Below is my column in The Hill on Harvard faculty organizing in opposition to the Trump Administration’s measures targeting the university for failure to protect Jewish students and its lack of diversity of viewpoints on campus. Despite being a vocal critic of Harvard’s culture of orthodoxy, I have encouraged the Administration to moderate some of these measures and oppose the denial of tax-exempt status of the university. However, the Harvard faculty members may want to sit this one out. They are not helping their cause.
Here is the column:
Harvard faculty members are finally upset about free speech and viewpoint intolerance. Hundreds of professors signed a letter of outrage over what they called an attack on the “rights of free expression, association, and inquiry” in higher education.
The cause for this outcry is the threat to end the university’s tax exempt status, freezing federal grants, and other punitive measures. Some of those measures raise serious concerns over academic freedom and free speech.
The problem is that Harvard faculty members have spent decades denying those rights to teachers and students alike.
There is an almost comical lack of self-awareness among Harvard faculty members who express concern about protecting viewpoint diversity and academic integrity. The letter gives off that same queasy feeling as when CBS morning host Gayle King insisted she is an astronaut, just like Alan Shepard, due to her 10-minute jaunt in space on the Blue Origin. One is just left speechless, looking awkwardly at one’s shoes.
Many of these signatories have been entirely silent for years as departments purged their ranks of conservatives to create one of the most perfectly sealed-off echo chambers in all of higher education. Harvard ranks dead last for free speech, awarded a 0 out of 100 score last year by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. There has been no outcry about this from most of these professors.
There has long been a culture of intolerance at Harvard. Just last month, Harvard Professor Timothy McCarthy called upon the university to fire any faculty who do not support the use of “gender-affirming care” on children.
Just last year, the president of the Student Advisory Committee of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics called for the express abandonment of nonpartisanship as a touchstone of the institute after President Trump’s second election.
Dean of Social Science Lawrence Bobo recently rejected the notion of free speech as a “blank check” and said that criticizing university leaders like himself or school policies is now viewed as “outside the bounds of acceptable professional conduct.”
The Trump Administration is right to focus on Harvard as an example of all that is wrong with higher education today. Like most universities, Harvard’s faculty runs from the left to the far left. For years, the university has been criticized for extreme ideological bias in hiring and admissions. The faculty merely harrumphed. After all, this is Harvard.
Consider the numbers. In a country with a plurality of conservative voters in the last election, less than 9 percent of the Harvard student body is conservative. Less than 3 percent of the faculty identified as conservative.
That is more than an academic echo chamber. It is an academic sensory deprivation tank.
Harvard faculty have purged conservative faculty for years and created one of the most hostile environments for free speech in all of higher education. Even with the virtual absence of conservative faculty and an overwhelmingly liberal class, only 33 percent of graduating students feel comfortable speaking their minds freely at Harvard.
In a recent debate at Harvard Law School, I debated the respected Professor Randall Kennedy on the lack of ideological diversity at Harvard. I do not consider Kennedy anti-free speech or intolerant. Yet during the debate, I noted the statistics on the vanishing number of conservative students and faculty at Harvard in a country divided quite evenly politically. Kennedy responded that Harvard “is an elite university” and does not have to “look like America.”
The problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican. At the law school, only a tiny number of faculty members agree with the views of the majority of the Supreme Court and roughly half of the federal judiciary.
For the record, I have criticized the threat of removing Harvard’s tax-exempt status and other measures that threaten free speech. However, as I discuss in my book “The Indispensable Right,” there are ways to force greater diversity without curtailing academic freedom. That includes federal and state governments withholding government funding from these schools until there is greater diversity and tolerance on campuses.
For years, these administrators and professors have shown an abundance of arrogance and a paucity of concern over free speech. They showed little concern for how they were damaging this historic institution. In just one generation, higher education is in a free fall across the country as professors pursued ideological over institutional interests. If universities were conventional corporations, virtually every university president and board in the country would be removed for violation of their fiduciary duties.
But there is no such fiduciary obligation in education. Liberal presidents, boards, and faculty have eliminated most dissenting voices to their agendas. Indeed, many Harvard faculty would sooner bulldoze every building to the ground than restore true ideological diversity to their departments or abandon biased hiring and admissions.
Harvard spent millions fighting to defend their use of race in admissions — including discrimination against Asians in a shockingly demeaning and dehumanizing manner — until it lost before the Supreme Court in 2023. In the meantime, the university has been forced to introduce remedial, high-school-level math courses for its students due to falling scholastic standards.
Of course, none of that history is mentioned in the letter. Instead, one signatory to the Harvard letter, Kennedy School professor Archon Fung, explained that “It is a very predictable pattern that authoritarian governments go after two institutions first, which is the media and universities.” It was a telling argument. Much like academia, journalism schools abandoned objectivity and neutrality in favor of advocacy journalism. As a result, revenue and readers are plunging as citizens turn away from the mainstream echo chamber in favor of new and independent media.
Fung further argued, “We’re one of the two or three pillars that are really, really important for free discussion and inquiry in a democratic society, which is the beating heart of a democracy.”
It is precisely the free discussion and inquiry that Harvard, in maintaining its orthodox culture, has denied to conservatives and libertarians.
When it comes to the unjustifiable cancellation of its tax-exempt status, many of us will continue to argue for moderation in dealing with Harvard. The last thing we need in this debate is the help of the Harvard faculty.
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.”
President Donald J. Trump didn’t win the election, and America doesn’t need a president because the proletariat (i.e., hired help) says so.
The Executive Power is Vested in General Secretary JOHN ROBERTS, the Presiding Dictator of the Juristocracy of the People’s Republic of America.
BREAKING
Kid Rock will be the new Secretary of Defense
I thought Ozzy Osbourne would be the next Secretary of Defense
Great, if the misdion is to shoot tranny beer🤣
Trump has been invited to the Pope’s funeral.
Here is his latest Truth Social post.
“Melania and I will be going to the funeral of Pope Francis, in Rome.
We look forward to being there!”
(Note the exclamation point.)
He seems to think it is an invitation to a barbecue.
‘Look forward to being there’???
I mean.. what the f—… he does actually know what a funeral is, right? That it’s not a party?”
I simply take it as saying ‘Look forward to representing all of America in showing respect.’
The fact that you have to perceive everything he says in such a mocking stance is a reflection on YOU, not him.
OMG, an explanation point. That is really the most pressing issue facing Americans today. An exclamation point! What a world we live in, where someone uses an exclamation point, how will we ever recover from that???
Or maybe he’s overjoyed that the commie woke pope is out. It won’t last though – the next one will be worse.
Well I guess you haven’t been to an Irish wake, now have ya laddie ?
I think he’s happy that he’s able to represent the US and pay his and the country’s respects to the Pope.
Of course remember… He died shortly after meeting w Vance so what do you make of that? ;-P
I’ll let you and other conspiracy theorists ponder on it.
#. Prof Turley, Harvard and the rest are degraded to money laundering. The faculty are cowards and worse. It’s infiltrated and the homies like that tax free 53 billion.
Yes, tax them.
A Democrat Judge hid TdG illegal immigrant in his New Mexico home and had access to firearms.
Democrats, but especially Democrat Judges, cant stop themselves from breaking the law.
This Judge should be charged to the fullest.
“Democrat Judge Resigns After Suspected Tren De Aragua Gangbanger Arrested At His Home”
The Venezuelan national eventually met Nancy Cano, Joel Cano’s wife, and he accepted her offer to stay in a “casita” behind their home in Las Cruces, New Mexico, according to court documents obtained by the Albuquerque Journal. Ortega-Lopez in April 2024 filed a request for immigration relief and listed Cano’s Las Cruces address as his home.
Prosecutors further say that Ortega-Lopez was introduced to April Cano, Nancy’s daughter, who “possessed a large number of firearms” and “allowed him to hold and sometimes shoot various firearms.” In its press release, the Justice Department revealed social media evidence allegedly showing him in possession of firearms.
If convicted, Ortega-Lopez and the other three illegal migrants each face 15 years in prison, according to the Justice Department. They will remain in custody pending trial.
https://www.aol.com/news/democrat-judge-resigns-suspected-tren-172543588.html
C’mon how many judges get paid for housing a ‘gardner’ in their room over the detached garage?
OT; Moron Hegseth is getting replaced. Who could have seen that coming.
The incompetence continues.
OT: DAVID HOGG, your exbf, is being replaced by the DNC. Seems he cant keep his pecker up because you apparently broke it with your dirty canyon ashz
The impotence by George continues
“Like”
A bid of advice: don’t trust the fake news source you are listening to. It makes *you* look like the moron.
all of his comments say what we all have known for a long time: he is f***** up in the head. sad
It’s not fake news. Hegseth is going out. He’s messed up too many times. The moron keeps using Signal to send classified military info. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.
You need to lay off of the crack you keep buying from that skank dealer in the WeHo bathhouse. Crack. Crack. Crack is dumb, dumb, but entertaining for us to read when you’re cray cray cray
😂
In his case, looks are NOT deceiving…
Nope. Not happening. Now who looks like the moron?
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5259127-white-house-responds-to-npr-report-on-search-for-hegseth-replacement-fake-news/
Eliminate all federal funding to colleges and alll tax exemptions
Let the free market work
The free market won’t work. Not with the tariffs in place. Tariffs are anti-free market. Schools would become prohibitely expensive and segregation would be rampant.
There is a reason why Universities and Colleges were largely funded by states. So they would be affordable. It wasn’t until Republicans started cutting state funding to schools and tuition rates keep climbing out of reach of many and that is why so many have to use student loans.
Other countries offer University and college education for free or at true affordable tuition rates. The free market would not be able to compete against other countries free and affrodable higher education. A free market approach will create schools with a focus on profit over quality. Think of the spartan schools and other “trade” schools including Trump university all focused on profit instead of a quality education.
“The free market won’t work. Not with the tariffs in place. “
Then how did the US survive since the nation had Tariffs from the George Washington Administration to the present day.
You are an ignoramus and prove so with your ignorant comments. The rest of what you say is garbage. Almost nothing comes from you that isn’t cr-p.
#. He can’t help it. He is without self respect. Don’t read it. Futility.
Commie
S. Meyer
Tariffs and genuinely free markets are mutual exclusive.
In the presence of ANY tariffs a market cannot be a free market.
So which is it??
Which one do you want??
The real problem is that your stupidity and cult mentality makes it impossible to engage in rational thought.
Anonumous is the stupid one.
he/she/it said, “In the presence of ANY tariffs a market cannot be a free market.”
Quote from the Economic Policy Institute, “Until recently, tariffs on U.S. imports averaged 2.2% in accordance with numerous international agreements negotiated by the U.S. government–though many items entered tax free.” https://www.epi.org/publication/tariffs-everything-you-need-to-know-but-were-afraid-to-ask/
Completely stupid, pointless and irrelevant comment.
By definition, a free market cannot exist in the presence of any government controls.
The fact that the US has always had some form of tariffs “averaging 2.2% in accordance with numerous international agreements negotiated by the U.S. government”, as you say, simply means that the US has always exerted some form of market control and therefore the market is not free.
There is no free market if the government exerts control through tariffs.
when called out for your lack of understanding, you resort to fake condescension and insult.
Is that your explanation why you are so stupid? I don’t know if one could ever create an absolute free market where more than one person exists.
You are not engaging proven by your lack of substance. The US is considered a free market economy despite having Tariffs over its entire existence. Is it a “pure free market?” No. but you choose to be stupid instead of engaging.
agree with S. Meyer.
S. Meyer
What is wrong with you ???
Are you living in some bizarre alternate reality ?
(Actually a rhetorical question, because you live in fantasy cult world)
You say that I am not “engaging”.
Then what exactly have I been doing, if not engaging.
What do you think engaging means ???
To you, does to “engage” mean to agree with you??
Apparently you think that to “engage” means to “agree”, and if I disagree with you then I am not “engaging”
This is not normal, rational thinking, but is clearly the thinking of a disturbed cultist.
Your dismissive attitude when faced with a counter argument is actually a failure to engage on your part.
The US does not have a free market economy.
It is a mixed economy as defined :
A mixed economic system is an economy in which there exists private ownership by businesses and individuals (i.e., capitalism), but in which there is some degree of state involvement (i.e., socialism). In a mixed economy, the state allows varying degrees of freedom between producers and consumers.
The economy is replete with a multitude of government subsidies and tax breaks for agriculture, energy, steel, transportation to name but a very few.
The economy is not a free market.
The economy is a kinda, sorta, maybe free market that is CONTROLLED by the government.
There is a constant cry by MAGA that Biden wrecked the economy, and that Trump is working to save it. Ergo, the economy must be controlled by the government by your own argument.
What really makes no rational sense is people like you, and the lunatic John Say, screaming about letting the “free market work” while simultaneously praising the Trump tariffs as a way to “level the playing field”.
Why can’t you understand that these two ideas are mutually exclusive.
You cannot impose a “free economy” by imposing tariffs.
That is like the old aphorism “f—ing for virginity”.
^^^Copied straight from the opening sentence of Investopedia, “The United States has a mixed economy. Its economic system functions with characteristics of both capitalism and socialism.”
Can’t even think on his own after being backed into a corner. Yet another clown.
What exactly is your point, apart from being snarky?
I said “as defined”, then gave an accurate definition from an authoritative source.
Then I went on to give a cogent and rational explanation, IN MY OWN WORDS, of how that definition means that the US economy is not a free market.
If you think it means something else, then feel free to elaborate.
Anonymouse says “Why can’t you understand that these two ideas are mutually exclusive.”
HEAR YE! HEAR YE! Anonymouse, who signs in as same, who is so afraid for people to know who he is that he has to sign in as anonymouse, has declared that the United States that the two are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! But somehow, as Meyer points out, the two have operated in unison and consort since Geo Washington!
“You say that I am not “engaging””
You didn’t engage. You chose to be stupid. You did not address anything I said. Instead, you answered non-sensically and acted like a boor.
“It is a mixed economy.”
Had you said this earlier, you would appear less stupid, but stupid nonetheless. We are a mixed economy. Haven’t you noticed how many on this blog are trying to move it away from socialistic tendencies while reducing internal regulation? You argue against that and don’t recognize your conflicting ideas.
If you wish to say our free market economy is not free enough, you stand on my side. You copied what you wrote, so I hope you read it enough to understand what the words say and mean.
There are internal and external portions to the free market. You don’t read, so you don’t know or understand capitalism or how to enhance free markets. Tariffs might not be the best way to go, but in today’s world, only a fool thinks the present worldwide tariffs are good. Are you such a fool?
We are free people sufficiently provided and equally permitted to stand or fall. You have fallen. Get up and stand.
S. Meyer
Apparently you really do believe that “to engage” means “to agree”. Your original statement was a response to George who stated “the free market won’t work with tariffs in place”. You said that George was wrong because we have had tariffs since George Washington, and then called George an ignoramus.
I then pointed out that free markets cannot have tariffs. Your immediate response was that I was not engaging because the economy is a free market despite tariffs. I disagreed with you, but you claim that that disagreement was a lack of engagement. You clearly believe that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow refusing to engage with you. This is a supercilious, condescending holier than thou attitude. I have noticed that previous comments by you usually resort to this attitude when you know you are wrong.
However let’s get to the substance of your stupidity.
There are so many inconsistencies and self-contradictory statements, it is hard to know where to begin.
You say:
“The US is considered a free market economy despite having Tariffs over its entire existence. Is it a “pure free market?” No.”
A free market by definition cannot have tariffs. Yes, we have had some degree of limited tariffs for a long time, and the country has flourished. The correct conclusion to be drawn from that is the economy can prosper even though it is not a completely free market. However, your bizarre and unfounded conclusion is that free markets can have tariffs and still be free. A complete non sequitur.
You use the term “pure free market”. There are no degrees of purity for a free market. The market is either free or it is not free. It is akin to saying there are degrees of pregnancy. A woman is either pregnant or not pregnant. Markets are either free of not free.
Then you change your tune, and agree with me that the economy is a mixed economy. You then claim:
“many on this blog are trying to move it [the economy] away from socialistic tendencies while reducing internal regulation”
The introduction of the draconian tariffs by Trump are a dramatic INCREASE in internal regulation, because these tariffs are a tax on domestic companies who wish to buy goods at the lowest possible price.
It is also a highly socialistic mechanism whereby the government is choosing which industries fall under government regulation and essentially picks winners and losers in the market. Control of the marketplace by the government is the very definition of socialism.
Then you start babbling incoherently about capitalism, and how best to enhance free markets. Free markets cannot be enhanced. They are either free or not free. They fall or stand on their freedom. Any intervention by any method means that the market is no longer free.
You then say:
“only a fool thinks the present worldwide tariffs are good”
Clearly this puts Trump in the category of fools who believe that the present worldwide tariffs are good. He has even stated that he is thinking of using tariffs to replace the income tax. This is completely insane.
Trump believes that the tariffs will force companies to manufacture here, rather than import goods. That is somewhat debatable, but if in fact that happens, then there will be very few imports, and very few tariff payments. The revenue from tariffs will drop precipitously.
And yet Trump simultaneously says tariffs will replace the income tax. These two things are mutually exclusive. Tariffs may initially provide sufficient revenue to replace the income tax, but if the tariffs actually work then that revenue disappears. This concept is utter insanity.
And yet you believe that Trump is doing his best to “move the economy away from socialistic tendencies while reducing internal regulation.”
Trump is massively increasing internal regulation with draconian taxes on companies who wish to purchase goods at the lowest possible price in a free market, and he is introducing “socialistic tendencies” with government manipulation of the market.
Can you not see the glaring inconsistencies in your position???
The obvious answer is “no, you are incapable of seeing the inconsistencies” because you have been brainwashed into the MAGA cult.
Is this response a sufficient “engagement”????
Agree
Aren’t you the one who is constantly singing the praises of Trump’s tariffs as a way to “level the playing field”.
The only way to “let the free market work” is to eliminate tariffs and all other government controls on the economy such as subsidies and tax breaks.
Tariffs and free markets are mutually exclusive.
Make up your mind.
Which do you want??
No they are not, why don’t YOU make up YOUR mind, between confirmation bias and real FACT?
Harvard is a country club. Country clubs can admit who they want. What does not make sense is that the Federal government is giving tax-payer money to a country club. The country club must fund itself. My middle class income should not be diverted to a country club whose membership is largely silly rich people and their privileged children, Nor do I want my tax dollars to be used to subsidize individual students’ country club membership fees.
OT
The New President Elected November 5, 2024:
___________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in “King John Roberts of the People’s Republic of the Juristocracy.”
#. It’s a kleptocracy.
@Anonymous
Hash tags don’t do anything on WordPress, dude.
Please provide a citation to the Constitution for each and every comment.
Congress may not tax for or regulate education or student loans, Article 1, Section 8.
Congress may not “claim or exercise” dominion over private property that is not, and is distinct from, public property, 5th Amendment.
Most of the comments herein are supported not by the Constitution but by the Communist Manifesto
If you have taxpayer funds you are mow subject to scrutiny from the government
Nah, your way is not working Professor. Harvard is not perceptibly moved by your tut-tuts and furrowed brow. The Federal Government holds the cards on this one. Time to throw the Ace.
I AGREE. REMOVE THEIR TAX EXEMPT STATUS. IT’S ALREADY HAPPENED TO CONSERVATIVE UNIVERSITIES LIKE BOB JONES. ALSO WHY THE HELL ARE WE GIVING THESE LEFTIST ELITES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS???
Harvard is not perceptibly moved by your tut-tuts and furrowed brow.
Outstanding turn of a phrase!
“First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosary,
Bow your head with great respect and
Genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.
Ave Maria,
It was good to see ya,
Doin’ the Vatican Rag.”
(With apologies to Tom Lehrer.)
So long, Pope.
OT
THE IMPARTIAL 1954 SUPREME COURT CONCURRED AND DID NOT USURP AND EXERCISE EXECUTIVE POWER
THE PARTIAL 2025 SUPREME COURT DISSENTED AND USURPED AND EXERCISED EXECUTIVE POWER
AMERICA DOES NOT NEED A PRESIDENT—AMERICA HAS THE OMNIPOTENT JUDICIAL BRANCH
ALL HAIL HIS EMINENCE GENERAL SECRETARY AND KING JOHN ROBERTS OF THE NATIONAL PEOPLE’S JURISTOCRACY
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Operation Wetback”
“Operation Wetback was an immigration law enforcement initiative created by Joseph Swing, a retired United States Army lieutenant general and head of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The program was implemented in June 1954 by U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell.[1] The operation used tactics to remove Mexican immigrants from the United States.
“Operation Wetback was primarily a response to pressure from a broad coalition of farmers and business interests concerned with the effects of illegal immigration from Mexico.[3] Upon implementation, Operation Wetback gave rise to arrests and deportations by the U.S. Border Patrol.”
– Wikipedia
“AMERICAN FREEDOM—NOT DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT”
Harvard is private property over which only the owner may “claim and exercise” dominion.
Congress may not tax for education, as Congress has the power to tax only for debt, defense, and “general welfare”—that being basic infrastructure such as roads, water, post office, electricity, internet, sewer, etc.
__________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
____________________
5th Amendment
No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Not the flex you think homie. If they want to keep their pseudo independence then they will no longer receive funds. Also, you make no mention of the glaringly obvious, the need to require REMEDIAL MATH! 😂
The funds are unconstitutional. Student loans are unconstitutional. Education may not be taxed for. These distributions may not be issued if they may not be taxed for, Article 1, Section 8. Did you read it?
Where the —- is the communist make-it-up-as-you-go-along Supreme Court?
America has not been constitutional since the Supreme Court failed to support not prohibited and fully constitutional secession in 1860 to preclude “Crazy Abe’s” insane “Reign of Terror.”
#. Let’s hope property taxes are repealed for all private property. Don’t be ridiculous. There’s no reason Harvard should not be taxed unless a portion is claimed as charity as in research and development benefitting the public.
I love how these entitled babies imply that not giving them tax dollars is somehow oppression or suppression. Hilarious. And it’s too late – the ‘brand’ is already tainted, Harvard degrees aren’t worth the paper they are printed on in 2025. I’m glad GEB and others have had positive experiences there, but that ship has long since sailed. They are a joke, and a bad one. An eighth grader in 1910 likely had a better education. 🤷🏻♂️
None of these institutions need to be funding their idiocy with my or your tax dollars. The argument that crucial research still emanates out of them along with the fumes is weak, weak sauce. It doesn’t, and likely won’t ever again. People go there for connections and/or clout in 2025, and nothing more. Hopefully that too, will become a lost cause and waste of money. I love watching the milieus of the ‘elite’ (hint: other than their wealth, they never were) dissolve in real time.
#. Maybe add it to 1A. There shall be no laws passed regarding education. Ya, it ain’t there but like Harvard says who cares about that trash paper written by slavers, white Christians. Right?
Why exactly should they keep their tax exempt status? Seems like you made very good arguments against it. Harvard has been graduating inferior student for some time. Ran across of few in laws school and in litigation. Blithering idiots.
Jonathan: Harvard faculty are not alone in fighting back against the DJT regime’s Nazi-like attempt to take over universities. Over 100 NYU Law professors signed a defiant statement against DJT’s attacks on the academic freedom and independence:
“The Administration has pursued executive actions targeting universities, their faculties, and their students in ways that undermine academic independence and the free exchange of ideas. If such actions continue, the damage to our intellectual communities, which depend on the lawful freedom of expression and open exchange of ideas, could be immense. So too would be the danger to basic due process values that protect each and every one of us”.
The April 11 letter from the DJT regime to Harvard, a private corporation, makes plain what DJT wants. Like the Kennedy Center, where only performances approved by DJT will be allowed, he wants full control over Harvard’s faculty hiring, governance, student admission policies, curricula–practically everything. And how has DJT responded to Harvard’s resistance to that government takeover? Extortion. DJT has cut off federal funding to Harvard until they capitulate!
While you oppose revoking Harvard’s tax exempt status you think “there are ways to force greater diversity without curtailing academic freedom. That includes federal and state governments withholding government funding until there is greater diversity and tolerance on campuses”. Sounds like the same extortion DJT is pursuing. You want to “force” Harvard to purge “Liberal presidents, boards, and faculty” and replace them with “conservatives and libertarians”. That doesn’t sound like “moderation” but an attempt to impose a right-wing ideology litmus test on Harvard–the very thing you have endlessly complained about but in reverse. And that’s your solution to creating more “diversity” at Harvard?
A 100 people signed a letter. Where have I heard that before?
Acceptance of federal funding is an agreement to follow the rules and laws of the U.S. Government, just like any other contract. Wheneevr I’ve given large grants to private or public institutions, they always come with caveats and rules of the road. If they don’t agree with the final negotiated position, then they can opt out. These contracts are not subsidies for being good citizens, they are “pay for play”. If Harvard doesn’t want to play, then no pay!
As for gaining greater”diversity” without lowering standards and quality – good luck. If they don’t lower the standards, then they will have to lower the ‘qualifications’ for the sought after diverse identity. So, Sen. Warren becomes and American Indian again!
Dennis, your arguments always have blind spots. Who demoralized you? Why do you feel hopeless and worthless? You’re a victim of Soviet propaganda, KGB.
Wow, “A letter” signed by 100 agenda-driven, dyed-in-the-wool leftists …… Attempting to redirect focus away from their deliberately discriminatory practices. If these “indoctrination-centers” are using equal employment and entry policies, then there isn’t much to get hysterical about ….. but of course, that’s NOT the case. These institutions have become “ground zero” for racial, ethnic, sexual, religious and political discrimination …….. end of story. Are you really that brainwashed?
Off Topic
Pope Francis ordered his medical staff to pull the oxygen treatment.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan predicted this. Guess who wants to be the next Pope?
Hillary Clinton
(What did I win?)
“Oh, Hillary, We’re Saved!”
“Womb to the Tomb!”
– Rush Limbaugh
I believe that Harvard was originally established as a Divinity School. Maybe that’s how they got their tax-exempt status, since we don’t tax churches.
#. Has Desmond tutu passed away?
“Trump stands by Hegseth”.
I think what trump is saying is…
Hey look, the guy might be smarter than me. But he is acting dumber than me. It is hard to get smart people act so dumb so I’ll keep him around until I can find a smarter person that acts dumber.
“Trump-Russia ‘Pee Tape’ Dossier Was Paid for by Hillary Clinton Campaign: Report”
– Newsweek, 2017
______________________
Is Obama starting up “Obama Coup D’etat in America 2.0?”
Is Hillary Clinton charged with generating a second “Pee Tape” Dossier?
Odd that Bernie, AOC and Liz Warren always scream about taxing billionaires more heavily and never ever mention getting some tax revenue out of colleges with BILLIONS in endowments being run by extremely rich people in order to educate mostly very rich people while having very rich people on their boards for big bucks??
Never heard a peep from the Bernie/AOC/Warren wing of socialists demanding that the most elite institutions “pay their fair share”?
I don’t know what bothers me the most about the left, is it the stupidity of Crockett, Swalwell, Al Green, Maxine Waters et al or is it the darn hypocrisy that is beyond embarrassment? I.E. the Dems using the filibuster to stymie Republicans less than a year after calling it a vestige of Jim Crow era politics? Is it the silence regarding packing the Court? Is it the lack of discussion on the border? Or is it the fact that after 4 years of wicked lawfare they claim that Trump is lawless?