[HN Gopher] Trump administration halts Harvard's ability to enro...
___________________________________________________________________
Trump administration halts Harvard's ability to enroll
international students
Author : S0y
Score : 514 points
Date : 2025-05-22 17:48 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| adamors wrote:
| http://archive.today/SnNBv
| philip1209 wrote:
| So much for "law and order" - this is about sycophancy toward an
| authoritarian who chooses his own rules.
| rjbwork wrote:
| 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.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| 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."
| duxup wrote:
| Government policy in the form of personal grudges rather than law
| and good policy.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| 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.
| philip1209 wrote:
| 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.
| busyant wrote:
| > 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!
| ty6853 wrote:
| Hilarious if it's the CCP, who would probably have the
| greatest incentive to sell such a policy.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| 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.
| philip1209 wrote:
| MBAs are a cash cow
| scoofy wrote:
| 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.
| dekhn wrote:
| The probability of impeachment succeeding at this time is
| effectively zero.
| patagurbon wrote:
| Impeachment of Kristi Noem could be more likely to succeed
| though.
| scoofy wrote:
| 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.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| 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.
| DrillShopper wrote:
| Republicans will not give up power unless doing so saves
| their fortunes or saves their lives.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Anything difficult is effectively impossible until you decide
| to begin working on it.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| 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.
| lesuorac wrote:
| 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).
| InitialLastName wrote:
| 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".
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| A few million to Fusion GPS would be a good start
| IAmBroom wrote:
| 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.
| msabalau wrote:
| 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?
| dekhn wrote:
| 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.
| more_corn wrote:
| 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]
| platevoltage wrote:
| If you are a Republican, you DID sign up for this. None of this
| has been kept secret.
| chrisandchris wrote:
| Sometimes you sign up for things, because the advertisment
| did look great. But then, at one point, you want to cancel
| that subscription.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| And yet some have held that subscription for years..
| baggachipz wrote:
| If that's the case, you're an easily-duped sucker of a
| customer and deserve to lose your money.
| intermerda wrote:
| 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.
| platevoltage wrote:
| 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.
| eximius wrote:
| 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".
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| 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.
| akudha wrote:
| 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?
| mdhb wrote:
| Lots and lots of people accurately predicted this multiple
| years out at this point. They were continually dismissed as
| alarmists by supposedly "serious people".
| blooalien wrote:
| _~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.)
| mdhb wrote:
| 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.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| 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.
| more_corn wrote:
| 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.
| watwut wrote:
| Republicans signed up for this. Some of them want plausible
| deniality, but that is about it.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > 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?
| scoofy wrote:
| 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.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| 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.
| scoofy wrote:
| 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.
| dkarl wrote:
| > 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.
| scoofy wrote:
| 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.
| dkarl wrote:
| 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._
| scoofy wrote:
| 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.
| dralley wrote:
| 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.
| awnird wrote:
| "An imaginary man in the sky told me to hate you" is not
| a good-faith reason.
| rchaud wrote:
| 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, and Vance
| is ready to deport US citizens.
| morkalork wrote:
| 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.
| hydrogen7800 wrote:
| You were downvoted, but here is him saying exactly that:
|
| https://youtu.be/vVJ_Icosa3s?si=urohSO8q_iLFJpg2
| more_corn wrote:
| A lot of smart people believe a lie told often enough.
| hobs wrote:
| Do you think he believes the lie that he said he knows
| isn't true and then walked back and talked about as if it
| was true? Are you the smart person whose been told the lie
| enough?
| bongoman42 wrote:
| Most Republicans around me are extremely happy with this.
| scoofy wrote:
| 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.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 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.
| therouwboat wrote:
| 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.
| alaxhn wrote:
| 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).
| twoodfin wrote:
| 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.
| ModernMech wrote:
| 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.
| alaxhn wrote:
| 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.
| ModernMech wrote:
| > 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. 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.
| scoofy wrote:
| That isn't actually relevant to the policy being discussed.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 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.
| intermerda wrote:
| 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.
| marktangotango wrote:
| 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
| henrikschroder wrote:
| 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.
| cmurf wrote:
| 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.
| alaxhn wrote:
| 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.
| tclancy wrote:
| 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.
| alaxhn wrote:
| 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.
| iambateman wrote:
| 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."
| alaxhn wrote:
| 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.
| ar813 wrote:
| If they can do this to Harvard, what hope do other universities
| have?
| ModernMech wrote:
| Yea, that's the message they are trying to send.
| ty6853 wrote:
| 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.
| vel0city wrote:
| > 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.
| TimPC wrote:
| 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.
| HEmanZ wrote:
| 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.
| tehjoker wrote:
| They're harassing Columbia too because the administration
| wasn't sufficiently genocidal, despite being genocidal.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| nit: fyi it's "toe the line"
| ivape wrote:
| 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?
| adamors wrote:
| Checks and balances are just words. So yes, they can and will
| do everything they want.
| more_corn wrote:
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| 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.
| ty6853 wrote:
| 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.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| "Ninth Circuit? Never heard of them. How many divisions
| do they have?"
| bloomingeek wrote:
| 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.
| mmooss wrote:
| > 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.
| threeseed wrote:
| > The Trump administration obeys the courts
|
| No they don't:
|
| https://apnews.com/article/deportation-immigration-south-
| sud...
| alpaca128 wrote:
| They deported a man to El Salvador against a court order
| and then ignored an order from the Supreme Court to
| return him.
| bloomingeek wrote:
| You're in a cult. Get out while you can.
| mlyle wrote:
| > 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"
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Would you consider habeas corpus a critical element of
| rule of law?
| DrillShopper wrote:
| > 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.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| 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.
| bloomingeek wrote:
| 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?
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| 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.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Many already have.
| kitsune_ wrote:
| Insane how freely the US is giving away its status as a brain
| drain magnet (context: I'm European).
| croes wrote:
| They still are, they just flipped the poles.
| dudinax wrote:
| Has there ever been an empire that committed suicide at the
| height of power?
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| All of them. "Height of their power" is a retrospective take.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| Doesn't mean their death was by suicide, though.
| yubblegum wrote:
| 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?]
| hkpack wrote:
| It is not a suicide.
|
| We are in a global war, and US and the west is taking damage.
| Terr_ wrote:
| 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."
| cozzyd wrote:
| I wonder how many foreign heads of state have children at Harvard
| ty6853 wrote:
| 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.
| oldpersonintx2 wrote:
| _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
| kochb wrote:
| 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."
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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.
| kristjansson wrote:
| I believe they've taken a different tactic here - attacking
| Harvard's ability to enroll international students, not the
| students' status directly.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The article states "existing foreign students must transfer
| or lose their legal status"; this injunction would appear
| to pause that.
| ty6853 wrote:
| The semester is already over, many of them went home.
| They'll simply be refused when they try to come back.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| It's hard to do an injunction if there is currently no
| harm.
| Animats wrote:
| 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.
| benlivengood wrote:
| > 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.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Or the wrong one.
| semiquaver wrote:
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| mperham wrote:
| It doesn't matter, the damage is done. If you're an
| international student, are you going to risk an El Salvador
| gulag?
| IAmBroom wrote:
| How does prematurely ending your college degree send one to
| El Salvador's prisons? Most of those foreign students are
| from well-off families overseas, and supported by such - or
| supported by their governments.
|
| I think you've confused this action with mindlessly
| deporting the under-documented.
| fullstop wrote:
| The government has already revoked student visas, the
| next step is deporting them to El Salvador.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Or Libya [0] or <random_third_country>.
|
| [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-
| news/2025/may/09/libya-deport...
|
| [1] e.g., https://www.theguardian.com/us-
| news/2025/may/20/trump-admini...
| cherryteastain wrote:
| There were many recent instances of even long term US
| permanent residents being sent to immigration detention
| centers. Maybe El Salvador gulag is an exaggeration, but
| being sent to a squalid prison is a very real
| possibility. Here's one from yesterday [1]. What's
| preventing them from doing the same to a student?
|
| Also, most people affected by this will not be the
| son/daughter of the president of a foreign country or a
| billionaire.
|
| [1] https://www.newsweek.com/green-card-holder-detained-
| ice-immi...
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > If you're an international student, are you going to risk
| an El Salvador gulag?
|
| Why would that be a risk?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Because they _accidentally_ sent at least one person
| there already?
|
| Who remains there, despite SCOTUS ordering his return? ht
| tps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
|
| > Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error,
| the Government dismissed it as an "oversight."
|
| > The order properly requires the Government to
| "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El
| Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it
| would have been had he not been improperly sent to El
| Salvador.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| They sent a Salvadoran who nobody cared about to El
| Salvador.
|
| Meng Wanzhou got deferential house arrest in Canada,
| ultimately followed by an embarrassing effort to forget
| the whole thing ever happened, while the official who
| ordered her arrested got yelled at by Trump for making
| him look bad.
|
| International students are on the Meng Wanzhou end of
| things. They have Clout. Nobody is going to be
| accidentally sending them anywhere.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > International students are on the Meng Wanzhou end of
| things.
|
| The _vast_ majority of them (of which there are over a
| million) don 't have a Wikipedia page, nor are they
| "Deputy chairwoman and CFO" of a company as big as
| Huawei.
|
| Rumeysa Ozturk sat in jail for six weeks for writing an
| op-ed. I assure you, there are plenty of international
| students you can mistreat without causing a major
| diplomatic incident.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > They sent a Salvadoran who nobody cared about to El
| Salvador.
|
| They sent a lot of people, mostly not Salvadoran, to El
| Salvador [0] without due process, the one Salvadoran just
| gets covered more in the news because, as well as the
| issues applicable to the others, he had a existing court
| order prohibiting his deportation to El Salvador
| _specifically_.
|
| [0] And they've done or attempted to do that to Libya,
| South Sudan, and other third countries to whom the
| deported have no connection, as well.
| tremon wrote:
| Why would you presume that risk is nonexistent? US
| residents with a better legal position than a student
| visa have already been sent there.
| animitronix wrote:
| lol what rock have you been living under?
| brazzy wrote:
| What judges say doesn't matter anymore to this
| administration. They'll just implement it anyway.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| 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.
| bamboozled wrote:
| _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.
| lobsterthief wrote:
| The percentage of Harvard international students who fall
| into this category is statistically insignificant. It's not
| even worth framing.
| goatlover wrote:
| 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.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| 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).
| LightHugger wrote:
| 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.
| kristopolous wrote:
| 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?
| 0x5f3759df-i wrote:
| They'd probably try to be more subtle about it.
| HEmanZ wrote:
| 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.
| sillyfluke wrote:
| Waterloo, McGill, and U of Toronto admissions offices should be
| spending the entire day tomorrow calling the full international
| Harvard roster ASAP.
| hangonhn wrote:
| Honestly as an American, I would seriously consider how my
| daughter can go to these top Canadian or EU schools.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| 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.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| The AI didn't tell you that the idiom is "if truth be
| told", so how useful is it really?
| ben_w wrote:
| 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
| tonfa wrote:
| Tho non trivial for non-swiss educated people to enter
| (and need German fluency for bachelor).
| xemoka wrote:
| 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...
| xeromal wrote:
| 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.
| blooalien wrote:
| "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).
| archagon wrote:
| MAGA sincerely thinks they're the real brainiacs.
| bryant wrote:
| 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.
| bogwog wrote:
| Education is obsolete thanks to AI. US is just ahead of the
| curve as usual.
|
| (/s in case it wasn't obvious)
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| I'm sure all the foreigners denied entry to Harvard will be
| happy to attend Trump University instead.
|
| /s in case not obvious
| thg wrote:
| They couldn't even if they wanted to, because that scam was
| shut down in 2011.
| mrtksn wrote:
| 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.
| wat10000 wrote:
| 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.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > 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.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| 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.
| mrtksn wrote:
| There's certainly an allotment for the rich and
| connected(Erdogan'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.
| kitsune_ wrote:
| Oxford, Cambridge, ETHZ, EPFL, etc. are probably salivating
| right now.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > 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.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| This is essentially cultural revolution from the right.
| aeternum wrote:
| 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.
| HEmanZ wrote:
| 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.
| aeternum wrote:
| Competition is a beautiful system so let those independent
| institutions compete without the government playing
| favorites by funding some and not others.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| It's not even clear that higher education produces liberals.
| Half of Trump-land went to Ivy Leagues.
| achristmascarl wrote:
| 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...
| ty6853 wrote:
| 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.
| yongjik wrote:
| 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.
| cozzyd wrote:
| It's too bad Barron was too dumb to enroll at Harvard so
| his admission couldn't be rescinded
| nicoburns wrote:
| As a sovereign nation, China is in a somewhat different
| position than Harvard which is subject to US law.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > 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?
| yongjik wrote:
| 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.
| mcphage wrote:
| > 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.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| Classic schoolyard bully behavior.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| can you give an example?
| magicalist wrote:
| > _can you give an example?_
|
| https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-
| elec...
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| thanks!
| Larrikin wrote:
| Everything Columbia University did and what they got in
| return.
| dionian wrote:
| 'ratting out' how? this implies they did something wrong
| bilbo0s wrote:
| 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.
| ty6853 wrote:
| 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.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Under 8 U.S.C. SS 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 SS 214.3(g) and SS 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 SS 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
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| 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)
| dmvdoug wrote:
| 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. SS 1372.
| Needless to say, "protest activity" is not included.
| ivape wrote:
| 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.
| adamors wrote:
| 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.
| ivape wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| 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.
| mmooss wrote:
| See this NY Times article from the other day:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/18/us/project-esther-
| heritag...
| vediflo wrote:
| Of course it's about the Gaza protestors, let's not pretend
| otherwise.
| pron wrote:
| 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.
| sva_ wrote:
| > _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
| Terr_ wrote:
| 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
| gorbachev wrote:
| 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.
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| It's also crazy (read: unconstitutional) to punish students who
| _do_ have everything to do with these protests.
| emsign wrote:
| 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.
| gosub100 wrote:
| Schools have had the "threatening speech" rule for years now.
| Sounds like some Jewish students "felt unsafe" by some free
| speech demonstrators. Trump says "ok, you are fine with
| kicking people out who made LGBT students feel uncomfortable,
| afford the same protection to Jewish students". I fully
| support this. 1st amendment is the first amendment, it was
| thrown out for one group so throw it out for another.
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| Private schools can create and enforce their own rules how
| they wish. The United States government is forbidden from
| creating or enforcing rules on content of speech.
|
| It's actually only a 1st Amendment question in one case and
| not the other. Looks like they tricked ya though!
|
| (Technically it's a 1st Amendment question in both cases in
| that private entities have a 1st Amendment right _to create
| rules for their own campuses_ )
| ty6853 wrote:
| In regards to protest though, the activity they are
| interested in, that is a right of 'the people to
| peaceably assemble' per 1A.
|
| Non-immigrants are not 'the people' per current
| interpretation of the constitution. If they were people,
| they would have all the rights ascribed to 'the people'
| including right to bear arms. Non immigrants do not have
| a right to bear arms, thus it cannot logically follow
| they are [the] people.
| bigyabai wrote:
| > Non immigrants do not have a right to bear arms, thus
| it cannot logically follow they are [the] people.
|
| I take it you failed your bar examination.
| ty6853 wrote:
| You can read here, but in short 'the people' are those
| who are members of the 'political community' according to
| certain criteria. Generally this doesn't include non-
| immigrants.
|
| https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.
| 214...
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| > immigrants are not 'the people' per current
| interpretation of the constitution.
|
| Not true. The meaning of "the people" is interpreted
| differently from Amendment to Amendment. In the 1st and
| 5th Amendments, it has historically been interpreted to
| include non-citizens (even illegal ones!) while in the
| 2nd Amendment it has been interpreted much more narrowly.
|
| And regardless, this in no way authorizes the government
| to compel _Harvard_ to do anything. Even in the most
| fascist interpretation you can dream up, it would mean
| _the government itself_ is allowed to curtail their
| assembly. Harvard has no obligations (under the 1st
| Amendment!) to do any such thing.
| ty6853 wrote:
| I'm not sure anyone can take seriously the proposition
| that 'the people' is Jekyll and Hyded amendment by
| amendment, especially when the constitution is completely
| devoid of any suggestion it is interpreted as such.
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| That's a huge bummer because that is very clearly and
| unequivocally what the case law shows.
| ty6853 wrote:
| Constitution is the supreme law. The constitution does
| not make an amendment by amendment distinction what 'the
| people' is.
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| Ah... I see we're dealing with a much more fundamental
| misunderstanding than I thought!
|
| Are you American/did you attend American middle or high
| schools?
| ty6853 wrote:
| >he meaning of "the people" is interpreted differently
| from Amendment to Amendment. In the 1st and 5th
| Amendments,
|
| I went to the one where they didn't teach 'the people'
| was written anywhere in the 5th amendment.
|
| I'm definitely not being interested in being lectured by
| those who think imaginary words exist in the 5th
| amendment.
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| Whoops! That was meant to be a 4. But yeah, like a 7th
| grade civics class (in the US) would've educated you on
| the role of case law as it relates to interpreting the
| Constitution. Presumably your home country didn't spend
| much time on it though, which makes sense!
| omnee wrote:
| 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.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| "To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law"
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related story in The Crimson:
|
| https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/5/23/trump-admin-rev...
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| 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.
| Aperocky wrote:
| Are they not?
| Boogie_Man wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > In what way would you like to hold them responsible?
|
| Being shamed into a little introspection wouldn't hurt.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| This goes both ways.
| vaidhy wrote:
| Voters face the consequence for their voting. So, in that
| meaning, they are responsible for the actions of the
| representatives.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Except sometimes the first order consequences are far greater
| than second order, and you vote for people who have first
| order consequences on others.
| vaidhy wrote:
| yes, but that is just a form a political attrition war
| squigz wrote:
| I'm a bit confused what you're suggesting here. In what way
| should people be "held responsible for the actions of
| representatives"?
| shiandow wrote:
| 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?
| orochimaaru wrote:
| Exactly what "consequence" are you talking about? Voting by
| design is protected from retribution.
| ben_w wrote:
| Presumably https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Leopards_Eating_Peo
| ple%27s_Fa...
| tormeh wrote:
| 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".
| bluGill wrote:
| 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...)
| krapp wrote:
| 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.
| cycomanic wrote:
| 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.
| orochimaaru wrote:
| 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.
| woopwoop wrote:
| 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.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| 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.
| Jensson wrote:
| > 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.
| pedroma wrote:
| I would just never vote if that's the case.
| paxys wrote:
| Harvard as an institution is older than the USA. It will survive
| 4 years of a lunatic's presidency.
| tintor wrote:
| or 8+ years
| sva_ wrote:
| He will already have serves his second (and therefore last)
| term, or what do you mean?
| nullhole wrote:
| Probably this:
|
| https://www.trumpstore.com/product/trump-2028-hat/
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| 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".
| r5Khe wrote:
| They know it's not valid. That's why they want to rewrite
| the rules.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| 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.
| segfaultex wrote:
| 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.
| thinkcontext wrote:
| I took it to mean whoever succeeds him could be just as
| bad.
| Rudybega wrote:
| He has spoken repeatedly about running for a third term.
| HEmanZ wrote:
| 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.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| 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.
| h4ck_th3_pl4n3t wrote:
| 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.
| pstuart wrote:
| 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.
| vediflo wrote:
| As it's going, probably 8 years.
| hypeatei wrote:
| 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.
| daedrdev wrote:
| 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.
| kurtis_reed wrote:
| Things that have been around for a long time are the ones
| most likely to continue to exist, it's not a fallacy.
| shnock wrote:
| They are not, that is expectation of future performance
| based upon past. Reality is too complex and dynamic for
| that.
| sorenjan wrote:
| 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.
| tantalor wrote:
| TRO in 5, 4, 3...
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Yeah this seems like it'll follow the script of the AP and
| Perkins Coie.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| 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.
| busyant wrote:
| 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.
| neilv wrote:
| 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?
| philistine wrote:
| You're overthinking this. The university is vocal about keeping
| its independence. That's enough to warrant retaliation from
| this president.
| Alupis wrote:
| 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...
| rat87 wrote:
| Trump is a billionaire. A billionaire who got into an ivy
| based on connections. Who is asking for bribes and handing
| out favors to other rich people.
| Alupis wrote:
| Can multiple things not be true at the same time? Or is
| it one of those "our" billionaires type of thing?
| j_maffe wrote:
| No it's the fact that it's the exact same phenomenon of a
| rich club getting their way it just happens to be another
| rich club. There's nothing to celebrate here as you did
| in your previous comment.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Multiple things can be true at the same time.
|
| But they aren't, in this case. Trump and his ilk are
| attacking academia because they think that universities
| are all woke. There's no other reasoning required.
| Leaders within his community have said this in public
| very clearly. The goal is to destroy academia.
| LargeWu wrote:
| And attacking Harvard, specifically, because they won't
| bend the knee. There's not really anything more to it
| than that. Trump is a petty, small man who cares only
| about enriching himself and punishing his perceived
| enemies.
| truthyTables wrote:
| Sure, in writing anything can be true.
|
| Superman fought Lex Luthor in Action Comics #NN and on
| and on
|
| Most people just default to faith in their native
| political and religious traditions. So yeah "our guy is
| better than their guy" and fuck your individual self,
| you're on the one true team normalization, becomes the
| default by sure lack of will of enough people to rock the
| boat even gently through public debate and discussion.
|
| I mean this crowd can circumlocute an endless set of
| rhetorical perspectives. Ground truth is this group is
| outnumbered by Trump #1 and all kinds of other tribal
| group thinks.
| dandellion wrote:
| Going by Occam's razor, grandparent's hypothesis is more
| likely to be correct than yours.
| outside1234 wrote:
| 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.
| archagon wrote:
| 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.
| zombiwoof wrote:
| Project 2025 is about uneducated people now having power and
| trying to stop other people from becoming educated
| HenryBemis wrote:
| 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).
| johnmaguire wrote:
| This is another good resource:
| https://www.project2025.observer/
| blitzar wrote:
| Skip the reading (it's too hard) - watch the documentary
| version instead, Idiocracy (2006)
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Totally different situation. President Camacho found the
| smartest man in the world to fix his problems.
| blitzar wrote:
| Good point. In our timeline America found the dumbest man
| in the world to fix its problems.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| 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.
| losteric wrote:
| Project 2025 is only the "part 1" doc, and they're
| tracking to wrap most of it up this year.
| couchdb_ouchdb wrote:
| 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.
| alecst wrote:
| 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.
| lupusreal wrote:
| I see more than a hundred comments in this discussion already
| but no mention of Israel. Is everybody trying to avoid saying
| it?
|
| The DHS letter to Harvard specifically says that this is
| because Harvard's campus has been "hostile to Jews" and
| "promotes pro-Hamas sympathies".
|
| In other words, this is the Zionist Trump administration
| attacking Harvard because Harvard allows their students to
| speak out against the genocide Israel is waging against
| Palestine. Clearly Trump is Israel First.
| esafak wrote:
| Though I would not have guessed, it seems more about China:
|
| "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."
|
| https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-
| loses...
| IAmBroom wrote:
| Trump cares less about the Uyghar's than the Jews.
|
| Though I doubt he could find either Israel or China on a
| map.
| duskwuff wrote:
| Precisely. This administration's concern for the Uyghurs
| is skin-deep; it's essentially just a justification to
| punish any unauthorized connections to China. The actual
| details of the conflict (for instance, that the Uyghurs
| are ethnically Muslim) aren't relevant to them.
| wat10000 wrote:
| That's part of it, but another large part is that Republicans
| are hostile to higher education in general, and this serves
| as a convenient excuse.
| decimalenough wrote:
| I don't think the Trump admin gives a rat's ass about Jews.
| It's an excuse for legal action, in the same way that
| "fentanyl" was the excuse for tariffs on Canada.
| lupusreal wrote:
| This is one part of a large pattern of Republicans trying
| to end-run around the First Ammendment specifically to
| defend Israel from criticism. For instance, in Texas they
| make school teachers sign contracts that include terms
| forbidding criticism of Israel. Republicans have also been
| extremely reliable supporters of unconstitutional Anti-BDS
| laws.
|
| Make no mistake, the Republican party (and half the
| Democratic Party FWIW) is fully captured by the Israel
| lobby.
| Y-bar wrote:
| You're probably right, they seem to care more about Israel
| and not Jews (or Palestinians), and especially care about
| "Israel as a concept" and to use it as a means to an end.
| josefresco wrote:
| Top donor in the last 3 elections (combined) to Trump is
| Adelson Clinic/Miriam Adelson. She didn't spend all that
| money for nothing.
| rodgerd wrote:
| You're correct that Christian Zionists only care about Jews
| to the extent that the right number of them will be in
| Israel to be killed as part of the End Times prophecies
| based off of Revelations. But they are fanatical supporters
| of the state of Israel because they see it as necessary to
| bring about the rapture.
| dzdt wrote:
| The stated reasons are not the real reasons. None of this is
| above-board. If you pay too much attention to what phony
| reasons are stated you will just be lead around by your nose.
|
| The part of the real reason that is made very obvious is that
| Harvard is not rolling over and doing whatever the regime
| asks of it, and attacks of the administration on Harvard will
| continue until that capitulation occurs.
| logicchains wrote:
| >Harvard is not rolling over and doing whatever the regime
| asks of it
|
| The regime only started asking such things after large Pro-
| Palestinian protests took place at Harvard. That's
| absolutely the root cause, especially since Trump took
| hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from committed
| Zionists.
| benlivengood wrote:
| Trump is also an authoritarian and so is committed to
| strengthening existing regimes he sees as "strong".
| Presumably on the assumption that they will be "allies"
| or at least give him something back. Pro-Palestinian
| protests are very anti-authoritarian (next thing you
| know, those same protesters will be against mass U.S.
| deportations) and so a priority target for suppression.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _The regime only started asking such things after large
| Pro-Palestinian protests took place at Harvard._
|
| The regime didn't even exist until after those protests,
| so let's not go too post hoc here.
| josefresco wrote:
| Yes, and it's because _they_ wrote big checks:
| https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-
| organizat...
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| >The DHS letter to Harvard specifically says that this is
| because Harvard's campus has been "hostile to Jews" and
| "promotes pro-Hamas sympathies".
|
| I've seen no evidence that they are not. So much for
| inclusion and acceptance from one of the nations leading
| progressive institutions.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| far be it from me to defend harvard but it's on the accuser
| to provide positive evidence for their claim, not the
| defendant to provide negative evidence against the claim.
| tormeh wrote:
| 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.
| simonh wrote:
| The previous swamp hasn't gone anywhere, your just not
| noticing it due to the enormous size of the new one.
| nkurz wrote:
| 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.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > 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.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| 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.
| alephnerd wrote:
| 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).
| ajross wrote:
| 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?
| alephnerd wrote:
| 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
| ajross wrote:
| > 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.
| bananalychee wrote:
| 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.
| JCattheATM wrote:
| 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....
| ethbr1 wrote:
| 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.
| JCattheATM wrote:
| 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.
| ModernMech wrote:
| 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.
| JCattheATM wrote:
| Yeah, McConnell really acted like scum by doing that. But
| it's fair to say RBG didn't help things.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| neilv wrote:
| 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.
| 9dev wrote:
| 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.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| 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...
| cde-v wrote:
| Any alumni in a position of power to do something isn't
| interested in the prestige anymore, they already got their
| use out it.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| 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.
| j_maffe wrote:
| > truth-seeking
|
| Amazing double-speak
| lurk2 wrote:
| How is that double-speak?
| j_maffe wrote:
| Why don't you instead explain what you meant by "going
| back to being truth-seeking"? I'm sure that you can come
| up with examples that are not just things conservatives
| get scared of.
| delichon wrote:
| 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
| jml78 wrote:
| It is just crazy to me.....fuck Hamas but Israel
| committing genocide should be condemn by our govt, not
| openly supported.
| JCattheATM wrote:
| 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.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Allowing students to (allegedly) be harassed on the basis
| of their race is what is under contention, not the
| broader notion of academic freedom.
| JCattheATM wrote:
| That's the excuse being used, sure.
| lurk2 wrote:
| > They are literally just fighting for basic academic
| freedoms.
|
| Such as?
| j_maffe wrote:
| To have international students be part of the university
| and contributing to its research?
| axus wrote:
| Freedom of speech and assembly.
|
| Visas and academic accreditation shouldn't be leverage
| against speech the government disagrees with, they should
| be granted and removed according to a predictable and
| unbiased process.
|
| Really all government actions should follow a predictable
| and unbiased process, a.k.a "The Law".
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Just, throwing this out there, but it seems a distinct
| possibility that this Administration doesn't hold the
| same regard towards "Rule of Law" as did previous
| Administrations.
|
| I'm not altogether certain I'd rely on "Rule of Law" to
| save anyone in the current environment.
| JCattheATM wrote:
| That's not just a possibility, that's cold hard fact
| that's been proven repeatedly in just the last few
| months.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| Kristi Noem doesn't know what Habeas Corpus is; she
| defined it as "the constitutional right of the president
| to protect America from terrorists" or some such
| nonsense,so - ya think?
| fossuser wrote:
| 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.
| dontdoxurself2 wrote:
| 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...
| bilbo0s wrote:
| 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.
| mxuribe wrote:
| 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. ;-)
| ethbr1 wrote:
| 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.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > 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.
| nashashmi wrote:
| After these incidents, it is evident that the power networks
| were always in Israel.
|
| Israelis are upset at the student protests and are influencing
| the university to crush them.
|
| Universities thought they were to uphold principles but it
| turns out that was only cover for doing certain things that
| made others happy.
|
| Strange times indeed
| moshegramovsky wrote:
| Do you know any Israelis? What makes you think Israelis are
| behind this?
| nashashmi wrote:
| moshe,
|
| > Israelis are upset at the student protests and are
| influencing the university to crush them.
|
| As someone affiliated with Israel yourself, what would you
| suggest?
| littlestymaar wrote:
| You are attributing too much power to the Israeli. Trump
| signed a ceasefire with Houthi last week that doesn't
| protects Israel: that is, the US stops bombing them as long
| as they don't attack US ships, and attacks against Israel
| aren't a casus belli for the US anymore.
|
| The Republican party is strongly favorable to Israel, but
| since Netanyahou pissed Trump, they don't get special
| treatment anymore, that's what happen when your foreign
| policy depends on the mood of a single guy. The old alliance
| and ideological alignment can mean nothing overnight just
| because the supreme leader said so.
| nashashmi wrote:
| I am not sure why you think overseas policy going against
| Israel's wishes directly means Israel doesn't have
| influence in the United States.
|
| I find it awkward you think that Israel is not giving
| special treatment to the US if the US does not do something
| in favor of Israel in foreign affairs. Awkward.
|
| More awkward is that you think the US is not protecting
| Israel if it has a ceasefire with Houthis.
| pge wrote:
| The administration's letter to Harvard (which they later
| claimed to have sent in error) made it clear that their
| intent is to root out what they perceive as liberal
| ideological bias at Harvard - nothing really to do with
| Israel, that was just an excuse. Whether there is a liberal
| bias is something I will leave others to debate (and if there
| is, whether that provides grounds for federal action, given
| the freedoms afforded by the first amendmemt), but I think
| the Administration's actions had more to do with throwing red
| meat to the base than it did with an factual inquiry
| nashashmi wrote:
| You are right that Trump is using the protests to further
| his agenda! And some are scolding him for doing that.
|
| They want him to only focus on the anti Israel protests
| instead of also pursuing anti woke policies.
|
| And he made clear that both anti Israel protests (aka
| antisemitism) and liberal leanings are affecting the
| university's status.
| iAMkenough wrote:
| If you speak out against the government, the government will
| retaliate. Simple as that.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| 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.
| malfist wrote:
| That is not how it is supposed to work in the US.
| daveguy wrote:
| > 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.
| bgwalter wrote:
| censored.
| daveguy wrote:
| > Were Harvard and Yale as a whole thought to be part of
| the deep state?
|
| Academics / Universities / "Elites" having influence over
| the "deep state" was definitely part of the con that was
| sold.
|
| Your big "bad culture warriors" is another person's, just
| trying to be decent.
|
| But yeah, we should rip medicaid away from people, starve
| food aid recipients, and deport people without due process
| because libs bad or something. Oh, and they should destroy
| the most prolific research system in the world while
| they're at it.
| bgwalter wrote:
| poster attacks a strawman that hasn't been mentioned
| once.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| 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.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| 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 (?).
| pen2l wrote:
| It feels edifying to read your take on this, but I'm
| increasingly of the view that in the age of instantaneous
| free flow of information where capable charismatic
| strongmen can singularly convince the hearts and minds of
| people, this classical take doesn't really hold as much
| anymore. Whatever power Congress had in the books in this
| once carefully constructed framework of checks and
| balances, it's apparently nullified because the President's
| de facto power is greater in unforeseeable ways.
| Animats wrote:
| > 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
| ckemere wrote:
| 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!).
| Hilift wrote:
| > 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...
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| 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.
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| If you're downvoting, could you tell me why? I'm curious.
|
| I'm just telling it like it is, as far as I can tell.
| tcgv wrote:
| 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.
| onetimeusename wrote:
| 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.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| 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.
| apercu wrote:
| If you voted for this admin, please go get your own flag and give
| me mine back.
| boothby wrote:
| 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-...
| josefritzishere wrote:
| 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.
| dudinax wrote:
| 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.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| 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.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| 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.
| Rapzid wrote:
| 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.
| jleyank wrote:
| What will the HN crowd do when Y Combinator's banned from foreign
| participants?
| anonymousDan wrote:
| As if the powers that be at YCombinator wouldn't roll over for
| Trump like all the other tech quislings.
| criddell wrote:
| Would you characterize Harvard as rolling over for Trump?
| fzeroracer wrote:
| 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
| alephnerd wrote:
| 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
| inverted_flag wrote:
| 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
| bananapub wrote:
| 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.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| 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.
| decimalenough wrote:
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| bananapub wrote:
| can't wait to hear what all those earnest "Worried About Free
| Speech In Universities" right wingers will have to say about
| this, now it's just not getting heckled for being an arsehole
| Loughla wrote:
| The problem is your argument expects them to be arguing in good
| faith. Which they are not doing.
| legitster wrote:
| 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.
| edaemon wrote:
| 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.
| callc wrote:
| > 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.
| bamboozled wrote:
| It's already been lawyers and judges, not going great...
| angrytechie wrote:
| 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.
| baggle wrote:
| The issue here seems to be that Harvard is not turning over
| student records that can be used to determine if a student visa
| holder has violated their visa.
|
| Some of the request is for video recordings of law breaking.
| Absolutely for any student visa holder who breaks the law their
| visa should be reviewed to determine if it should be revoked. And
| if Harvard has video evidence of this they should turn it over.
|
| Part of the problem here though is that Harvard did not expel
| students for expellable offenses. If they enforced their policies
| on all students equally no matter the political position the
| state department wouldn't need to revoke the visas by reviewing
| the materials, as the visa would be revoked because they got
| expelled.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > student records that can be used to determine if a student
| visa holder has violated their visa
|
| What do they need from Harvard to determine if an individual
| has violated their visa? Does the administration not have a
| list of students on a visa? (Surely they do, given that's their
| job.) Do they not have evidence of a crime? (Surely they do,
| otherwise there's no problem. But also apparently not, because
| they'd just use that.) What's missing?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| "What do they need from Harvard to determine if an individual
| has violated their visa?"
|
| Because the administration has chosen to include define a
| range of activity which is not obvious from other sources as
| incompatible with visa status, including membership in
| certain student organizations.
|
| > Do they not have evidence of a crime?
|
| "Crime" is not the issue, and, no, they don't, that's the
| problem -- they want information from Harvard with no basis
| other than the fact that students are on a visa, so that they
| can use it for fishing expeditions for excuses to deny visa
| status.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > What do they need from Harvard to determine if an
| individual has violated their visa? Does the administration
| not have a list of students on a visa? (Surely they do, given
| that's their job.) Do they not have evidence of a crime?
| (Surely they do, otherwise there's no problem. But also
| apparently not, because they'd just use that.) What's
| missing?
|
| None of that really matter Harvard is required to report this
| data to maintain good standing in the Student and Exchange
| Visitor Program. Failure to do so can result to removal from
| the program and as such the ability to bring people in on
| student visas. That is the path they are attacking. Harvard
| has also been very public about it's refusable to comply with
| the legal requirements of the program so it's a pretty slam
| dunk case.
|
| I think Harvard just didn't think the administration would
| actually follow through.
| bink wrote:
| If laws were broken the DOJ can get a warrant for the evidence,
| if they believe it exists. Blanket requests for all information
| about students is unconstitutional and should be resisted.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Can't DHS just look at local court records for this sort of
| thing? I imagine Harvard turns over evidence to the police and
| the courts when there's suspicion of a crime.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| 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.
| jmclnx wrote:
| No :) The 3 issues are
|
| 1. Racism
|
| 2. Racism
|
| 3. Racism
| ReptileMan wrote:
| 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.
| algorias wrote:
| You're right, the issue is indeed that Trumps opponents
| believe that everything is about race.
| ithkuil wrote:
| 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?
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| 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.
| lobsterthief wrote:
| 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.
| woggy wrote:
| I don't see the US surviving the Trump administration.
| Spivak wrote:
| 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.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| We won't even get those chances if either Roberts or Barrett
| roll over.
| input_sh wrote:
| 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.
| kurtis_reed wrote:
| Oh please
| beardyw wrote:
| See - Anti-intellectualism
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism
| input_sh wrote:
| Even more specific:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
| jorblumesea wrote:
| neo-fascism because eggs were expensive, nice job American
| voters.
| jaoane wrote:
| It's not surprising that people chose being able to afford
| food over intellectualism.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| it's hard to tell if you're acknowledging the false
| dichotomy, or advocating for one side of it.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| 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.
| suzzer99 wrote:
| They chose racism, 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.
| zeven7 wrote:
| That is extremely concerning
| munchler wrote:
| 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.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Using cognitive dissonance is a tried and true way to stop
| people from thinking too much about what you're really
| trying to say.
| Rapzid wrote:
| 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.
| howard941 wrote:
| Another day, different shit. This is what flooding the zone
| means.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| 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.
| markvdb wrote:
| 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 .
| jachee wrote:
| Updated archive: https://archive.ph/UxKGi
| guywithahat wrote:
| Honestly I'm just mad at Harvard, they're playing chicken with
| their students future to try and one-up Trump. They should just
| end their DEI programs and comply with federal law, it's
| literally that simple.
|
| For my entire life Republicans have been too scared to do
| anything that may hurt the economy, and so while Democrats took
| over major institutions by banning their competition, Republicans
| just rolled over. It's good to see they're actually standing up
| for themselves this time around
| gigatexal wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-22 23:01 UTC)