"...once the government did take away funding and present its ultimatum—completely outside the process specified in Title VI law—Columbia’s administration quickly agreed to everything asked, to howls of outrage from the left-leaning faculty. Yet despite its total capitulation, the government has continued to hold Columbia’s medical research and other science funding hostage, while inventing a never-ending list of additional demands..."
I think the clearest and most cogent articulation I have seen was given by Marc Andreesen back in January, in a 4 hour podcast on Trump policy with Lex Friedman, starting at 58 min. His position was that University reform is not possible. Instead, the institutions themselves need to be destroyed so that new institutions can replace them with more agreeable values [1].
Relevant highlights IMO:
> I mean, think of the term academic freedom, and then think of what these people have done to it. It’s gone. That entire thing was fake and is completely rotten. And these people are completely giving up the entire moral foundation of the system that’s been built for them, which by the way, is paid for virtually 100% by taxpayer money.
...
>the population at large is going to realize the corruption in their industry and it’s going to withdraw the funding.
...
>Okay, so let’s go through it. So the universities are funded by four primary sources of federal funding. The big one is a federal student loan program, which is in the many trillions of dollars at this point, and then only spiraling way faster than inflation. That’s number one. Number two is federal research funding, which is also very large. And you probably know that when a scientist at the university gets a research grant, the university rakes as much as 70% of the money for central uses. Number three is tax exemption at the operating level, which is based on the idea that these are nonprofit institutions as opposed to, let’s say, political institutions. And then number four is tax exemptions at the endowment level, which is the financial buffer that these places have. Anybody who’s been close to a university budget will basically see that what would happen if you withdrew those sources of federal taxpayer money, and then for the state schools, the state money, they all instantly go bankrupt. And then you could rebuild. Then you could rebuild.
...
>Suppose you and I want to start a new university, and we want to hire all the free thinking professors, and we want to have the place that fixes all this, practically speaking, we can’t do it because we can’t get access to that money.
...
>Charlie Munger actually had the best comment, this great investor, Charlie Munger has great comment. He was once asked, it’s like General Electric was going through all these challenges, and he was asked at a Q&A. It said, “How would you fix the culture at General Electric?” And he said, “Fix the culture at General Electric?” He said, “I couldn’t even fix the culture at a restaurant.”
It’s insane, like obviously you can’t do it. Nobody in business thinks you can do that, it’s impossible. Now look, having said all that, I should also express this because I have a lot of friends who work at these places and are involved in various attempts to fix these. I hope that I’m wrong, I would love to be wrong, I would love for the underpants gnome step two to be something clear and straightforward that they can figure out how to do. I would love to fix it, I’d love to see them come back to their spoken principles, I think that’d be great, I’d love to see the professors with tenure get bravery, it would be fantastic
For what it’s worth, thank you for posting this. I disagree with it. But at least it’s a coherent argument.
(Well, it’s wrong in assuming these institutions would go bankrupt without federal funding. They wouldn’t. The Tier II schools would. But Harvard is absolutely fine running as a private corporation.)
Thanks. For the record, I directionally agree with the problem statement, but not the proposed solution.
I dont think it would work unless they find a way to impact the public schools. They has far greater PR and legal challenges, but the institutions themselves are far more vulnerable to funding cuts if those are surmounted. For example, the University of California system has a 30 billion endowment, but supports 300k students plus 250k faculty, staff, and administrators. However, the UC endowments are growing rapidly, up from 20 billion in 2019.
If the federal government can somehow blow up all the state universities (e.g. loan denial), it wont matter if there are some Ivy League holdouts. Even then, this is probably worse than the problem.
End result: substantially reduced student immigration along with native brain drain out of the US. Other countries reap the benefits of our best and brightest. New institutions fail to attract cutting-edge researchers and become ideology-driven vocational schools in the Soviet tradition.
Also, Marc Andreesen is a repugnant neoreactionary toady.
I personally dont think his extreme position is realistic. It would take too long. Foundations are too big, public schools pose a major challenge, and the public is mixed on the topic
I think a much more interesting idea is breaking the Council for Higher Education Accreditation monopoly on accreditation, and replacing it with some standard metrics.
Letting incumbent universities decide if new universities can exist causes the same problems as giving hospitals a veto over new competition, and education is ripe for disruption.
I would love to see accreditation to any program that produces students that could pass some standard tests or metrics.
The shame IMO is that this is going to further polarize people along the lines of "Yay, stick it to those rich schools" and "Omg, this is literally the second coming of Hitler."
It would be lovely to have a broad conversation about why it makes no sense for the government to play HR manager for universities, and ALSO ask why billions in tax money is perennially given to ultra-wealthy, exclusive universities who are often more than capable of finding opportunities for profit in the private sector. Because the question seems to be: "Is Harvard capable of remaining solvent without a couple of billion per year? If that's the case, what's going on there? What is the taxpayer getting out of this that it wouldn't be able to get otherwise? Is there no other funding model?"
Which opens the question of whether or not cutting funding is likely to get what the government wants, or further drive universities to seek funding from potentially hostile foreign governments.
And I think depending on where the money goes and how it's spent, sometimes the answers range across a whole spectrum. But as I said, instead of that conversation, we're stuck with more politics as a team sport.
> "...more than capable of finding opportunities for profit in the private sector..."
You actually want research institutions to be even more patent-happy moneygrubbers than they already are today? That's going to keep even more technologies and drugs unaffordable without licensing and hold back progress.
That seems like a false dichotomy, unless you're really saying the two options are "Billions in federal funds" or "Ivy Leagues will become even more horrific in the world of patent law." In fact rewarding such bad behavior with billions seems insane, surely that money could be better spent on institutions willing to commit to less combative practices.
> The paper you linked is topically - and perhaps a bit ironically - co-authored with an Israel funded thinktank.
It's also made by a number of respected academics and academic institutions, and all you've done is ignore the content in favor of attacking a respectable source.
The fundamental question is about basing research funding on merit: Should government funding go to the best researchers with best ideas, regardless of which university they are affiliated with? Rich elite universities can attract many of the best researchers, because of the resources and prestige they offer. And those researchers then win competitive grants from the government.
Some argue that research grants should be deliberately spread wider in order to fund a wider range of ideas. Instead of considering each funding call in isolation and awarding grants to the top 10-20% of applications, maybe existing funding should be considered a negative merit, regardless of its source. Or maybe there should be stricter limits on how many grants a single PI can have at the same time.
I am not up to date on all details, but how exactly is it overreach? It's a good question whether government should give money (9bn but I could be wrong) for research, but lets put that aside for now. (who determines what "research" is this? it could be quantum mechanics, or it could be "gender studies")
Curious as to why do you think this is an overreach.
"By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement
merit-based hiring policies, and cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related practices among faculty, staff, and leadership. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All existing and prospective faculty
shall be reviewed for plagiarism and Harvard’s plagiarism policy consistently enforced. All hiring and related data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028."
Trump administration is now the defacto HR department for Harvard, and eventually all universities.
> cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
But! Also! "The University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse."
Cease all DEI programs, but we require 'viewpoint diversity'...
"Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity."
You say that they are "demands". As if the taxpayers should automatically give billions to Harvard, no matter what Harvard does. That's insanity (to me at least).
"Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment."
"The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the
country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement. "
So basically, they are claiming that the Federal government will not invest money until Harvard gets rid of the communist/socialist rhetoric. As far as I can see, they are free to burn their money to fund communist ideals. Who says that they deserve taxpayers money by default?
It's amazing how communist problems always end with: "you eventually run out of other people's money"
> they are claiming that the Federal government will not invest money until Harvard gets rid of the communist/socialist rhetoric
They're changing the terms of the trade after a contract was signed. At the very least, this is the U.S. defaulting on commitments.
That said, I broadly agree with you--the U.S. shouldn't be funding Harvard. And the public shouldn't have a say--or continuing economic stake, the way we do with publicly-funded research--in what Harvard does and produces.
This is Trump's trademark move, writ large. We've all read the reports of him refusing to pay contractors after work is done, ignoring the contracts and saying "sue me". This is who he is, and he's just bringing this playbook (back) to the federal government, cheered on by people until they're personally and directly affected by this behaviour.
Research grants come with stipulations on how research is conducted, these grants were already granted so this is essentially breaking their contract. So there is no by default grant, generally the grants also don't delve into what the school can teach and hire for teaching which is very much protected by first amendment rights.
Considering a private university rights to hire and teach as they wish as communism is definitely an odd definition of communism I've rarely seen.
As if the taxpayers should automatically give billions to Harvard, no matter what Harvard does. That's insanity (to me at least).
AFAIK, Harvard doesn't get money for nothing -- it's primarily for research. The demands are orthogonal to what Harvard provides: top tier talent for whatever the government sees fit to fund.
It's amazing how communist problems always end with: "you eventually run out of other people's money"
It's always someone else's money. Roads suck? You probably have too many roads for other people's money to fix. The list goes on. Libertarian dreams of self-sufficiently die when their money has to pay for things. Unless you meant feudalism or plutocracy, where wealth primarily flows away from the working class.
Humans are creatures of community. There will always be taxes for any sufficiently developed people, the only hope is they serve the public good and aren't funneled into the oligarchs' pockets.
"In fact, it is neither strategic for the university, nor respectful of the donors’ intent. It is neither financially responsible/prudent, nor is it permissible."
Did the donors intend to have the entire university system ground down to the point where the ability to fund the donors' plans is completely gone? Donors funding programs to encourage research in to areas of science the Trump administration wants to outlaw... they should just ... sit on the money? Return the money to donors and say "sorry, 49% of voters decided that your family's wishes are illegal"? You want to fund weather research in to climate change, and set up a legacy endowment with your university. Research in to that is outlawed in 2027. What should the university do now, knowing this sort of thing is coming?
The article was about covid. This is about an actual attack on the essence of what makes the universities attractive to donations in the first place.
I'm not flippant about it, and do not take the suggestion of using some endowment money for 'non-specified purposes' lightly. I don't think it should be completely off the table. The Trump administration has relied on people and companies responding to their aggression and violation of norms within the bounds of normalcy. None of this is normal. We are being gish galloped with attacks on all fronts of societal norms at once - threatening law firms, universities, students, immigrants. Attack the powerless and those with some power to protect those powerless at the same time.
I was taking issue with this framing: "I don't think the institution will run out of money any time soon. It's a $50bn prop trading firm with a university attached."
Trump administration is both demanding a end to all DEI programs, and mandating "viewpoint diversity".
"Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity."
"Viewpoint diversity" looks like it means something other than a literal interpretation. Without a definition of that phrase, it would appear that "abandoning DEI" would conflict with "viewpoint diversity".
Give what "freedom of speech absolutism" meant in practice, I'm guessing that "viewpoint diversity" is a demand for primacy of far-right views, but I could certainly be wrong
> I'm guessing that "viewpoint diversity" is a demand for primacy of far-right views, but I could certainly be wrong.
I can't really see it as a call for anything else. Conservatives often self-select out of attending universities in the first place, so there's already a perceived imbalance.
Good to see someone call out both the government authoritarianism and the academic echo chambers that precipitated it. Clean hands are in short supply here.
I think Scott's take here is fair because he acknowledges that most of the Ivy League did (and largely still does) have huge problems with adequately protecting Jewish students and perspectives, and more broadly, intellectual viewpoint diversity of any kind. And prior administrations did push regulatory and funding requirements and policies to support DEI and other hot point issues to an extent that was clearly agenda biased.
But, as Scott observes, unfortunately the current administration has gone far beyond trying to correct those excesses to a more neutral or balanced median and is, instead, doing the same things (and much worse) that "the other guys" did, just in the opposite direction. That makes the current administration just as wrong as the prior ones were. Only now we're hearing much more about it because the current agenda-driven biases are ones that >85% of academia doesn't hold themselves.
> and is, instead, doing the same things "the other guys" did, just in the opposite direction.
I don't think this is a fair characterization at all. Below, is copied from an NYT article [https://archive.ph/ONxlX]. Which of these did previous administrations do?
===
Some of the actions that the Trump administration demanded of Harvard were:
* Conducting plagiarism checks on all current and prospective faculty members.
* Sharing all its hiring data with the Trump administration, and subjecting itself to audits of its hiring while “reforms are being implemented,” at least through 2028.
* Providing all admissions data to the federal government, including information on both rejected and admitted applicants, sorted by race, national origin, grade-point average and performance on standardized tests.
* Immediately shutting down any programming related to diversity, equity and inclusion.
* Overhauling academic programs that the Trump administration says have “egregious records on antisemitism,” including placing certain departments and programs under an external audit. The list includes the Divinity School, the Graduate School of Education, the School of Public Health and the Medical School, among many others.
I've edited my post to add "doing the same things (and much worse)" which I should have put originally because I think it's true that the current administration is coming up with "all-new and improved" ways to bring pressure.
To be fair, a defender of the current administration (which I'm obviously not) might point out that "the other guy" administration was pushing an agenda bias on people who broadly agreed with the direction, while the current administration is pushing against strong bias the other direction - so more pressure is justified. While I agree any moves away from the preferred extreme and back toward the middle (and beyond), will meet with resistance from the institution's partisan majority and encounter 'malicious compliance' at best, that still doesn't morally justify bias in the other direction. Eventually, someone needs to have the courage to step up and not play the "Retaliate and Escalate" move on their turn with Power Boost (that's the two years where one party holds control of the executive and congress, which, lately, each side gets approximately every 6-8 years (there is one "Lose Turn" card in the deck but it's rare).
Missing in all that is, of course, the best long-term strategy would be to reverse only to a relatively neutral position and take the moral high-ground of saying that the government shouldn't push agenda positions and try to get the center to rally around you. Basically, really try to be neutral. Protect all viewpoints equally and favor none. No negative biases but also no affirmative action. Previous jihads against one direction don't justify crusades in response. That kind of reasoning was how we got 'affirmative action' in response to OG institutional racism. Now the current administration is justifying going to extremes with the same flawed reasoning of "correcting sins of the past".
For example, "shutting down any programming related to diversity, equity and inclusion" is just as wrong as demanding all departments force everyone to sign DEI pledges or that all students take a DEI class. To me, the real enemy here is government compelling private universities to "always do" or "never do" (forbid or require) any specific thing about any of these culture war topics.
At some point, we need to learn from and remember the past but otherwise decide it's time to let the past go. The current moment would have been a good time to plant a bold flag for no systemic institutional biases for or against any culture war agenda-driven "correction". But the current administration seems set on continuing what looks to be a never-ending culture war. Perhaps the most stupid thing is both sides continue to act like anything which can be accomplished by presidential fiat can't just as easily be undone by presidential fiat. Day one of the next Democrat administration they'll undo most of this and when they get their next turn with Power Boost they'll undo all of it. If the past is any measure, they'll also use all the "New and Improved" methods this administration is coming up with to push in the other direction (just as Trump is using every technique for presidential expansion Obama 'innovated').
> By taking this scorched-earth route, the government has effectively telegraphed to all the other universities, as clearly as possible: “actually, we don’t care what you do or don’t do on antisemitism. We just want to destroy you, and antisemitism was our best available pretext".
Yep. Glad everyone is starting to realize this. What we're seeing has nothing to do with antisemitism, it is a blatant attempt to seize ideological control of every single cultural institution of American Power. Nothing that happened at a campus protest can justify the all-out assault on 1A that is happening now.
I applaud Harvard for standing up, but to be honest, anything less (e.g. Columbia's complete capitulation) is simply spineless and unseemly for any mega-endowed university.
"events have given us no choice but to fight Trump as if there were no antisemitism, even while we continue to fight antisemitism as if there were no Trump."
Great line which sums up the correct stance to take in the current environment.
Amidst all the inhumane political calamity TFA hits on the most
interesting sounding discussion on the limits of rational perception,
relation of computabilty and knowability. That's a talk I'd like to
see.
Glad Harvard finally decided attacks against academia have gone too far. It wasn't too far when scientists were forced to make an ideological oath to diversity to get hired [1,2], when they were hired primarily based on adherence to that ideology [3,4,5], when they were told by major scientific publications to avoid or simply not publish studies that might question that ideology [6,7], when they disavowed studies based solely on them being used to criticize favored causes [8], when papers were rejected if their results went against the liberal worldview, but methodologically-identical papers with pro-liberal results were accepted [9], or when scientists were barred from accessing taxpayer-funded data if there was a risk their research might harm the dominant ideology [10].
It was too far - a crisis! - when Harvard disagreed with the attackers, when the attackers were outsiders.
[4] A recent report from the Goldwater Institute found that 80% of job postings for Arizona’s public universities required applicants to submit a statement detailing their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. - https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loy...
None of which Harvard opposed, and Harvard itself scored abysmally in support of (or rather tolerance of) free speech [1]. Harvard is merely engaging in self-defense, not defense of any higher principles.
Private colleges shouldn't be taking public money to begin with. Hopefully this ends with colleges having their (private college) tax exempt status revoked. Anyone who's been to Massachusetts knows how much real estate Harvard (and MIT, and BU, and Boston College, etc, etc.) owns. Why should they be tax exempt?
End it now.
Also, Trump's demands are silly and not even internally consistent.
They are both colleges (educational institutions) and research institutions. For decades or more, research in the USA has been a central function of government (although it also happens in a few entirely privately funded organizations). That's what (most) of the public money is for, and there is no sane reason to stop that.
Please elaborate. The Federal government funds various research programs. Are you saying that the Federal government should not pay any universities for research? Or that universities that have an endowment should not be paid for research? Or something else?
This seems a dumb way to allocate Federal research funds. We, the taxpayers, should not choose the best university for these projects, but limit ourselves to only private universities? Is this what people mean by DEI? That we use some criteria other than merit when allocating resources?
I understood that but had the sense backwards. If the best research institution for given grant is a private university, you are saying that it should be precluded from consideration.
> What do churches have to do with this article or my comment?
I quoted "Hopefully this ends with colleges having their tax exempt status revoked." because I think the US would be better off if churches were not tax exempt.
There are good arguments that we would better off if no non-profits were tax exempt and charitable donations weren't tax deductible.
> Do churches receive billions of funding from the government?
> Hopefully this ends with colleges having their tax exempt status revoked
Harvard was founded to educate America's clergy. If there is a category of non-profits that could hop, skip and jump to religious exemption, it's the Ivy League.
Sure. But so would, I’d argue, many Evangelical churches. The precedent makes it difficult to deny Harvard without creating precedent that could hit church schools.
Ok have that argument on it's own and do it right legal, go through the legislature and discuss the appropriateness of public funding for private institution.
The Trump administration is not arguing or even considering that as part of their objectives here.
Are you suggesting that the government should not fund research, or that only state-operated universities should get government funding?
Furthermore, none of this has to do with an ideological take on "private universities and public funds". This is about Trump controlling the speech and behavior of every institution he can, through defunding and through blackmail.
> only state-operated universities should get government funding
Yes.
> Furthermore, none of this has to do with an ideological take on "private universities and public funds". This is about Trump controlling the speech and behavior of every institution he can, through defunding and through blackmail.
It is the bipartisan innovation in pro-Zionist legal tools, from the "war on terror" to last year's attacks on student protesters, that has eroded our constitutional safeguards to the point that a legitimate autocratic coup is being attempted.
> Attributing this to people you disagree with on the issue is a telltale sign of bad faith
I've been in rooms in New York with very smart people who argued exactly this. That the founding of Israel was a mistake and that we should poof it away. (Something about decolonization usually meanders its way in there.)
They're a minority. Like the people who want to relocate Palestinians from Gaza are, to my knowledge, a minority. But they both exist.
> Like the people who want to relocate Palestinians from Gaza are, to my knowledge, a minority.
Not sure what "minority" you are talking about, because this is actually unfolding right in front of our eyes over the past 18 months with the backing of the most powerful country on the planet. Talking about this as if its some fringe idea is disingenuous.
> this is actually unfolding right in front of our eyes
One, it's not currently happening. It's being actively discussed. But to my knowledge, mass expulsion has not (yet) happened.
Two, many things happen despite being only popular with a minority. I haven't seen polling around Abrego Garcia's de facto kidnapping and illegal detention in El Salvador, but I doubt more than the baseline 20% or so of nutters (a) understand what's going on and (b) support it.
Sorry, I was (unclearly, admittedly) referring to Americans in the pro- and anti- camps. I’m not sure how eradicating Israel would poll in Gaza, but I’d wager it’s north of 50% there, too.
> He and people like him propped up the political weaponisation of "antisemitism" in order to attack legitimate protest
Attacking legitimate protest is fine? Like, the KKK are allowed to legitimately demonstrate. And I'm allowed to say they're terrible. That's speech. That's debate.
> They enabled Trump to do this and now they are trying really hard to differentiate themselves from the fascists
Clubs and departments calling for the eradication of a nation-state is nothing new, we've been drawing lines on maps thousands of miles away since Sykes and Picot and before. People opposing those clubs is nothing new. What is novel is the state getting so involved in suppressing it, at least in post-WWII America.
You are acting as if the world is binary and either the previous status quo was justified or Trump's actions are justified, neither of which have to be the case.
Previous status quo was absolutely unjustified, therefore brave students protested it, at a great personal risk while being slandered as "antisemites" by individuals like Scott Aaronson.
> brave students protested it, at a great personal risk while being slandered as "antisemites" by individuals like Scott Aaronson
Do you have an example?
Israel-Palestine is a nuanced ground truth that has been ridiculously oversimplified in American discourse. "Pro Israel" covers folks who want to kill every Palestinian and annex their land to those who just don't want kids slaughtered at raves. "Pro Palestine" covers people who want the basic human dignity of an ancient people respected, through those who want to destroy Israel as a nation-state, all the way over to full-blown racists who hate Jews (or anyone with European heritage).
> the 20-year-old Israeli who’s now in notoriously antisemitic Malmö, Sweden
It's because of Aaronson and others that the original meaning of antisemitism almost entirely lost its meaning. They perverted it to suit their political agenda.
And completely forgetting to mention there is a Jewish block literally in the photo they took themselves.
Obviously, they never mention the actual violence by the Zionist counter-protesters, which in my experience far exceeds that of the pro-Palestinian proteseters.
> People like Aaronson are smart enough not to directly say that
Doesn't that completely undermine the claim that students were being slandered as anti-Semites?
Like, yes, I'd prefer people thought nice things all the time. But if they're thinking something I consider mean, I'm happier with them keeping it to themselves. And if they won't, I prefer they call out a group versus attacking random individuals within it for being a member of that group.
"Leftist Students and Faculty: We’d sooner burn universities to the ground than allow them to remain safe for the hated Zionist Jews, the baby-killing demons of the earth. We’ll disrupt their classes, bar them from student activities, smash their Hillel centers, take over campus buildings and quads, and chant for Hezbollah and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to eradicate them like vermin. We’ll do all this because we’ve so thoroughly learned the lessons of the Holocaust."
"It’s important to add: from what I know, some of the people being detained and deported are genuinely horrible. Some worked for organizations linked to Hamas, and cheered the murder of Jews."
"Meanwhile, at elite academic institutions across the region, the calls for justice have been deafening. “From the Nile to the Sea of Reeds, free Egypt from Jacob’s seeds!” students chanted. Some protesters even taunted passing Hebrew slaves with “go back to Canaan!”, though others were quick to disavow that message. According to Professor O’Connor, it’s important to clarify that the Hebrews don’t belong in Canaan either, and that finding a place where they do belong is not the protesters’ job."
I’m not arguing that anti-Semiticism hasn’t been diluted to an over inclusive definition. I was just challenging the claim that students have been called out. This looks like the protests being called out, not the students. That’s an important difference because it, in my opinion, divides civil disagreement from something nastier.
What crisis the Universities endowment bigger than ever. What's losing a few federal dollars gonna do.
Oh wait the admin staff is in danger that decided to quadruple their positions and give themselves raises as they torpedoed The quality of education and services on campus. They deserves everything it's getting and more. I say this as somebody that Was a student there and worked for the university.
Just a few decades ago US had quotas, how many Jews could study on university. Isaac Asimov could not be medical doctor, and become writer for this reason! Even today Harward is doing everything it can, to have a less Jews, they are not preferred minority!
Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43684536 - April 2025 (1215 comments)
Federal Government's letter to Harvard demanding changes [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43684386 - April 2025 (92 comments)
reply