As many on this blog know, I have been one of the most vocal critics of Harvard and its history of viewpoint intolerance and attacks on free speech. That includes dozens of columns, a book, and a debate at Harvard Law School denouncing the purging of Harvard’s faculty and student body of Republicans and conservatives. I hope that this work offers some context and perhaps credibility for my reason for writing this morning: the threats to remove Harvard’s tax-exempt status are fundamentally wrong. Such a move would produce lasting damage to both to higher education and the country as a whole.
After Harvard refused to comply with demands from the Trump Administration, the President called for its tax-exempt status to be lifted on Truth Social:
Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting “Sickness?” Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!
Some commentators have picked up on this call, including some who cite the 1982 decision involving Bob Jones University, in which the Supreme Court upheld the denial of tax-exempt status.
I obviously agree with many of the Trump Administration’s complaints against Harvard over its anti-free speech history and lack of diversity of viewpoints.
The anti-free speech movement in the United States began in higher education and these schools constitute the hardest silos for reform. Most faculty have refused to change their hiring trends with many departments now with no Republican or conservative faculty. Indeed, many professors at Harvard would rather bulldoze the campus than allow greater diversity of viewpoints in their departments. I have written that the current generation of faculty and administrators is destroying higher education to replicate their own ideological orthodoxy.
This is not about them. It is about the future of higher education and how we reform higher education is as important as the need to reform. Few of us would want the government to dictate hiring or teaching decisions in higher education. My book suggests some aggressive measures to reform higher education. That includes reducing funding and increasing reviews of university practices. The removal of tax-exempt status is not one of those measures.
Higher education plays a critical role in our economy. The schools are the engines of innovation and training that allow us to remain competitive in the world economy. Not only are these schools one of our largest employers, but they are also essential economic and social institutions to many local economies.
Most importantly, tax exemption should not be a status bestowed upon those adhering to the demands of whatever party is in power. Free speech and associational rights are fostered by granting this status. While Harvard and other schools have abandoned core values, educational institutions are afforded tax-exempt status.
Almost ten years ago, Congress moved to impose tax burdens on Harvard and the larger academic endowments which make profits off their investments. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 imposed a 1.4 percent tax on those institutions. If tax-exempt status were removed, it would kick that burden up to 21 percent, causing a massive financial loss for many schools. It would likely result in an enormous reduction in research and even school closures.
Now, back to Bob Jones. I have long been critical of the IRS standards used to determine when tax exemption is not in the public interest. In the case of Bob Jones, the university was engaged in racial discrimination. However, the actual standard is far more vague and could potentially be used more broadly.
In the case of Harvard, some are arguing that anti-Semitic activities on campus can be treated as similar to the discrimination at Bob Jones. There are obvious distinctions. At Bob Jones, the discrimination was embodied in university rules and based on the school’s religious values at the time.
The danger is that the Trump Administration would open the door to highly subjective determinations that target disfavored schools. If we go down this path, a new Administration led by President Harris or Walz could target conservative schools for discriminating against other groups or viewpoints. The government would then be able to hold financial control over institutions of higher education. It could be the death knell for higher education.
Some of us have been targets of academic intolerance for years. I have had calls for my termination for decades since I testified in the Clinton impeachment. It is not easy today to be a dissenter in higher education. You are shunned, isolated, and harassed. Many conservative, libertarian, and dissenting faculty have simply left out of exhaustion. The purging of our ranks rivals the crackdowns during the McCarthy period with most faculties now running from the left to the far left.
As one of the long-standing targets of this culture, I have spent my career fighting for change. However, I do not see the advantage of replacing one source of political control by another. We still have the greatest higher education system in the world. We need to find ways to reform it, not ruin it with impulsive measures.
The problem is not Harvard as an institution. It is the biased administrators and faculty who have a stranglehold on these institutions. However, if you want squatters out of a home, you do not burn the house down.
My book details ways to reduce federal and state support for universities while organizing donors to force changes at these institutions. It will not be easy or fast. However, if we want to remain the world’s premier higher education system, we need to focus on funding and enforcement issues, not tax exemption.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Harvard should lose its status because it discriminates in hiring and admissions. Both were addressed in the demands from the Trump administration. Funny that Harvard does plenty of viewpoint discrimination against conservative speech on campus, but is so invested in protecting supporters of terrorism.
Harvard has measured the amount of damage Trump can do and has shrugged it off.
Trump has shown them that they need new measurements.
I think I like that.
When you live off the government you say that stupid stuff
I’d be interested to know what Prof. Turley thinks about Bob Jones University v. U.S.: Was it correctly decided? In the university’s case, it was inter-racial dating and the “public interest” against discrimination. But, what about birth control or abortion? Couldn’t a Democratic administration try to force Catholic colleges and universities to accept either of these by threatening their tax-exempt status as well?
Whatever the political ideology, it should matter not in the realm of Tax exemption. Each entity should be able to stand on its own. Favored status by a government leads to political persuasion by the state over the favored. Why should any organization, university, union, or religion have a privileged right? I know it sounds harsh; the state is for the general welfare of all citizens not a specific few.
Sounds like de jure vs de facto discrimination.
#. Professor Turley is being harassed. Document and take them to court! Don’t just take it!
OT
Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Assistant Attorney General
Office o f Legal Counsel
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors
And??? If Biden can do all of the things he did outside of the boundaries what the heck are they going to go after Trump and his Admin for?
Just because they allowed the money pig to wallow doesn’t mean Trump will. They set up that admin specifically to do outrageous things, anticipating what mihgt happen if a Republican were to even attempt to wallow
OT
BOASBERG WAS NOT THE EMERGENCY JUDGE
Senator Eric Schmitt
@SenEricSchmitt
Judge Boasberg wasn’t the emergency judge but he inserted himself anyway. We’re moving to rein in activist judges and restore constitutional order.
Correct, there is no reason Harvard should lose its tax exempt status. It remains an educational istitution. However, Harvard has no “right” to government funding.
Why do any Schools that “are making a profit” have a tax exemption? Same goes for churches and the list can go on and on! I am assuming this was a Law set by Congress???? Maybe time to look at all of this! We are not the same size country/people/expenses that we are now when many of these Laws put in place! I am starting to think that the FAIR TAX system for all indiv or entity might not be such a bad idea!
A precedence has been established concerning racial discrimination by institutions of higher learning. The Supreme Court has ruled that ending tax exempt status is appropriate where racial bias is obvious. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/04/harvard-meet-bob-jones.php. Harvard has become an organized DEI branch of the Democratic Party and is no longer a neutral educational institution. Excluding black people due to their race should not be supported by your tax dollars and neither should racism against Jews and people of Asian descent. The precedent set by The Supreme Court should apply. Harvard has become the Bob Jones University of the left and due to its actions should be treated as such.
That is not accurate. Bob Jones officially banned interracial couples. That is wholly different from student groups at Harvard that support disfavored political causes.
There would have to be clear evidence that black people are being excluded solely on their race. DEI is not about race. It never was.
Didn’t the Supreme court ruled that affirmative action is not constitutional? So they now base their admissions on merit.
“DEI is not about race. It never was.”
Diversity:
Refers to the presence of differences within a group or organization. These differences can include, but are not limited to, race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, disability, socioeconomic status, and other unique characteristics.
Why does George lie so much?
Is it just one of his unique characteristics?
How it’s a lie? I said it’s not about race and Republians only make it about race.
Bravo, Harvard. I stand with academic freedom and with all universities having Constitutional rights and independence. A majority of students at Harvard are not protestors or even close to anti-Semitic. Isolate those who are and discipline them, not the entire university. Cracking down on protests in a reasonable manner is not hard. Funding to universities should not be based on politics or who is in power. If it did America would not be as great or as advanced as it is.
Montage66. Would your opinion be the same if the racial discrimination was directed towards black people. My suspicion is that you would be the first in line calling for sanctions against Harvard if this were the case. Racism is the same whether it’s directed at Blacks, Jews or people of Asian descent. Therefore, the reasoning must follow that you are in favor of racism against Jews and Asians and consequently Harvards actions are justified and no penalty should be applied. You can’t have it both ways.
Your use of the passive tense is telling. “racial discrimination was directed….”
By whom? Nice try.
“Bravo, Harvard. I stand with academic freedom and with all universities having Constitutional rights and independence.”
Were you also against Eisenhower’s actions overseeing efforts to ensure that public universities were also desegregated?
OT;
Trump is lying about how much money the tariffs are bringing in. He claims $2 Billion a day is being collected. Actual numbers are more like $227 million per day. That’s a tax on US businesses of $227 million. That amounts to $55 billion since October. That won’t even cover his proposed tax cuts at current rates.
what’s your income Svelaz? what’s your income tax bracket? Ask your mother to give her a good laugh. tell her claiming you as a tax-write off since you’re a free-loader might get her in trouble with Bernie Sanders & AOC. They don’t like white free-loaders
George, source please! Oh, never mind as usual you don’t have one. Thanks for the disinformation. On second thought, you may be correct due to China not shipping goods to the U.S. Once again your loyalty to China is showing.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/16/us-customs-tariffs-revenue-generated-since-april-5.html
The source is the US Customs and Border Protection, which said the average is $250 million, so George wasn’t far off.
CBP is contradicting Trump’s fake numbers. And the grass is green.
Let’s see George, the tariff money is being transferred from the treasury of China to the U.S. Treasury and that is somehow a tax on U.S. citizens. In the long run will your buddies in China feel the heat more than the U.S. citizens. I guess you’ve missed the news about big companies from nations such as Singapore that have increased their investment by building factories in the U.S. to the tune of five billion dollars. I understand George, you’re just a little picture guy with a limited amount of grey matter.
Yes, this is basic economics.
A tariff is a tax of consumers. Have you “thought it through”?
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/who-pays-tariffs/
Numerous studies show a near total passthrough to import prices.
Trump Pauses Tariffs for 75 Countries Negotiating With US – but Hits China With 125% – as Market Rebound Surges
The 90-day pause and reduction to 10% tariffs was for countries actively working with the U.S. to restructure trade deals
https://www.thewrap.com/trump-pause-tariffs-75-countries-negotiating-us-trade-deals-china-125-markets/
Meanwhile Biden is babbling in his pampers about….no one knows WTF he says despite his breaking the US Budget
What were the deals? I bet Trump is making up most of those “deals” since he won’t divulge which countries he was dealing with
It has been reported that it was Trump who was seeking to negotiate a new deal instead of the other way around.
A 90 day pause is not a guarantee that Trump won’t reduce the tariffs back to zero or to their previous levels. He’s still imposing an arbitrary 10% on every nation. What Trump has shown is he can’t be trusted with what he says and that works in China’s favor as they seek to make their deals much more attractive. China has leverage, Trump does not.
You complain when they are transparent, and you complain when they have to play close to the chest. Just admit you hate this admin for existing and be done with it.
These studies are about ‘regular’ duties, not retaliatory duties of 25%. It is impossible to shift that forward to consumers. Generally, shifting forward depends on demand elasticity, i.e., the sensitivity of consumers to price increases. Low duties are easily sifted forward for most goods, but these high duties are not. As a result, the cost will be (partly) shifted backward to the importer and the manufacturer. Nobody knows in advance how the shifting forward and backward is divided and it will depend on the specific good and the demand elasticity varies per good. Although, likely, some of these emergency duties will be shifted forward, a large portion will be borne by importer and manufacturer.
Thinkitthrough says,
“Let’s see George, the tariff money is being transferred from the treasury of China to the U.S. Treasury and that is somehow a tax on U.S. citizens. In the long run will your buddies in China feel the heat more than the U.S. citizens.”
That’s no how tariffs work. Nothing is transferred from China. Not a single dime. The money the treasury is getting, the tariffs, comes from US companies importing Chinese goods. THEY pay the 245% tariff. Not China. Those same companies pass on that tax unto US citizens. WE are the ones paying for the tariffs. WE are the ones putting money into the treasury.
We rely on raw materials and rare earth minerals for crucial electronics and defense applications. EV’s iphones, etc. China provides the great majority of these raw materials. They also have the manufacturing skills and ability to quickly adapt to new markets. WE don’t. China may suffer losses, but we will suffer greater losses in return. We are already lost any leverage that we have, thanks to Trump caving in multiple times and making “deals” that are worse than before.
Have you noticed that Trump is not threatening Canada anymore? He’s gone quiet after he learned Canada provides 50% of our energy needs and the majority of our timber for home construction. Trump backed off quietly after his “advisors” realized how stupid his demands were.
#. Tax exempt for religion and education as a charity? Find education in the constitution. Is education separate from government and there shall be no laws passed regarding its practice. Black ministers were bountiful as their churches were tax exempt and sovereign nations where most anything could be done so they’ve moved into education now and are “educators”. Look at the political and immoral swill they push onto youths damaging them for a lifetime.
Find it in the constitution.
That isn’t how the Constitution works. But cool story bro.
Unfortunately higher education itself is causing lasting damage to our country these days. Stop funding it. Make people pay for it themselves.
#. Where’s the audits on sewer schools like Harvard and Columbia? 53 billion from whom and invested in what and spent where and on what? That 53 billion can be laundered to fund Hamas and probably is. It’s a laundry, not a school.
Paying 1 million per year to the plagiarist fired for how many years and not a penny of public money for that tramp? Teaching position plus a million?
Hit them from 2 fronts: student visas and audits of foreign donors laundered through Qatar for its antisemite anti-Jewish/Christian contingent damaging American youths. Sorry hahvud , Columbia see the State dept and IRS.
Show tax exemption in the constitution. It’s in the business of education. Let the public know when you implement some standards.
“Most importantly, tax exemption should not be a status bestowed upon those adhering to the demands of whatever party is in power.”
No, Professor, if an institution willfully and continually ignores Federal laws, than that institution MUST be punished for violating such laws. Tax exempt status IS a privilege, NOT a right.
Professor Turley states, “Some of us have been targets of academic intolerance for years. I have had calls for my termination for decades… You are shunned, isolated, and harassed.”
No, Professor Turley, –what you have lost due to the above “academic intolerance,” –you have gained sevenfold in respect, credibility, and admiration–now to a global following that includes a broad spectrum of both student and highly-educated professionals from multiple disciplines.
lin, I didn’t know you were a big fan of hyperbole.
It’s not hyperbole if it’s true, by definition. How do you know that what lin says isn’t true?
Is it true that Turley gained seven-fold in respect, credibility, etc? How do we know? What was the previous measure? We can’t know it’s true because there is no rational way to measure what he meant by “seven-fold increase”. What was the previous measure? Who has been keeping tabs on the measure? See how that can be hyperbole?
You asserted that she said something that wasn’t true. Now you’re defending your assertion by saying we can’t know if it’s true or not? That’s incoherent. Plus, you judge her literally on what was clearly an “idiomatic expression” as she says below. That kind of critique is childish.
George: I didn’t know that your reading comprehension would limit your ability to understand idiomatic expression. Why don’t you use your friend Google to look up idiomatic expression, thanks.
Lin, it was hyperbole. Saying things like “under the weather” or “piece of cake” are idiomatic expressions.
“you have gained sevenfold in respect, credibility, and admiration–now to a global following that includes a broad spectrum of both student and highly-educated professionals from multiple disciplines.”
Is hyperbole. The meaning of HYPERBOLE is extravagant exaggeration.
I thought you were smarter than that.
georgie boy seems to be confusing idiomatic expression with idiom. no comprehension skills.
HAHAHA yeah, Goerge likes to double down (is that an idiom?) on those who have successfully called him out.
To say that George is smart is HYPERBOLE
HEY GEORGE! Oh MY! Here’s a list of recent HYPERBOLES that you need to research on Google to see if they are actually sevenfold!.
Then you need to contact each and every writer and publisher to have them correct their statements because they are in error and they are NOT sevenfold, they are hyperboles!
Anne Flaherty, ABC News, 15 Dec. 2021
Facebook’s ascent in elections has been rapid, mirroring its sevenfold increase in value since the company went public in 2012.
—
—
Rochelle Toplensky, WSJ, 13 Jan. 2022
The city of Vancouver has filed a lawsuit to block the pipeline, arguing that the accompanying sevenfold increase in traffic by oil tankers poses a serious threat to aquatic life and water safety.
—
Ben Adler, New Republic, 8 Sep. 2017
About a fifth of potential passengers in California now end up not finding a ride, a sevenfold increase from previously.
—
Carolyn Said, San Francisco Chronicle, 5 Apr. 2021
Even more dramatic increases in homicide rates occurred in Jamaica and the Republic of Ireland after their gun bans, with sixfold or sevenfold increases.
—
John R. Lott Jr., National Review, 8 Oct. 2017
Officials are reporting more than 7,000 new infections each day, a sevenfold increase from late February.
—
Chicago Tribune Staff, chicagotribune.com, 15 Apr. 2021
Following approval, the 10 drugs together brought in $67 billion, the researchers also concluded — a more than sevenfold return on investment.
—
Roberta Smith, New York Times, 5 Oct. 2017
That amounts to about a sevenfold increase in the usual rate, director of programs Amy Klinger said.
—
Hanna Krueger, NOLA.com, 4 Mar. 2018
In Georgia, about 60% of outbreaks in the state over the last two months are happening in K-12 schools, a sevenfold increase from July.
—
William A. Haseltine, Forbes, 17 Sep. 2021
In Washington state, those attacks rose almost sevenfold last year to 20, the data shows.
—
Paige Cornwell, The Seattle Times, 31 Oct. 2018
The drop might have been bigger but for a sevenfold increase in concessions that landlords offered.
—
Noah Buhayar, Bloomberg.com, 16 Sep. 2020
Cases of the new variant have been doubling every two days, with a sevenfold increase in the prevalence of the omicron variant in the last week– proving itself to be even more transmissible than the delta variant.
—
Gina Kolata, New York Times, 11 Sep. 2017
A popular hotel chain in the United Kingdom even issued sleepwalker-care guidelines to staff members after noting a sevenfold increase in sleepwalking patrons over one year, 95 percent of whom were men wandering out of their rooms naked.
—
Malia Wollan, New York Times, 11 Aug. 2017
Michigan has experienced a sevenfold increase in cases since late February.
—
David Z. Morris, Fortune, 20 Apr. 2021
Annual profit has nearly quintupled, share value has risen sevenfold, and sales have increased for 16 consecutive quarters.
—
Ellen Byron, WSJ, 11 Aug. 2017
Sealed law enforcement requests to track Americans without a warrant through cellphone location records or Internet activity grew sevenfold in the past three years in the District, new information released by a federal judge in the District shows.
—
Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post, 18 July 2017
Morrison has said the India ban was prompted by a sevenfold increase in the percentage of travelers from India testing positive for the coronavirus at a quarantine facility near Darwin, in northern Australia.
—
BostonGlobe.com, 4 May 2021
By comparison, the same analysis gave California a sevenfold impact and Florida a fourfold impact.
—
Steven Lerner, Washington Examiner, 28 Oct. 2020
Cybercriminals have been very effective at exploiting this, evidenced by recent spikes in attacks targeting older technologies deployed on home networks and a sevenfold increase in ransomware attacks during the second half of 2020.
—
Fortinet Contributor, Forbes, 14 June 2021
Alaska Dispatch News, 9 Oct. 2017
The gas’s potential to clean up hard-to-decarbonize sectors like steel and long-haul transport underpins expectations of a sevenfold increase in the global market by 2050.
Lin, what do you think of the merits of withdrawing tax exempt status? As I see it, there are at least two reasons for possible revocation based on violations of laws against discrimination: tolerance of the creation of a hostile environment for Jews; and continuing racial preferences in hiring and admissions. I don’t recall in the Bob Jones situation what investigation/process preceded the revocation. But that is certainly a precedent that could be applicable here.
Much of what Trump sought to do in its letter to Harvard seemed to be an overreach, and likely went too far. By going too far he weakened his case, to the point where the withholding of funds is likely to be enjoined when Harvard goes to court. Title VI requires a long process before funds can be withheld, and also requires a link between the specific program being defunded and the unlawful discrimination in question. That certainly has not even been alleged here, in the case of the research grants.
Hello Daniel: In a hurry here, but you always provide stimulating thoughts on the periphery of the subject, as in here, you are the first to mention hostile environment under TItle VI
So quickly
(1) Yes, I believe that Harvard could be found to have accommodated a discriminatory hostile environment, more so for its delay in acknowledging and rectifying than any fault in causing or inciting it.
(2) since 501(c)(3) is at least partially premised upon charitable trust law, there is the added consideration of whether the exempted entity, in return for such status, provides “beneficial and stabilizing influences” among its users/participants/beneficiaries (here, students and staff). Harvard has already been called out for, but appears to have addressed, https://ocrcas.ed.gov/sites/default/files/ocr-letters-and-agreements/01242155-a.pdf
(3) No, in lieu of changes and promises, I do not believe it should lose its tax exempt status but do believe in other remedies and actions, including withholding of grants, loans, and awards.
(4) I agree with you in your assessment of Trump’s “overreach” which may have sounded more retaliatory than corrective, but more importantly and regrettably, he may be narrowly skirting prohibitions under 26 USC 7217 by suggesting or requesting such investigative queries….
Thanks for your thoughts on this blog
“Much of what Trump sought to do in its letter to Harvard seemed to be an overreach, and likely went too far. By going too far he weakened his case…”
Daniel, I am confused by your conclusion. I don’t believe the letter was released to the press; at least, I couldn’t find it, and the only things I saw were from the press, which I could not trust. Were there any quotes from the letter that made you feel like you do?
Trump often makes statements with a double meaning, so it is difficult to assess anything he says unless completely read in context.
I guess that I disagree with the premise that tax exempt status for anyone is good. Everyone, including the poor, needs to feel the wrath of the Taxman.
Agreed. Two wrongs don’t make a right
No I think they should lose their tax exempt status. They are too heavily involved in politics. Taxpayers are supporting their radical left-leaning ideas. Why can’t they allow center to right professors or even speakers to participate on their campus.
Should the Heritage Foundation lose tax exempt status?
Across the board would be the fair way right? What amount do you think would be fair? You know if you think about it, our tax system is really complicated and screwed up! I use to have to read Personal and Corporate Tax returns for Mortgage loans, residential and commercial, it was amazing what some didn’t have to pay because of Tax Codes!
No, they make no secret what they stand for and who they are.
“Why can’t they allow center to right professors or even speakers to participate on their campus.”
Because they are a private school. They are entitled to form their school’s faculty as they see fit. There is no consitutional right to have equal ideologies represented in schools. Ideology is not a protected class. I believe that if conservatives or libertarians want to be included more in heavily left leaning schools they have to make good convincing arguments that their ideas and views are worthy of consideration to students. Just whining about being excluded because they are conservative or libertarian is no different than whining about not enough black or hispanic students not being accepted in these ivy league schools. As conservatives keep saying, argue on the merits, not the ideology, race, or economic status. Right?
Those courageous Harvard words, bragging that the government should stay out of the affairs of “private universities.”
I agree. Stay out, Government!!!!
Harvard is a PRIVATE UNIVERSITY!
Take your government loans, grants, and tax exemptions elsewhere! Government loans, grants, and tax exemptions are for PUBLIC universities! Not Harvard! Harvard doesn’t need you!
Harvard will support itself with contributions from alumni and ideological sympathizers, not the government!
Harvard will fund its niche research through those that want to use it to make more money! (Pfizer, Gates, Bloomberg, China, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/2/26/donor-honor-roll/
Harvard will be known for its courageous “standing up” against the government, while it contemporaneously enjoys all the benefits of existing on American soil!
No problemo!
If they are private, they can get alumni and others to donate, not the PUBLIC.
I am absolutely disgusted by such a defense of Harvard and other cesspools of wokeness and downright lunacy. This morning I read an excerpt from a Harvard “academic” defending horrific behavior by “migrants.”
“A Rise in Sexual Assaults By Migrants is a Price Worth Paying to End Racism.
Quasi-consensual encounters between refugees and white western women may help with assimilation, says one Harvard academic.”
That, Professor, is what you are defending. How about you offer a solution to the problem rather than another academic defense of the indefensible.
Does the “one Harvard academic” control the University and its decision-making? Do you understand the premise of academic freedom?
Clarke Penley, the “exerpt” which you read is a faked image. A less gullible individual would have searched the archives of The Atlantic, to find that no such article exists.
I have to disagree with you on this one. Harvard is a cesspool of Marxist anti-Semites. It is poisoning generations of future leaders. If you want to preserve our Constitution, Harvard needs to become balanced. That it refuses to speaks volumes about their real agenda.
You are correct! I had a friend who’s Daughter went there and after her first year she transferred out for the main specific reasons you mentioned above! She said many of her Professors pushed ideology instead of the specific topic! She went there to learn not to be told how to think in regard to her “personal life” and “political views”.
I understand they have accumulated a multi billion dollar endowment.
I’m fine with public funding of closed end programs, research, etc. but what is wrong with operating the rest of the school on its own money?
As you undoubtedly know grad students do most of the work for low pay and the chance to ass kiss their way into a teaching job.
“The best and the brightest” has turned into finishing school for a mob of America haters.