
Also, with Germany, the economic situation was used by Hitler and worked to his advantage.
There's also the more controversial take but I've only read bits and pieces and many disagree with this as it implies a multigeneration swaying and ingrained cultural change
https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Willing-Executioners-Ordinary...
Depends on what they know or heard. The situation is very different today. The internet gives each person access to all the information. I'm sure time can be a factor but in Germany you have more an excuse.
Also, with Germany, the economic situation was used by Hitler and worked to his advantage.
There's also the more controversial take but I've only read bits and pieces and many disagree with this as it implies a multigeneration swaying and ingrained cultural change
https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Willing-Executioners-Ordinary...
Well, it’s not the popular vote but the electoral college. There may be plenty of people in blue states who voted for Trump because they were fed up with democrats having foisted an unelected candidate on them. They would for the most part know that the vote kinda doesn’t count - e.g. if you live in CA or IL. In this case you’re mostly voting to make a point.
So with the current system, that varies. If it’s a popular vote, then I’d say you have a point.
So with the current system, that varies. If it’s a popular vote, then I’d say you have a point.
>were fed up with democrats having foisted an unelected candidate on them
What power was this candidate given? By saying "unelected" you're trying to imply that a person was given power in the government without a vote.
=------------------------
The election is a choice between two candidates.
It's not "Did you like that the Democrats did X"? It's "Which candidate would make a better president"?
The reason is that the effects of the outcome aren't limited to the Democrat party leadeship.
For example a student who is deported wasn't responsible for the decision by the Democrat party leadership not to hold a primary but are affected by the outcome of the election.
The logical flaw in the voters you are referring to is not comparing choices while making a selection.
What power was this candidate given? By saying "unelected" you're trying to imply that a person was given power in the government without a vote.
=------------------------
The election is a choice between two candidates.
It's not "Did you like that the Democrats did X"? It's "Which candidate would make a better president"?
The reason is that the effects of the outcome aren't limited to the Democrat party leadeship.
For example a student who is deported wasn't responsible for the decision by the Democrat party leadership not to hold a primary but are affected by the outcome of the election.
The logical flaw in the voters you are referring to is not comparing choices while making a selection.
People voting for Hitler wasn't a problem either way.. Enough of them never voted for him under the German electoral system of the time that he never won enough of a majority to become president of his country.
Instead he then used backroom deals with useful idiots and cynics who thought they could use him in favor of their careers, to get himself appointed to a position (chancellor) from which he could become dictator.
The more valid criticism based on the above comparison isn't quite so much against American voters as it is against the cynics, spineless opponents and useful idiots inside the federal political system, who have the power to curtail what Trump is attempting as president, but don't for different reasons of their own.
I particularly note the other republicans in his party here, who could actually stop Trump's more deranged nonsense but are letting centuries of restrained, relatively democratic and lawful political tradition go to shit for the sake of their own short-sighted ambitious idiocies.
Instead he then used backroom deals with useful idiots and cynics who thought they could use him in favor of their careers, to get himself appointed to a position (chancellor) from which he could become dictator.
The more valid criticism based on the above comparison isn't quite so much against American voters as it is against the cynics, spineless opponents and useful idiots inside the federal political system, who have the power to curtail what Trump is attempting as president, but don't for different reasons of their own.
I particularly note the other republicans in his party here, who could actually stop Trump's more deranged nonsense but are letting centuries of restrained, relatively democratic and lawful political tradition go to shit for the sake of their own short-sighted ambitious idiocies.
I didn't realize Hitler didn't win the 1932 election but became chancellor after the Nazi party obtained a majority in the government and Hindenburg, who won, appointed him.
>who have the power to curtail what Trump is attempting as president, but don't for different
They won't do this because of his public support.
>who have the power to curtail what Trump is attempting as president, but don't for different
They won't do this because of his public support.
People didn't have good choices. There was plenty to not like about the Democrats as well. You can argue who is worse, or even if the concerns are valid, but there are plenty of things many people don't like about how the democrats use their power. As such what was a voter to do?
There are a long list of things, and most people are not willing accept that "their side" does anything someone else might not like. Doesn't matter what side. Most people are not even willing to honestly listen to "the other side's" concerns.
Waters of the US. All the various "woke" issues which harms someone who isn't a minority who sees someone less competent getting business (and then calling them racist when the feel cheated). Immigration or China taking all their jobs. The above is what I can think of just off the top of my head that many people feel democrats have messed up on. (I don't not agree with this entire list, but I'm sure people will shoot the messenger anyway...)
There are a long list of things, and most people are not willing accept that "their side" does anything someone else might not like. Doesn't matter what side. Most people are not even willing to honestly listen to "the other side's" concerns.
Waters of the US. All the various "woke" issues which harms someone who isn't a minority who sees someone less competent getting business (and then calling them racist when the feel cheated). Immigration or China taking all their jobs. The above is what I can think of just off the top of my head that many people feel democrats have messed up on. (I don't not agree with this entire list, but I'm sure people will shoot the messenger anyway...)
This is not a "both sides are bad" issue. Literally one side was openly advertising a culture revolution and remaking the US into a fascist state and the other side was using policies to improve minority participation in institutions. Even if you were completely opposed to "woke" issues, the alternative was voting for a dictator.
Quit shooting the messanger and think. if you cannot understand your ophonents you are no better than them.
>if you cannot understand your ophonents you are no better than them?
Literally no. I don't understand serial killers but I'm better than them and to use a more relevant example, I have limited understanding of some racists but I'm better than them (in that specific case).
Understanding is only useful for engagement but if a person is being manipulated by lies or exaggerations then what am I to do?
Solve a non-existent or exaggerated problem? Tell them their information is wrong?
Literally no. I don't understand serial killers but I'm better than them and to use a more relevant example, I have limited understanding of some racists but I'm better than them (in that specific case).
Understanding is only useful for engagement but if a person is being manipulated by lies or exaggerations then what am I to do?
Solve a non-existent or exaggerated problem? Tell them their information is wrong?
Why is immigrantion bad, why are illegal immigrants bad?
>the various "woke" issues which harms someone who isn't a minority who sees someone less competent getting business
Do you have evidence this was a widespread problem?
It people are woke, for example Disney decides to put more gay people in movies to promote diversity, what is the government going to do? Why would electing Republicans stop this?
>the various "woke" issues which harms someone who isn't a minority who sees someone less competent getting business
Do you have evidence this was a widespread problem?
It people are woke, for example Disney decides to put more gay people in movies to promote diversity, what is the government going to do? Why would electing Republicans stop this?
don't ask me - I'm just a messanger who doesn't believe the full message. I've long supported more immigration
what disney does should be their own business. However when a competent person is not allowed to do a job because the government wants a different minoity that hurts me. at best it means that projects are more expensive because there is less competition, at worst someone incompetent is hired and we get junk.
what disney does should be their own business. However when a competent person is not allowed to do a job because the government wants a different minoity that hurts me. at best it means that projects are more expensive because there is less competition, at worst someone incompetent is hired and we get junk.
>....As such what was a voter to do?
I contend their dislike of the Democrats is based a meaningful amount on Republican lies and exaggerations.
For example
1. Blaming Biden wholly for inflation via spending even though it was worldwide, Trump also used government spending to attempt to help the economy, and Republicans controlled congress for half his term.
2. Blaming Biden for not fixing inflation which assumes this was possible
3. Blaming all illegal immigrants for the crimes of some. This is the same as blaming all Black people for the crimes committed by some.
4. Lying about election fraud
I contend their dislike of the Democrats is based a meaningful amount on Republican lies and exaggerations.
For example
1. Blaming Biden wholly for inflation via spending even though it was worldwide, Trump also used government spending to attempt to help the economy, and Republicans controlled congress for half his term.
2. Blaming Biden for not fixing inflation which assumes this was possible
3. Blaming all illegal immigrants for the crimes of some. This is the same as blaming all Black people for the crimes committed by some.
4. Lying about election fraud
People may not have had a good choice, but they had an obvious choice. The status quo of a Harris term - even considering the likely negatives, her pandering to the right and pro-Zionist stance - would have been objectively preferable to Trump. What is a voter to do? Not vote for the greater evil because they aren't in love with the lesser evil.
They strongly disagree. This is not a debate here - I didn't vote for Trump for a number of reasons. However I make an effort toiundertand because that is the first step to try to figure out how to win. When you just name call you ensure you lose
The Democrats didn't "just name call," though. They had a platform and everything. Meanwhile no one name calls more than Trump. His party is the party of "fuck your feelings" and "empathy is a sin" after all.
Why are you lowering yourself to the level of name calling and only talking about name calling?
Name calling is when you point out uncomfortable truths.
I'm not, and I haven't.
And even if I did, trying to turn the conversation to me rather than the subject at hand is base trolling. I could call them all shitheads and that still wouldn't be relevant. They didn't vote for Trump because I hurt their feelings, nor did I vote for Kamala Harris because Trump voters hurt my feelings.
And even if I did, trying to turn the conversation to me rather than the subject at hand is base trolling. I could call them all shitheads and that still wouldn't be relevant. They didn't vote for Trump because I hurt their feelings, nor did I vote for Kamala Harris because Trump voters hurt my feelings.
[deleted]
Are they not?
I'm a bit confused what you're suggesting here. In what way should people be "held responsible for the actions of representatives"?
That does sound a bit iffy. Not to mention that the ability to vote for who you want without repercussions is rather important to a democracy.
Of course if someone loudly states who they voted for they should not be surprised someone else calls them out on it. After all what is voluntarily giving up anonymity, if not an act of support?
Of course if someone loudly states who they voted for they should not be surprised someone else calls them out on it. After all what is voluntarily giving up anonymity, if not an act of support?
I would just never vote if that's the case.
> I still haven't found a valid argument for why a voter isn't held responsible for the actions of representatives. Especially if the actions would be likely to occur.
Does that apply to Gaza as well? Or is it just when people you don't like vote?
There is a reason we don't do this, why we didn't punish everyone who voted for Hitler etc.
Does that apply to Gaza as well? Or is it just when people you don't like vote?
There is a reason we don't do this, why we didn't punish everyone who voted for Hitler etc.
>Does that apply to Gaza as well? Or is it just when people you don't like vote?
Yes, it does apply to all situations and people
>There is a reason we don't do this, why we didn't punish everyone who voted for Hitler etc.
What reason? You just asked a question
Yes, it does apply to all situations and people
>There is a reason we don't do this, why we didn't punish everyone who voted for Hitler etc.
What reason? You just asked a question
What about the Dems who primaried Hillary and Biden, ruining the 2016 and 2024 elections? All they had to do was pick someone at least mildly likable and not so old that they'd bomb a 2nd election.
>was pick someone at least mildly likable and not so old
Biden is 3 years younger than Trump
>was pick someone at least mildly likable
Likeable how?
Biden is 3 years younger than Trump
>was pick someone at least mildly likable
Likeable how?
[deleted]
As always, a reminder that this administration has Silicon Valley money and people up and down its roster. The founders should refuse to take money from the VCs that support this regime, and the engineers should refuse to work for portfolio companies. Things will change quite rapidly if that becomes the norm.
[deleted]
[deleted]
bananapub(2)
guywithahat(2)
yongjik(1)
periodjet(8)
baggle(4)
Trump: I’m dumb and want to make everyone else dumb too so I can be the smartest among the dumb dumbs. I know! I’ll prevent the best and brightest from abroad who pay full tuition to attend the best American universities because I’m a xenophobe. I’m so smart!
MAGA destroying universities smh.
MAGA destroying universities smh.
In a fight between two morally dubious parties, why can't both lose?
And yes, Harvard is absolutely a morally dubious institution. Less morally dubious than Trump's movement is, but still.
And yes, Harvard is absolutely a morally dubious institution. Less morally dubious than Trump's movement is, but still.
Reminder every international student that attends Harvard is a national one that cannot.
Trump is simply saying let's focus on our own people.
Trump is simply saying let's focus on our own people.
I'd like to ask: what are 'your own people' doing, by studying in foreign universities?
Should they be regarded as traitors?
Reminder: every US international student that attends a foreign university is buying croissants and not squeezy-cheeze.
Reminder: every US international student that attends a foreign university is buying croissants and not squeezy-cheeze.
If that was the case, this would be applied to every university. You can't be that naive to believe Trump wants to focus on our own people given how he's ravaged social safety nets.
What social safety net has he ravaged and how? Please remind me.
I probably should correct my tenses. I was referring to his "Big Beautiful Bill.", which only a Republican controlled senate stands in the way of.
Thanks. I see that the bill tightens the criteria for getting Medicaid.
That's... one incredibly generous way to say that. In actuality, it cuts Medicaid for a lot of hard working American tax payers.
What could be in the records that Harvard doesn’t want to share?
Harvard is a hedge fund. Hopefully they'll be more honest about it going forward as their university activities get more restricted - they won't be worse for wear.
Academia let itself get too political these last 10 years and deserved some kind of reckoning for it, yet somehow this manages to be so shameless that it makes academia look like the good guys standing up to an oppressive regime.
Which means Harvard leadership actually has more reputation to gain by fighting this than by backing down, very similar to all those tariffed countries.
Which means Harvard leadership actually has more reputation to gain by fighting this than by backing down, very similar to all those tariffed countries.
So academia being political was a bad thing, but now it's a good thing. How does that make any sense?
I didn't say that, why would you think I said that?