“Revoke Their Degrees”: Harvard Faculty and Students Seek Revocation Of Degrees For Trump Officials and Allies

There is a building campaign at Harvard to rescind the degrees of Trump officials and allies including White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX).  This is not the only such effort to retaliate against Trump officials from blacklists to campaigns of harassment.  Indeed, previously there was a demand for a ban on former Trump officials from being allowed on campus at Harvard. Recently Rep. Elise Stefanik was removed from a high-ranking board on Harvard for challenging the victory of President-elect Joe Biden.  The concern for some of us is that the Capitol riot is now being used by many to accelerate the crackdown on free speech on our campuses.

The revocation of degrees would result in immediate and likely successful court challenges.  I cannot imagine a court allowing such an action to occur on this basis.

More importantly, it is wrong.  It is using academic degrees as a vehicle for political expression and retaliation. Just declaring such figures “violent actors” does not change the fact that the university would be acting in a raw political fashion. It would send the message that any degree is subject to the shifting political winds of a university and that attaining a degree remains only tentative and subject to revocation by majority demand.

The principal basis for the action is the support for the challenge to the electoral votes in Congress. This challenge was made under a federal law and has been repeatedly made by Democratic members without any such campaigns of retaliation or even recriminations. I opposed the challenge to the electoral votes from the outset and stated within a couple days of the election that there was no evidence of systemic fraud in the election. I also maintained within a couple of days that Joe Biden was our president-elect. So I fundamentally disagreed with these individuals. However, the effort to seek such retaliation is not just fueling our divisions but it is part of a widening campaign against free speech.

The petition states:

“A Harvard degree is a privilege, not a right. Harvard had no qualms about rescinding offers of admission to high school students because of racist activity online that did not reflect the University’s values. But holding teenagers accountable is easy. Harvard should have the will to hold adult insurrectionists to the same standards.”

The statement is chilling. There is a vast and obvious difference between the withdrawing of an offer of admission and the revoking of an earned degree.  One is an offer of admission and the other is a vested degree.  One action is prospective and the other is retroactive.  The link is to the decision to rescind admission from Parkland shooting survivor Kyle Kashuv over alleged racist comments made two years previously on social media. The Harvard Crimson reports that ten such offers have been withdrawn over such social media postings.

What is most concerning is that faculty members have joined at Harvard and other schools to create blacklists and take retaliatory actions against people who were supportive or served in the Trump Administration. This effort is being spurred on by the rhetoric of figures like MSNBC’s Joy Reid who called for the “de-Ba’athification” of the Republican Party and CNN’s Don Lemon insisting that Trump voters as a group are supporters of Nazis and the KKK. This language seeks to label the votes of almost half of the electorate as virtual hate speech or extremism. The same call is now being heard on campuses for a purging of those deemed complicit in the Trump administration.  That is beyond outrage. It is opportunism to use this tragedy to settle scores and purge opposing voices. The alternative is free speech. We can continue to engage each other in civil and respectful dialogue — the very antithesis of what occurred on January 6th. Universities could play a critical role in that dialogue but it will require a faith in free speech and ourselves that seems diminishing by the day.

360 thoughts on ““Revoke Their Degrees”: Harvard Faculty and Students Seek Revocation Of Degrees For Trump Officials and Allies”

  1. If you cannot see that the Democrats are long gone and going straight down to the path of Dictatorship, you are blind as a freakin bat.

    Our only hope is probably going to end up being Secession or outright Civil War. I do not care anymore. The Left is insane.

  2. Many Trump supporters will be on the “Receiving End” of what law-abiding African-Americans and Muslim-Americans (after 9/11) received for decades. Most Republicans were silent when their fellow Americans were being blacklisted and punished for no crimes and no wrongdoing whatsoever – only guilt-by-association. Silent for 20 years.

    Once many Republicans understand what Cointelpro style blacklisting is, they should demand their members of Congress and their state legislature outlaw “Cointelpro tactics” against everyone: African-Americans, Muslim-Americans and now Trump supporters. This type of non-confrontational blacklisting is a real torture program and the worst form of torture. That also means rewarding and recognizing the brave whistleblowers destroyed by previous administrations attempting to stop Cointelpro tactics. Write or call your law-maker

    1. You are completely unhinged. Move to Zimbabwe or Iran and report back in ten years, if you survive it.

      1. No, s/he isn’t.

        Correction:

        “…law-abiding African-Americans and Muslim-Americans (after 9/11) received for decades. ”

        Others, as well, AZ — not just AAs and Muslim-Americans.

    2. Ashcroft, you’re hilarious. All this ranting about blacklists and Trump supporters being on the “receiving end” of law abiding African Americans and Muslims. Jesus. No wonder so many conservatives and republicans, and zealot trump supporters are freaking out. What they are not capable of recognizing is that what they are experiencing is are the consequences of their behavior and actions over the last four years. Many may not be held accountable for their behavior of actions , but the consequences of being complicit and enabling it cannot be avoided when things cross a line. The attempted coup, and violence at the Capitol was that moment.

      So many say a democratic dictatorship will be the next “problem”. But the biggest irony here is we have already been thru one and it was heartily supported by republicans. They embraced the authoritarian strongman that Trump was. When he issued threats to governors, mayors, democratic and Republican legislators when they didn’t bend to his whims and lying it was gleefully accepted.

      Now all the whining and calls for unity and calm and hollow, because those very same people who spent four years lying, inciting, encouraging, and enabling the very behavior and views that culminated in an insurrection at the Capitol suddenly realize they are part of it, the reason why it happened. The sudden need do disassociate themselves from their own mess. Is particularly and grotesquely hypocritical.

      They don’t get a pass because suddenly they are in trouble. They need to start by clearly, without any ambiguous claims that the election was not fair to state Biden and Harris won fair and square.

      Only after that is admitted can there be any unity and calm.

  3. Yep, let’s focus on a petition that Harvard will never act on instead of focusing on the ongoing danger from violent insurrectionists.

    1. “Federal prosecutors offered an ominous new assessment of last week’s siege of the U.S. Capitol by President Donald Trump’s supporters on Thursday, saying in a court filing that rioters intended ‘to capture and assassinate elected officials.’ Prosecutors offered that view in a filing asking a judge to detain Jacob Chansley, the Arizona man and QAnon conspiracy theorist who was famously photographed wearing horns as he stood at the desk of Vice President Mike Pence in the chamber of the U.S. Senate.
      “The detention memo, written by Justice Department lawyers in Arizona, goes into greater detail about the FBI’s investigation into Chansley, revealing that he left a note for Pence warning that ‘it’s only a matter of time, justice is coming.’ ‘Strong evidence, including Chansley’s own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government,” prosecutors wrote. …”

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-capitol-arrests/u-s-says-capitol-rioters-meant-to-capture-and-assassinate-officials-filing-idUSKBN29K0K7

        1. You guys violently occupied Lafayette Square for days and downtown Seattle for weeks and downtown Portland, etc. Do you really think this argument is working?

          1. I’ve never violently occupied anywhere. You seem fond of overgeneralizing and lumping all liberals together.

            More to the point, you’re moving the goalposts. Again, the DOJ said “Strong evidence, including Chansley’s own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government.”

            How about you name a single protester from the Lafayette Square, downtown Seattle, or downtown Portland protests for whom the DOJ wrote that there was “Strong evidence, including [the protester’s] own words and actions at the [BLM protest], supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government“?

            Your argument certainly isn’t working when you ignore a goal of assassination.

              1. I know that they confiscated a variety of weapons, including guns, thousands of rounds of ammunition, Molotov cocktails, pipe bombs, a crossbow, and machetes. Some used flagpoles as weapons. One guy built a gallows. At least a couple of guys were carrying a lot of flex-cuffs (not a weapon, but handy if you plan to capture people).

                I don’t know the total number of weapons. If you want to know the total, look it up for yourself.

    2. Or how about the statement by Rep. Meijer (R-MI) that he and other Republicans who voted in favor of impeachment are getting death threats and buying body armor? Isn’t that more important than this foolish Harvard petition?

      Listen to the whole interview or that part starts ~1:40 –

      1. And who on this comment board is arguing in favor of death threats? Nobody. That’s a straw man argument.

        Do you support cancel culture? We already know the answer, but please, tell us anyway.

        1. I didn’t say that anyone here “is arguing in favor of death threats,” so no, it’s not a straw man argument on MY part. It’s a straw man argument on YOUR part to suggest that I’d implied that.

          What I said is that these things are more important to discuss than a stupid Harvard petition that will never be acted on.

          I’ll answer your question after you acknowledge your multiple erroneous arguments in this thread and define what you mean by “support cancel culture.”

          1. Death threats are being discussed elsewhere. We mainly talk about free speech here.

            Definition: cancel culture is depriving anyone of their credentials, job, or speech because the woke resent their opinions.

            Do you support stripping the individuals mentioned in the blog of their degrees? Are you a promoter of cancel culture?

            1. What a strange definition you present. According to your definition, when Trump fires someone because of their opinions, he’s not participating in cancel culture because Trump isn’t “woke.”

              In light of your definition and your continuing choice not to acknowledge your mistakes, I’m not going to answer your biased question.

              It’s a stupid petition. Of course I don’t support it.

      2. See John Derbyshire on this point many years ago (concerning his own correspondence). Getting threats from random people on the internet is nothing out of the ordinary. Hit delete button.

        1. Why do you assume that the threats are “from random people on the internet”?

          A reminder that Chansley’s memo states they have “evidence … that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government,” and he was described as a participant in “a violent insurrection that attempted to overthrow the United States Government.”

            1. They killed one police officer and injured dozens of others. They broke into offices. They stole government property. Some carried flex cuffs that they presumably hoped to use. One planted IEDs elsewhere. One had Molotov cocktails filled with a napalm-like substance. Some carried illegal firearms. Several were looking for Pence and saying they wanted to hang him. A couple built a gallows for doing that outside. … Your omissions are noteworthy.

              1. They killed one police officer and injured dozens of others.

                They injured dozens of nobody.

                The police officer in question returned to his office, texted his family telling them he’d been pepper sprayed a couple of time and mentioned no blows to the head or any other part of his anatomy. He collapsed later and was taken to the hospital where they discovered a blood clot in his brain. No autopsy has been released, nor has any video which identifies him been released which shows him being hit.

                1. Arty, there are videos of the rioters injuring police officers. The video I posted in my 10:17 AM comment includes a clip of that officer being beaten, and I have posted a few other videos of police being injured in the comment sections of other columns. According to the police, dozens of officers were injured and 15 were hospitalized. If you want to call them nobodies, that’s on you.

                  Sicknick died after being injured in the riot. The FBI is investigating, and I’m sure they’ll spell out their evidence if they arrest someone. They did arrest someone who threw a fire extinguisher that hit 3 other officers –
                  https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Robert%20Sanford%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

  4. Turley: “The principal basis for the action is the support for the challenge to the electoral votes in Congress. This challenge was made under a federal law and has been repeatedly made by Democratic members without any such campaigns of retaliation or even recriminations.”

    Turkey is lying. These congressman and Fox News were enabling and repeating the Big Lie, namely, Trump’s preposterous assertion that there was such widespread fraud that Biden stole the election. THAT was the lie that motivated people to fly to D.C. or drive long distances and came prepared to storm the Capitol. Even had Trump NOT given a speech at the rally, those “patriots” would have ransacked the building. The incitement for insurrection was not based upon Turley’s good faith claim of constitutionally challenging electoral votes. The insurrection was motivated by the bad faith incitement of the “Stop the Steal” lie.

    Turley knows this very well, but he will NOT concede it because he works for Fox News which enabled this damnable lie, and he is worried that his reputation as an academic will be sullied by his silence to disabuse his hosts of this lie when he appeared on Fox programs as a contributor.

    There can be no unity until there is a reckoning for the liars.

      1. You are both intellectually dishonest. If the situation were reversed, you’d be saying the exact opposite. It’s your thinking that is the problem.

          1. I know what Stalin might do. I know what Hitler might do. I know what you guys will do. I know what you think before you think it.

            1. You’re deluded. You know next to nothing about what Jeffrey and Svelaz have done in their lives.

              Why don’t you tell us 10 things each has done? Let’s test whether you’re even able to say what they’ve done in the past, much less what they’ll do in the future.

    1. Silverman – you are the liar. Prove to me that there is not evidence of fraud since there are hundreds of affidavits (statement of facts voluntarily made by an affiant under an oath). No one, and certainly not you, have disproved these affidavits, possibly bc you are unable to disprove the statements of fact. Hundreds of thousands came to protest and express their support for democracy and the United States- a few hundred entered the Capitol. Maybe following the example of 9 months of leftist violence across American.

      But we all know that’s not the issue here. Socialists, Communists, and the Left, have a desire to erase the past in an effort to disrupt the successful experiment called America. The Left always uses violence to achieve their means (Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, etc) and focusses on eliminating their opposition because the Left is incapable of arguing successfully that their ideas are effective because their ideas have failed so consistently.

      Just like the rest of the Left you are vindictive and violent personality that is inconsistent with American values.

      1. That’s Silberman not Silverman. I would appreciate your spelling my name correctly if you are going to rant at me. Thanks.

      2. Highly, the courts have ruled against Trump’s lawyers 63-1. None of the allegations that are not from outer space – Sidney Powell’s ridiculous Venezuelan plot for instance – would be significant enough to change the results, even if they were true. The beginning of this Big Lie was Trump himself before the 1st vote was cast, all in an effort to explain the loss he could see what was the most likely result. It’s BS.

        1. Again you are legally incorrect. The “courts” didn’t “rule” against the cases. They didn’t hear them, all for a variety of reasons… that is entirely different. Please be factual. Or you can recognize that you are spouting out conspiracy theories of what happened and what didn’t. You are the one without proof. Oh yeah and wasn’t it the Democrats (Hilary, et al) who told Biden not to accept any election results. Again, it would be good to come out of your echo chamber before you speak,

          1. That’s false highly. Some courts, like the SC refused to hear the case while others ruled the evidence presented was not credible. Look it up. Hillary stated that Biden should not accept a claimed Trump victory on election night, which was excellent if unnecessary advice.

      3. I actually read a number of the complaints and supporting affidavits, but declined to continue the slog after the sixth or seventh case. There were a number of reasons for my disinclination to continue the effort. First, the complaints were uniformly pathetic. Fraud comes in many forms, but there are established elements required to state a cause of action. Some of the complaints simply repeated fraud claims without sufficient underlying allegations of fact. Others wandered off into some alternative universe entirely. I read nothing which I could have signed in good faith in compliance with the rules of procedure governing pleadings. Second, people who point to the various affidavits and then claim, as you have, that they have not been “disproved” do not understand the nature and purpose of affidavits in a legal setting. In order to be considered for any purpose, an affidavit must not only be signed under oath. It must also be competent, which means that it satisfies rules governing the admissibility of evidence. The contents must be statements of fact which are personally known to the individual signing the affidavit and which are material to the issues alleged in the cause of action. Affidavits which simply repeat what the declarant heard someone else say (e.g., “My cousin Cindy told me that she saw some ballots being thrown away”), or which assert legal conclusions (e.g., “I hereby state under oath that the election was rigged”) are not admissible for any purpose. Compliance with the rules is especially important when a party is seeking entry of a temporary order, such as a preliminary injunction, without the benefit of a full evidentiary hearing and cross-examination of witnesses.

        All of the filings are available online through PACER for anyone who has sufficient interest in doing their own review and analysis. Some were tossed for failing to state a cause action, some for lack of standing and others for untimeliness (“laches”). Others got the boot when the lawyers were unable to offer admissible testimony of documentary evidence in support of their claims. And the Paxton complaint was absurd on its face. A couple cases are still kicking around but will go nowhere.

        When an attorney signs and files a complaint, he or she is representing to the court that there has been a good faith investigation undertaken to support the claims. Although in my view they are not imposed with sufficient frequency, sanctions may be imposed against lawyers (and their clients) for filings which fail to raise a justiciable issue of law or fact (what people call a “frivolous pleading”). Some of the attorneys who participated in one or more of the numerous cases filed on behalf of the Trump campaign may find themselves on the receiving end of court orders imposing fines, fees or costs as a consequence of some very sloppy and ill-advised lawyering.

        I have seen reports that Pres. Trump has instructed his aides not to pay Rudy Giuliani’s bills. I don’t know if that’s true, but it’s certainly understandable.

        1. Thanks for the overview. I have not yet taken the time to read any of the complaints. Have PACER account, will read some as time permits.

    2. +10 Jeffrey

      MOre distractions from one of the enablers of the Big Lie. Trump started telling it before the 1st vote was cast. He saw the same polls we did and knew his odds of losing were better than 50-50 and needed the excuse. Nothing of significance on voting has been produced by the blind followers of this obviously self dealing BS artist and they still persist.

          1. McConnell stating that Obama would be a one-term President… Yeah, I was always agin Trump cuz he’s a conman. It’s a pity you can’t see that. I was horrified that he became president, but not for 1 second did I think he stole the election like the conspiracy theorists on the Alt-right think about Biden.

        1. Not true. Congress totally cooperated with trump on trade, tariff taxes notwithstanding. And much of Obama’s foreign policy was at least attempted to be carried over by trump in the middle east.

          Elvis Bug

      1. Joe, I believe that you are overlooking events that occurred prior to the election in certain states. Pennsylvania provides a good example. Unelected state officials made an end run around the legislature to effect changes in voting protocols. It’s regrettable that SCOTUS did not take up the case.

        1. Cassidy, “ Unelected state officials made an end run around the legislature to effect changes in voting protocols. It’s regrettable that SCOTUS did not take up the case.”

          That’s not true. The PA Supreme Court explained why they didn’t find that assertion credible. Those “unelected state officials”. Had authority to determine some changes to accommodate concerns around COVID. The legislature itself gave them the authority to do so. State law allowed them to determine the most efficient way to do that.

    3. “preposterous assertion that there was such widespread fraud that Biden stole the election.”

      As you will find out the hard way, Jeffrey, their hand was caught in the cookie jar during the the runoff in Georgia.

      Never choose stupid & lazy people to do something, and expect a good outcome. Especially when there are extremely intelligent people who are onto them.

      1. Rhodes, I am always delighted to be corrected when I’m incorrect. It’s not what we don’t know that gets us into trouble; it’s what we know for sure that turns out to be wrong! But you never want to put your money where your mouth is….

    4. Who knows at this point whether there was election fraud that affected the outcome of the election? The fact that a case may not have survived a motion to dismiss does not mean that there was no fraud.

      1. Cassidy, “ The fact that a case may not have survived a motion to dismiss does not mean that there was no fraud.”

        Absence of evidence is not proof of evidence. To still claim there was fraud on a level of magnitude to affect the outcome of an election without any proof and say that no proof doesn’t mean it didn’t happen is a stellar example of circular logic.

        A lot of people say they KNOW massive fraud was committed, but cannot provide proof that allows them to claim that they KNOW. People don’t know. They just KNOW because someone else lying about said it based on the fact that they…KNOW.

      2. Yes, and the fact that paleontologists have yet to discover fossil remains of unicorns does not mean that they never existed.

  5. The 21st century cancel culture of social justice warriors, progressives and the anti-Trump resistance really have become anti-American and anti-Constitution fascist minded totalitarians. These ignorant people are a malignant cancer to our culture and society, they WILL destroy the United States of America with their Constitution and Liberty for me but not for thee totalitarian mindset unless the moderate middle rise up and put a stop to the popularity of extremism. These totalitarian minded people have literally become the evil that they profess to be against.

    I don’t give a damn which extreme consumes your ignorant mind, I’m damned sick and tired of the extremes on both ends of the political spectrum.

    Here’s an honest question for anyone that chooses to answer it with something intelligent…

    Is brute force the only way to reign in the extremes?

    1. Witherspoon, I’m very afraid that the only way people come to their senses is after they have become exhausted by the numbers of dead. That’s how most wars end. I don’t wish it, but I just don’t see how the two sides will ever see eye to eye. I believe Trumpists are liars because you have to become a liar to defend a the Liar in Chief; and I’m only going to change my mind at the point of a gun. So, the answer to your question is “yes.”

        1. Thanks, Steve. Anonymous, Svelaz, and Silberman aren’t fooling anybody on this comment board. We have to start calling them out because they’re cancelling and censoring other Americans.

          1. Diogenes, this whole “cancel culture” excuse only shows that many Trump supporters don’t really understand their system of government.

            The first amendment doesn’t apply to private entities. The bill of rights are protections FROM government. It limits GOVERNMENT. Not private companies If a company says you cannot talk about politics while being an employee they can do that. They can enforce it by threatening to fire you. But if you quit you are free to speak about politics.

            Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. all are private companies that have every one of their “customers” sign a legally binding document that allows you to use their platforms in exchange for giving up certain rights. They don’t force you to click on the agreement. It’s all done willingly. The first amendment doesn’t protect your free speech rights from private entities. Especially when you give them away willingly.

        2. Witherspoon, is Trump a chronic and habitual liar? And don’t give me- “like every politician.” I mean he is in a class by himself. And if you hand me “whatabout the fact that Obama lied,” that only proves that Trump is a liar too, not that he is honest. And if Trump is dishonest, those that deny it or remain silent are liars as well. Q.E.D.

          1. Jeffrey Silberman asked, “is Trump a chronic and habitual liar?”

            You mean like the Washington Post claims?

            In a word, no.

            Is there a chronic an habitual effort from the political left to tar anything that comes out of Trump’s mouth as a lie, yes.

            Here a fact that anti-Trumpers can’t get through their thick skull…

            Just because something ends up to be false does not mean it was presented as a lie.

            False and misleading statements are not necessarily lies. Lies are very specific things, they are intentional false statements. At one point in time President Trump intentionally lied to the public about COVID-19 so the public would not panic, this is actually a very Presidential thing to do in certain circumstances but yes it was an intentional lie and President’s rightly and wrongly take flack for such things. President Trump saying that COVID-19 would fade away in the summer was his opinion, it was not a lie but yet anti-Trumpers called it a lie because it was eventually proven to be a false opinion.

            No President Trump is not a chronic and habitual liar, he has an unethical loose cannon mouth and millions of people that literally hate him and hoards of anti-Trump propaganda that is constantly plastered in everyone’s face that Trump is a liar. It’s false propaganda.

            Now try to use an open critically thinking mind and extrapolate from what you have learned.

              1. Jeffrey Silberman wrote, “Witherspoon, let’s just agree to let history be the judge of Trump’s veracity!”

                You mean the history that will likely be written by those political hack academics that are full blown totalitarians, communists and socialists and literally hate President Trump? Not a chance Jeffrey, the truth must be told, the whole truth, the real truth.

            1. Steve, Trump is a compulsive and promiscuous liar, and not in the sense that he always knows it. In fact he doesn’t care what’s true, only what suits he verbal needs then and there – could be true, could be false, he doesn’t GAF. If you do the math, you’ll see that means maybe 1/2 the things he says are true, but half and more isn’t. The proof is the recorded and counted falsehoods that we all see every day and which the Post has covered.

              That he doesn’t care doesn’t make him not a liar, and if you believe anything he says you are certainly a fool.

              1. Joe Friday wrote, “The proof is the recorded and counted falsehoods that we all see every day and which the Post has covered.”

                I’ll keep on repeating this until it sinks into the thick skulled anti-Trumper’s; false and misleading statements are not necessarily lies. Lies are very specific things, they are intentional false statements. If it is not an intentional false statement then it is NOT a lie, period.

                Joe Friday wrote, “if you believe anything he says you are certainly a fool.”

                I don’t swallow anything that is presented by any politician at face value, I do the homework and check things.

                1. Witherspoon, “ I don’t swallow anything that is presented by any politician at face value, I do the homework and check things.”

                  But you will swallow anything trump says because he’s NOT a politician? Is that the caveat about Trump?

                  Because he’s a businessman you are more likely to swallow anything he says at face value?

                2. I explained it for you above Steve and I guess you’re not going to get it. Someone like Trump doesn’t care and therefore doesn’t know what is true. He just says what makes him look best at the moment. That is a lying and different from some one who does care what is true but repeats something they mistakenly believe to be true. They are not lying..

                  If you really are checking things then you know Trump is perhaps the world’s all time king of lying. What is amazing is those followers who lack even basic human BS detectors and believe him. It’s a true failing and should be disqualifying for many activities, like going to the State Fair without an escort.

                  1. joe friday wrote, “Someone like Trump doesn’t care and therefore doesn’t know what is true. He just says what makes him look best at the moment. That is lying and different from some one who does care what is true but repeats something they mistakenly believe to be true.”

                    The kind of biased stupid that caused Joe Friday to write that cannot be fixed.

            2. Witherspoon,

              “ False and misleading statements are not necessarily lies. Lies are very specific things, they are intentional false statements.”

              The words “false and misleading”. That’s the very essence of what a lie is. Trump’s lying is of the pathological variety which means everything he says is just false and misleading.

              People who enable pathological liars are just as culpable for their intentions.

              1. Svelaz wrote, “The words “false and misleading”. That’s the very essence of what a lie is. Trump’s lying is of the pathological variety which means everything he says is just false and misleading.”

                You are clearly biased against President Trump.

                You’re completely ignoring the fact that a lie MUST be an intentional presentation of something that is actually known to be false or misleading by the person presenting it, unintentional false and misleading statements are NOT lies no matter how much you hate the person that is stating it.

                Here’s a perfect example; President Obama publicly stating that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” was a verifiable false statement, the question is did President Obama know it was a false statement when he stated it or did he believe what he said was true when he stated it. The statement has been called the lie of the year, I question whether it was a lie or not; personally I think it was one of President Obama’s goals for the health care plan that didn’t pan out in the end. My personal opinion is that it wasn’t an actual lie.

                Svelaz wrote, “People who enable pathological liars are just as culpable for their intentions.”

                No they are not culpable, as in deserves blame, for lies that someone else makes, enabling a known pathological liar does not make one culpable it makes their behavior unethical in a consequentialism sense. Each statement from a known pathological liar needs to be evaluated based on its merits because known pathological liars also tell the truth.

    2. Witherspoon, I get your frustration, I really do. The source of this extremism unfortunately lies with the fact that a very large portion of our society remains proudly ignorant of many things. It’s simply poor education among those who strangely sneer at those who are better educated and more likely to understand the complexities of an issue.

      This is not a dig at these people. It’s just a fundamental problem of having to admit that one doesn’t really understand something.

      The lower the ability to understand complex issues, nuances, grey areas, etc. the easier it is to fool someone. Many republicans and conservatives always focus on simplicity, and clear lines of right or wrong. Nuances and Greg areas are seen as excuses because they deal only with absolutes. Ironically they only apply it to those who they judge, but when it comes to themselves suddenly nuances and grey areas are invoked.

      Many cannot discern complex explanations from excuses because it requires that one really think things through instead of the easier to accept simple clear explanations. Conservative thinking is rigid. Until they are forced to explain their own contradictions. Funny stuff really.

      1. Svelaz, True. Trump prefers low information voters. Higher education is elitist. Thinking is hard. Most people would prefer to be told what to think than think for themselves. Nowadays, reporters ask people “how do you feel” about an issue because feelings are what they are; they cannot be challenged. Reporters should ask people what do they “think” about a matter, but then the answer requires facts and reasoning which is too confrontational and aggressive nowadays.

        1. “Most people would prefer to be told what to think than think for themselves.”

          Agree. It happens more easily to crowds/groups. Right now, I see this happening pretty heavily to my liberal friends and family. I see it to some degree with conservatives, but they’re pretty skeptical right now.

          “Nowadays, reporters ask people “how do you feel” about an issue because feelings are what they are; they cannot be challenged.”

          Makes for writing up an agenda pretty easy. The reporter asked for feelings because that’s the content that was wanted. No wonder people’s opinions of reporters are so low.

          1. Prairie Rose, Jeffrey does have a point about reporters asking how one feels eliminates anything that can challenge ones preconceptions.

            There’s nothing wrong with asking how someone feels about an issue, but I think it is also important to point out that feeling about something isn’t the same as thinking about it. Thinking may force someone to recognize that some things they feel about an issue may not be rooted on the facts of an issue.

            1. Svelaz,
              “Jeffrey does have a point about reporters asking how one feels eliminates anything that can challenge ones preconceptions.”
              “Makes for writing up an agenda pretty easy. The reporter asked for feelings because that’s the content that was wanted. No wonder people’s opinions of reporters are so low.”

              Sorry if my response sounded like disagreement. Aren’t both true? And, since it is the reporters asking the questions, then it is on them to ask better questions. The audience also has a responsibility to ask questions, but since they aren’t the ones reporting on a matter, then the reporter doing the observation of an occurrence or doing investigative work, then they are the first line of question-askers and they need to improve their game.

              “There’s nothing wrong with asking how someone feels about an issue, but I think it is also important to point out that feeling about something isn’t the same as thinking about it. Thinking may force someone to recognize that some things they feel about an issue may not be rooted on the facts of an issue.”

              Absolutely. I agree.

          2. Hmmm.

            I’ve thought about this some more.

            ““Most people would prefer to be told what to think than think for themselves.”

            Agree. It happens more easily to crowds/groups. Right now, I see this happening pretty heavily to my liberal friends and family. I see it to some degree with conservatives, but they’re pretty skeptical right now.””

            Naw, I think I see it with conservatives, too.

            Lots of steering going on…

        2. Jeffrey, you say that Trump prefers low information voters. I do not know whether that is true or not. I do know that the converse is not true. That is, many highly educated citizens voted for Trump. Many of those supporters attended the rally in DC last week with absolutely no expectation that there would be violence. His appeal to many of these voters is a “what you see is what you get” type of appeal. He stood in stark contrast to his predecessor in the Oval Office who was an elitist who made promises that were not kept: “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” Just sayin..

          1. Would you like to see what comes over my Facebook wall? About 90% of the political commentary we receive is from partisan Democrats. Yes, they are low information voters.

        3. Jeffrey, that’s a good observation of “feel” vs “think”. I don’t have any problems with people saying what they feel about an issue. But eventually one will have to think ‘why’ they feel that way. It’s that lack of curiosity that is not interesting to most of them because it requires a level of introspection that they never consider.

          1. I agree. Emotional responses can be considered but the follow-up should be to wonder about the reason for the emotional response. Emotions can be misleading.

            Strangely, I had a high school teacher who always asked how we felt about a piece of literature rather than what we thought of it. While I liked the teacher overall, that propensity to focus on feelings never set well. To be fair, perhaps some students never considered or were asked how they felt about anything. Thankfully, my other teachers seemed to balance things out so we had to wrestle with thoughts and feelings.

      2. Svalez spews his elitist I’m-so-much-smarter-than-thee low-information support of suppression again. The ignorance of the “educated” elitists in full view.

      3. Your arrogance is astounding but somewhat expected for those on the left who preach unity and equality and then turn around and look down their “educated” noses at any one who doesn’t have a college degree.

        There are definitely a large number of degreed individuals who supported Trump and who will continue to support Trump. We see things differently than pompous asses like yourself and you can’t accept that because you’re “educated” and you “understand” things better. I can have a more reasoned argument with a small child than an adult like you. Why? Because a small child is open to new things and can see the world through several prisms rather than a broken one.

        Oh, BTW, I have two technical degrees and neither of my Universities need to attempt to take them away (and probably won’t).

        1. Ken, only those who feel the need to boast about their degrees are the ones with the most insecurities about their intelligence.

          I was speaking about those who really are poorly educated. That is a vast majority of Trump supporters. The few who are educated and support trump are just being lied to.

    3. The answer to your question is no, but it’s not enough to argue against the extremists. We have to address those influences that are stretching the American political spectrum to the breaking point; otherwise, we are doomed.

    4. Steve, Silberman and Svelaz are the extremists. To them, conservatives are all evil, so don’t fall for they’re faux sympathy.

      As I’ve mentioned on this comment board, I’m willing to work with Joe Biden. Not happy about it, but I will, if he’s willing to work with us. That’s in writing.

      1. What about Joe Friday? He’s with the 3 of us too. Speaking for myself, extremism in the pursuit of honesty is no vice, and Trumpism in the pursuit of a coup d’etat is no virtue.

          1. Diogenes, I’ve had some few respectful conversations here with conservatives and as a matter of observation which I truly believe and have stated here more than once, I do not think moral righteousness has much to do with left or right politics. My late and beloved mother was a life long Republican who I admired as well as loved. That, along with the numerous conservatives I know and work with – I’m a builder – tells me that our political beliefs do not generally define character. Even Trump voters are mostly decent people, though I damn them for the ignorant and blind choice they made in that regard. If we can stay off that subject – which I won’t forgive – we can probably have dinner, take a hike, do whatever, and have a fine and decent time. I note the conviction of most of the right wingers here that those on the left are bad people and of course that can be flipped by those on the left. Don’t sign me up for that.

            1. Joe Friday,
              “I note the conviction of most of the right wingers here that those on the left are bad people and of course that can be flipped by those on the left.”

              I think most people on the left are mistaken about some things, not bad. Some are mean, but people on the right can be mistaken and mean, too.

              I am an independent. I have friends and family spanning the political spectrum.

              Unfortunately, it seems that when I talk to some of my more liberal friends and family (who assume I’m liberal, too), their comments seem to indicate that they think Republicans and conservatives are simply bad people of low character.

              It makes sorting out the actual political or social problem nigh impossible when the conversation gets side-tracked into an issue of character, rather than staying dispassionate on the facts of the matter. It’s a kind of straw-man. I hear Republicans/conservatives do it, too, but it is mostly my liberal friends and family who call Republicans/conservatives names or straw-man arguments. Maybe that’s my own myopic little bubble.

              In any case, the world has too many problems that actually need to be addressed for anyone to waste time on straw-manning or other unhelpful debate strategies or being hurtful to others.

              I agree. Don’t sign me up for that.

              1. I think most people on the left are mistaken about some things, not bad. S

                Nat Hentoff and George McGovern are dead.

                When I see a remark by a leftoid that isn’t accusatory, self-aggrandizing, contrived, or zoned-out, I’m surprised. They have very little left.

                1. Art,
                  My fellow Americans. My friends, my family, my neighbors. There is a shared humanity and a shared desire amongst most of us to encourage the betterment of these United States. I’d rather coax forth the better angels of our natures.

                  There is a delightful dynamic in our Founding Documents that have aimed to balance the Chaos of freedom and independence with the Order of government and hierarchy and laws, as well as uplifting each Individual as equal to everyone else, none higher nor lower than anyone else and endowed with inalienable rights while simultaneously addressing our common goal to form a more perfect Union together as a large community of free individuals.

                  Balancing means shifting subtly left to right, right to left. Both are needed to walk life’s tightrope. When one side is out of balance, the other side pulls, in a way, to redeem the other from falling too deeply into its ‘side’.

        1. Jeffy,

          Extremism is inherently dishonest as it fails to consider all sides of a question or issue.

          So you’re right. Dishonesty in pursuit of honesty is no vice. It’s an impossibility.

        2. “Speaking for myself, extremism in the pursuit of honesty is no vice, and Trumpism in the pursuit of a coup d’etat is no virtue.”

          Actually, you weren’t speaking for yourself. You were “borrowing” someone else’s words.

    5. I like your analysis, Steve. I wish that I had an answer to your question. We’ve reached an inflection point. As for the Harvard Initiative, the rationale for rescinding degrees does seem to overlook some of the basics of contract law, doesn’t it?

  6. The orc wing of the Democrat Party is at it, again. If they get any stronger, they will literally tear this country apart.

    I’ll say it, again, the east-coast guys running the Democrat Party need to accept that unregulated immigration and globalization and the radicalization of education and the media are growing the ranks of the dangerous left. This doesn’t have to happen, but somebody has to stop thinking greedy and short term and accept that we need to dial back these influences and soon.

    When you have monopolies memory-holing the news and universities cancelling some of their most prestigious alums, it’s already past time to do something, Democrats,

    1. and don’t think you can ride this tiger.

      Ask Eric Weinstein.
      Ask Matt Taibbi.
      Ask Glenn Greenwald.

      They’ll tell you there’s no reasoning with the radicals anymore.

    2. The irony is they are puppets for some dangerous billionaires who have boxed them into a perilous future. Those who will not walk into it with them already know their fate. It is devastating, terminal and forever. Greed for power is more dangerous than greed for wealth. No one will be served well by it and the betrayed puppets will be a mass of confusion. But they never have had a genuine, original thought about the future. They live in a movie and the movie stars will step over them sleeping on their streets to get to their mansions.

      1. Phyllis,
        “The irony is they are puppets for some dangerous billionaires who have boxed them into a perilous future.”

        I would say ‘we are puppets”. The descent has been slow and precipitated by both parties. 🙁

  7. Just when I think those on the Left can’t get any more stupid! A Harvard degree is neither a privilege or right. It is something that is paid for and earned. Will Harvard take away the degrees of those who suborned misinformation that destroyed the livelihoods of thousands through the actions of BLM and antifa these last few months? I know the argument that the ” storming of the Capitol ” was different. I agree. Punishing innocent citizens by means of violence on a grand scale over the course of months is MUCH WORSE!! What happened on the 6th was no attempt to overthrow our government. It was no attempt to hurt our politicians. Who does those things without the use of weapons? It was a small group of idiots acting out. And it still remains to be seen who made up those group of idiots.

      1. Rogers, just promise me that you will stick to Trump like glue. That you will never turn your back on him no matter what we may learn about him after he becomes a private citizen. Promise that you intend to defend him even if he is prosecuted for state and/or federal crimes and is convicted by a jury of his peers. That you are a Trumpist to the bitter end.

        1. No, that’s your promise to one of the most corrupt politicians in the history of doing nothing but passing a bill to send Blacks to prison with trumped up charges and long sentences. Trump passed the “ Second Chance Act” and freed those Biden jailed. You can’t erase those two facts. They are laws that are available for anyone to read. Biden is a puppet for the CCP which turned loose a virus to the world we may never completely recover from. The truth is hidden by the media through Trump rage. They will turn on him, too, when it is convenient.

  8. Did HARVARD do this in 2016 when so many were denying that President Trump was the elected president? Has HARVARD been so concerned about free speech over the years when denying speakers with what possibly is construed as the opposite opinion by some? It appears to me that if you don’t agree, lock-step as they say, with what they want then you are nothing more than dirt. This has become out of hand. Mother Theresa had a saying “You can do what I cannot do. I can do what you cannot do.  Together we can do great things.” Broken we will be walked on! Violence and shutting down ideas/opinions is not the way. Everyone should be reviewing world history.

    1. They probably still have Yamamoto’s transcript on file. Funny, I don’t recall any effort on Harvard’s part to disavow his relationship with the university.

      By the way, will they be refunding Cruz’s, Crenshaw’s and McEnany’s tuition?

      Didn’t think so.

  9. Who would have thought that free speech has a cost.

    I am shocked, just shocked that if you lie your A off for a year about how corrupt our election system is, and if you loose it is only because they cheated. Then when you loose, you lie your A off on the steps of the court house when you talk about massive amounts of evidence of cheating, then step into the court house and say you lost because you think someone cheated but say nothing about evidence. That talk would have an end result that you get ostracized. I am shocked, just shocked.

    1. What was the ramifications for the Democrats in 2016 who lied about unlawful surveillance and a “Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion which turned out to be Hillary and the DNC? All we have heard about that election is “He is not my President.” “He is an illegitimate President. And immediately after he won legitimately riots broke out in DC and NY. This double standard is a mockery of Democracy.

      1. What was the ramifications for the Democrats in 2016 who lied about unlawful surveillance and a “Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion which turned out to be Hillary and the DNC?

        Trump doing the same.

        1. So, suddenly the swamp has been doing Trump’s bidding? Try again. I didn’t like him when he was running in the primariesI thought he was brash and bullish. Then I saw he was the most transparent person to be elected that I can remember and I’ve been around since Eisenhower and I doubt you know which President he was. I haven’t agreed with all his policies but you can’t say you don’t know what he’s thinking, he’s not the greatest communicator but he hasn’t enriched himself in Washington. He has lost more than he has gained and he has not even taken a salary as President. The Deep State and the Swamp have finally won but to get him out of office but they won’t stop trying to destroy him. Michael, we’ll talk 10 years from now if I’m alive. Perhaps you and I will find at least a little common ground then.

      2. Good points, Phyllis. We are still awaiting the report of the Special Counsel. In the meantime, Jim Comey talks to the BBC.

    2. The cheating that occurred in Pennsylvania is clear. The videos we saw in the Atlanta after-hours counting are clear. Stick you head into MSNBC if you like.

      1. I grew up around Philly. Along with the Mummer’s parade and punching police horses, election fraud is one of Philly’s most cherished traditions, going back to the days of Frank Rizzo, who once said of his political opponent, “He couldn’t beat me if I gave him the voting machines.”

        The question is not whether fraud exists, but if it is enough to change the outcome. That’s a much tougher question.

    3. To All: There are two Paul’s posting here. I am not the idiot that posted this previous message. You will be able to tell which one is me by noting who is NOT the hypocrite!!

  10. Guess Obama shouldn’t have scared them into thinking they’d be homeless without their degrees. It’s beyond absurd that a piece of paper, these days from institutions that bestow very little actual education, should be vaunted to the dubious status of a party armband. We have multiple generations of Patty Hearsts and Squeeky Fromms at this point. They are brainwashed to the point that undoing the damage will be akin to convincing fundamentalist Christians that Jesus isn’t the savior or for Muslims, Mohammed.

    Nobody cared about *this* 10+ years ago either in spite of people sounding warnings, when course correction was very possible. When these kids join their fanatical brethren in the world it’s highly likely they will simply decide they are entitled to rule us, Game of Thrones style (a series which is FICTION people, not historical reenactment) and they will violently temper tantrum until and unless we relent or retaliate (that doesn’t always equal violence. A metaphorical spanking or grounding would work wonders). We are in a real pickle.

    For the record, if you are over 35, I don’t give a toss where you went to school. You are either a functional and adult human being or you’re not. Education is not transferred by osmosis simply because your parents paid the entry fee or you move to the approved zip code. We have lost it in the West. Sadly, the youngest of our teens have never known anything else, they think this is reality.

  11. The purge begins. For those who laugh at concerns over communism’s encroachment on our freedoms, consider the similarity of this to, say, the Cultural Revolution in China, or Stalin’s “successes”, or the Nazi Socialism’s achievements of purity. Consider our own McCarthy era. Time to speak out in defense of those who call attention to matters which require explication, analysis, reflection, debate.
    If you are not deeply alarmed, infuriated by this, you’re asleep. Principles over personalities. I happened to be in Boston during Trump’s Inauguration Day, 2017, and I assure you: nobody was accepting the election results then either. Why, you couldn’t even walk the Freedom Trail safely. I can also be fairly certain that not a single protester there ever heard, or read Trump’s speech to the nation, or any other subsequent State of the Union. In fact, Nancy Pelosi disrespectfully and violently tore one up on national TV. The party of love and tolerance, unity, only wants those things as a UNI-party. No discussion. You shut up.

    1. I know, “Stand back and stand by”. We need more white suprematists with their guns to keep the evil black and brown people out of our country.

      1. Inappropriate comment, I believe, and deliberately misunderstanding. My white next door neighbor flies a Trump flag still, has no guns, but just had his first white grandchild out of 8. The rest are Black and Brown. (Do we capitalize Brown now too? I’m so slow.) Like most Trump supporters I know, though I’m sure there are many exceptions, he has nothing but love for Black and Brown people. And many, many Trump supporters, more than ever, are minority. They’d prefer not to be called victims, and would like to work.

  12. The orc wing of the Democrat party is at it, again. If somebody gives them power, the war they get will be the war they regret.

  13. The assault on Freedom of Speech has accelerated, embraced and encouraged by the political Left, Big Tech, the media and academia. The immediate remedy will be action by the courts

    1. Does Twitter prevent you from voicing your opinion or do they prevent you from threatening people? I’m confused, free speech should also include telling a congressperson that you want her raped and dead?

      Really?

      1. baby, I can tell you by experience they will censor you for anything they deem misinformation. I simply shared a video of doctors and scientists who disagreed with Fauci and they took it down. Then the New York Post story I shared was censored. As the CEO of Twitter gets high on drugs he imagines himself and Zuckerburg as arbiters of a so called truth and know they are unstoppable with protection no one else has. You might as well live in their heads forever because it looks like that’s exactly where they want you. You don’t realize you’ve lost your freedom as well.

  14. Did you link to yesterday’s DOJ indictment of yet another Harvard deception, Zaosong Zheng, Yanqing Ye, Charles Lieber, MIT Gang Chen… These are just the people indicted in 2020. All the “Thousand Talents” and other spy rings abetted by the University, including The Biden Center at UPenn.. The list is endless, but I’m afraid if the Harvard Crymson news trumpets their disapproval of a distant graduate, well then the China-owned New York Crimes has to follow suit and slander someone also.

    1. The infiltration is massive, alarming and terrifying. I taught Chinese English teachers in Shanghai three summers before SARS closed down the program which was coordinated and operated out of New York City through the teachers union. It was a fabulous experience, and I love the Chinese people with whom I worked. The CCP office was directly next to our hotel, however, watching every move, and the people were much afraid to speak. The chill of constant supervision and fear of punishment begins to feel familiar. How do we have open and free interchanges with those who seek to subjugate others? Not a new problem. Just new, digital and socio-economic-political dimensions with Biden family implications.

  15. Leftists are ruled by their emotions, not their brains. They act like a spurned, vindictive lover who will stop at nothing to exact revenge. History warns us of what can happen when leftists gain power. The purges, re-education camps, etc. were all products of leftists who demanded complete, absolute devotion and fawning….or else.

    1. Do you have any idea how silly you sound?

      Some people on the right and left are ruled by their emotions, not their brains. Some aren’t. What do you think about all of the rightwing insurrectionists who broke into the Capitol and are now being arrested — were they ruled by their brains or by their emotions?

      1. One who broke a window was a Black Lives Matter activist (Jonathan Earle Sullivan, I think) was just arrested by the FBI after a video captured him in the act, then stepping back to act as “reporter” and changing his clothes. CNN, of course, broadcast his version of the “report” far and wide without analysis. Can we agree that there are dummies and violent people on both sides?

      2. Not all rightwing, as you will soon see. Not all Trump supporters, as you will soon see. (Or maybe you will refuse to see, that’s possible.)

      3. No one who posts on this blog knows how silly they are. That’s the beauty. The blinding narcissism on display here is higher quality than most comment sections. Just sit back and marvel at the deranged individuals airing their two minutes of hate. Sometimes they even unironically invoke Orwell right in the middle of it!

    2. TIN this is true to the start of all Socialist movements. The concentration camps are in the near future if we don’t all call for Devine intervention. If America falls to the CCP the world will.

  16. And those people will be the “future leaders”? Give me someone from North Dakota State or Nebraska instead

    1. I hope this is saber rattling. There is a concerted effort to try to draw those 74million-plus voters into a civil war but this will not provoke that response. Instead it is more likely Harvard is pointing injury to themselves financially by far fewer grads applying over the coming days, months and years. If they can discriminate against Asians and follow up with this, they have built their foundation on sand.

  17. You can always tell a Harvard man…you just can’t tell him anything.
    How do you know if someone went to Harvard? They tell you in the first five seconds of conversation.

  18. These university people are idiots, hate-mongers, and would -be thieves (yes, people earned and paid for the degrees – Harvard is proposing theft).

    But they are succeeding in riling people up.

    Payback is not what they want, but what they ensure.

Leave a Reply