Kudos to Harvard University for having backbone
https://www.salon.com/2025/04/14/we-wil … n-demands/
In his quest for a “Patriotic Education” Trump and his gang is crossing swords with Americas oldest and most venerated institution of higher learning.
Trump and his administration is the canary in the coal mine, we just to make sure it does not come out.An apt analogy. And the "coal mine" is the deep hallways and rooms of Harvard, where there is a definite threat to life as we know or want it.
It is far past time that someone took on the "education centers" of our country, where play and politics trump all education...at taxpayer expense.May Harvard never receive another tax dollar of support... Same for all ivy League schools...they have no need of it.
2.2billion dollars... So sad that people are so out of touch ...millions live in their cars or on the streets while the richest of the rich, the elite of the elites piss away taxpayer money on their delusions that they arrogantly call higher learning.Harvard's namesake finally stopped turning in his grave long enough to salute the man who actually gives a damn about "America's oldest and most venerated institution of higher learning."
So, let’s make America Great again by the anti intellectual dumbing down by the red coats. Destroying higher education is certainty part of any tyrants playbook. It is great to keep people in a state where they are too dumb to know what is happening to them.
Discrimination doesn't belong anywhere. If institutions of "higher education" persist in it, they destroy themselves.
That is debatable, but knowing you, you will excuse yourself from going the distance to discuss.
Let's go! What is in dispute within my comments thus far?
Alright, AB, why do you think the universities are discriminating?
I did not realize that you had responded. You didn't answer my question, but okay, we can move on to yours:
"Why do you think the universities are discriminating?"
First off, not all, just a few and Harvard is one of the worst. Why? Because they can, and no one has called them on it, until now!
I just stumbled across this panel discussion, found it very interesting! (even though, there isn't a conservative in sight.
) Worth a watch:
https://youtu.be/BjcJmnsb_qY?si=ULSXk_b1r3bBPsW6I watched it, thanks. The panelist on the far left expresses the conservative view well enough. What the issue about discrimination, could it be that based on superior test scores, only Asians should be admitted to Harvard? We know that the Anglo establishment would never countenance that?
It was interesting that during the University of Virginia melee of 2017, when these grown men were chanting “Jews will not replace us”, Trump says that these were good people. Any one can see that opposition to Netanyahu and Israeli foreign policy is not anti-semitism. And that Trump in his tyrannical fashion is just attacking students and institutions taking issue with the administrations viewpoint.
The requirements that Trump imposes upon Harvard, controlling its curriculum and such is putting a noose around the university in attempt to “bring it into line” and I stand firmly with Harvard in resisting such. And if that means that they will receive less federal funding, so be it as they will not be cowed into submission.
In my view, conservatives are always the pain in the ass within the modern world.
Is it higher education... or is it indoctrination... ?
Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindica … ethnicity.
"Overall, a higher percentage of bachelor’s degrees were awarded to females than to males in 2015–16 (58 vs. 42 percent). However, in STEM fields, a lower percentage of bachelor’s degrees were awarded to females than to males (36 vs. 64 percent). This pattern—in which females received higher percentages of bachelor’s degrees overall but lower percentages of bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields—was observed across all racial/ethnic groups."
Tracking down the particulars for Social Justice degrees is more difficult, but the trending figures I could see were reversed of those of STEM fields.
So roughly on third of degrees that fall into that description are male grads, while two thirds are women, with women being close to 60% of the college educated today... it should be no surprise that there are now a plethora of Social Justice environs and agencies, just looking for a cause, the oppressed to be protected from the oppressor.
Social Justice Education in America
https://www.nas.org/reports/social-just … ull-report
“Social justice” was everywhere in higher education. It was the slogan of student activists, the raison d’etre of many academic programs, the research focus of scholars in many fields, part of the formal mission statements of many colleges, and a phrase that rolled off the tongues of sophomores as the smug answer to virtually any question about public policy. The term enunciated a sensibility something like this:
"I dislike the United States and American culture. American society treats people unfairly. American culture elevates the wealthy and the privileged over everybody else. It is oppressive. I’m oppressed. I want to change everything. I especially want to change things in the direction of redistributing wealth and privilege. Those should be taken away from the people I don’t like and given to me and the people I do like. The key to making this happen is to raise awareness among those who are oppressed and who don’t necessarily know they are oppressed. Calling for social justice is a way of bringing people together to overthrow the systemic injustices all around us."
With higher education like that... and with more people graduating with that brainwashing than ever before... its no wonder the country is falling apart... and it is no wonder there is such separation between those that work hard to keep America a functional society, and those that eat their avocado toast and think that Remote Work (working at home, when and if you want to) is a right, not an unusual and relatively new phenomenon.
Think about it... you want your plumber or electrician or police officer trying to do their job from home... and never coming out to you when you call?
But those with degrees of "higher learning"... well such drole jobs are beneath them and so are the people doing them.Why is it indoctrination, Ken? Only progressive thinking allow for investigative learning and discovery of ideas heretofore not known nor appreciated. Conservatism is just a synonym for indoctrination.
Yes, so, the difference between STEM degrees from varied group are present but are they significant? We still need attorneys, doctors, social scientists, psychologists, etc. So, more women are getting degrees in non-stem fields, does that mean that their attainment is insignificant? I think social justice is valid even though you may not. Because, ultimately that may be the adhesive that keeps this society in one piece. Without social justice, peace in America will forever remain elusive.
----
"I dislike the United States and American culture. American society treats people unfairly. American culture elevates the wealthy and the privileged over everybody else. It is oppressive. I’m oppressed. I want to change everything. I especially want to change things in the direction of redistributing wealth and privilege. Those should be taken away from the people I don’t like and given to me and the people I do like. The key to making this happen is to raise awareness among those who are oppressed and who don’t necessarily know they are oppressed. Calling for social justice is a way of bringing people together to overthrow the systemic injustices all around us."
------
Obviously, a very bias perspective from a right wing author just letting off steam, I don't buy it. Because we all know that American success is not really exclusively based on hard work and merit but a great deal from entrenched wealth and privilege dispensing advantages to the beneficiary that were not necessarily earned. Oligarchy in its very definition is exclusionary.
So, I say that the quoted statement is more accurate than otherwise, while I don't agree with in in total.
So, it's only the WASPs that are the productive members keeping America functioning? That is what you are saying behind your polite comments.But it is the social justice warriors that will keep this country from devolving in a tyrannical, fascist state, precipitating its inevitable decline and eradication. Your "fearless leader" is a case in point.
Ken, there are always going to be a need and appreciation for those skilled in the trades, I am aware of that.
Why do you believe that those college graduates look down on those without a degree? I got mine because I did not want to be designated as one to empty garbage or shine shoes for the rest of my life, courtesy of Trump's "black jobs"....."Only progressive thinking allow for investigative learning and discovery of ideas heretofore not known nor appreciated."
That's the funniest thing you've said in months! That only politically "progressives" can discover new ideas heretofore not known. Ideas like men should compete with women in physical sports, I suppose, or that blacks need their own laws and police. Perhaps the "discovery" that white people cannot be discriminated against or that fatherless families are the most stable financially?
Yeah, the "progressives" of the country have opened up a whole world of new discoveries. That none of them correlate with reality is irrelevant, right?Glad that you are amused, Wilderness.
Ideas of justice such as everyone is to be treated the same by law enforcement and criminal justice system that is equally applied to all.
But of course, conservatives justify inequities as the caprice of the wealthy and powerful, just look at them today and now...
With the proderence of wealth held by white people, nobody wants to hear them whine about structural inequities that they have never experienced.
But as the Great Sage of Idaho, you would know all about the issues at hand, would you not?Yes. Ideas of justice such as everyone is to be treated the same.
So we create "affirmative action" with the intent to require discrimination under the law.
We create DEI programs with the intent to discriminate based on skin color, sex, "perceived gender" or anything else we suddenly find right and proper.
We worship common thugs because they have a particular skin color.
We teach children that one skin color is responsible for all the country's ills, AND that those children with that color share that responsibility even though completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
We teach that reality is that people can change their sex, and when they pretend they have done so that we must all agree that it has been accomplished.
We teach that if you are more capable, but the wrong race, you should not be admitted to our universities. And when the courts find it to be the discrimination it is, shock rebounds that "It is the precept of DEI!" and must, by definition, by morally and legally right and correct.
Yeah, Cred, the list goes on and on and on of how we "treat everyone the same" by discriminating against one color skin, one sex, one religion, one (or more) of almost anything you choose to name.Its not called higher education anymore... its called indoctrination...
It is much easier to get certain types of personalities, to digest and accept this nonsense than it is others... which is probably why we have the lowest percentage of American men graduating from "higher education" these days than at anytime... ever... below 40% of today's grads are male American citizens (of all color)...
Interesting when you consider that it wasn't much more than a generation ago when it was almost exclusively men that were allowed to pursue higher learning... back when facts and science were considered more important than feelings and fiction...The face of higher education will change when it is solely merit based.
This is how it should be.
I find it interesting that people who are for DEI have no problem with 70% of the NBA being black.
Prove dedication to DEI by having more whites, Hispanics, and Asians play in the NBA regardless of ability and based on their skin color.
That would put DEI into perspective.Again, your argument begins from a faulty premise, an incorrect definition of DEI. There certainly are many organizations or corporations that currently maintain DEI initiatives and they are clearly outlined....maybe you could cite some? Particularly the ones that support your belief of the goals of DEI...
I believe the correct definition of DEI = Didn't Earn It
That would be your erroneous interpretation... Not reality.
Why is DEI linked almost exclusively to women and minorities, your “basketball” analogy does not address that’ Do you really believe that the Trumpism bigot advocates don’t think that minority and female automatically mean unqualified?
DEI is not a synonym for unqualified, just because all hires are not white, geez……. Conservatives are really annoyingly obtuse about everything."Do you really believe that the Trumpism bigot advocates don’t think that minority and female automatically mean unqualified?"
Nope...I believe they should have their gender and skin color ignored and get things based solely on their abilities. They shouldn't be given special treatment because of their gender or skin color.
If a university has the vast majority of their students be Asian students because they are the ones who had the best qualifications, so be it.
There have been times where Hispanics and whites have passed an advancement test in the government but because no blacks passed it, they felt they couldn't certify the test.
This is wrong. If they didn't pass the test, so be it.
The WNBA is over 60% black.
So, should we use DEI for the WNBA? Should they be required to provide a diverse environment where all the races are represented equally? Ability shouldn't matter, because as the left constantly chants, "our diversity is our strength."Nope...I believe they should have their gender and skin color ignored and get things based solely on their abilities. They shouldn't be given special treatment because of their gender or skin color.
——-
Well, that is not the impression I get from Trump and his lemming followers. It has never applied to question the qualifications of white males, who are able to avoid this sieve. Your people apply it to anyone who is not white male and that is wrong. Yes, qualifications and merit should be the standard but it is not exclusively the purview of white males as presented by Trump and friends.
There have been many times where qualified blacks and minorities were passed over in favor of whites, that is my stick in the craw about resisting the idea that everyone is entitled to equal opportunity in advancement.
You whites would start howling to bring the house down if only Asians met the standards for entry in major universities. I had read articles from Bay Area newspapers a few years ago, where whites were complaining that K-12 schools were too academically intense because Asian students were not interested in sports and non-academic diversions. So, ultimately, if it all white, it is alright?
So, only the best players qualify for WNBA, just make sure that the standard for “merit” are unbiased. I resent the Trump aura that every minority candidate is always the recipient of favorable non-merit factors. Just another thing that I loath Trump and his supporters over.Again you misrepresent and mischaracterize DEI... There is nothing wrong with the NBA or WNBA having an imbalance in terms of race. What would a DEI policy do? broaden recruiting efforts. While recruiting at 80% white University of vermont, recruitment efforts would also take place at Howard University with roughly 80% black students... Not just one or the other.
DEI efforts primarily broaden the scope of who is chosen by expanding the range of identities, experiences, and backgrounds considered in hiring/recruiting and selection processes rather than mandating the selection of specific races....Why Diversity Programs Fail
Businesses started caring a lot more about diversity after a series of high-profile lawsuits rocked the financial industry. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Morgan Stanley shelled out $54 million—and Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch more than $100 million each—to settle sex discrimination claims. In 2007, Morgan was back at the table, facing a new class action, which cost the company $46 million. In 2013, Bank of America Merrill Lynch settled a race discrimination suit for $160 million. Cases like these brought Merrill’s total 15-year payout to nearly half a billion dollars.
It’s no wonder that Wall Street firms now require new hires to sign arbitration contracts agreeing not to join class actions. They have also expanded training and other diversity programs. But on balance, equality isn’t improving in financial services or elsewhere. Although the proportion of managers at U.S. commercial banks who were Hispanic rose from 4.7% in 2003 to 5.7% in 2014, white women’s representation dropped from 39% to 35%, and Black men’s from 2.5% to 2.3%. The numbers were even worse in investment banks (though that industry is shrinking, which complicates the analysis). Among all U.S. companies with 100 or more employees, the proportion of Black men in management increased just slightly—from 3% to 3.3%—from 1985 to 2014. White women saw bigger gains from 1985 to 2000—rising from 22% to 29% of managers—but their numbers haven’t budged since then. Even in Silicon Valley, where many leaders tout the need to increase diversity for both business and social justice reasons, bread-and-butter tech jobs remain dominated by white men.
It shouldn’t be surprising that most diversity programs aren’t increasing diversity. Despite a few new bells and whistles, courtesy of big data, companies are basically doubling down on the same approaches they’ve used since the 1960s—which often make things worse, not better. Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers. Those tools are designed to preempt lawsuits by policing managers’ thoughts and actions. Yet laboratory studies show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out. As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y, or Z, and I’ll do the opposite just to prove that I’m my own person.
In analyzing three decades’ worth of data from more than 800 U.S. firms and interviewing hundreds of line managers and executives at length, we’ve seen that companies get better results when they ease up on the control tactics. It’s more effective to engage managers in solving the problem, increase their on-the-job contact with female and minority workers, and promote social accountability—the desire to look fair-minded. That’s why interventions such as targeted college recruitment, mentoring programs, self-managed teams, and task forces have boosted diversity in businesses. Some of the most effective solutions aren’t even designed with diversity in mind.
Here, we dig into the data, the interviews, and company examples to shed light on what doesn’t work and what does.
Why You Can’t Just Outlaw Bias
Executives favor a classic command-and-control approach to diversity because it boils expected behaviors down to dos and don’ts that are easy to understand and defend. Yet this approach also flies in the face of nearly everything we know about how to motivate people to make changes. Decades of social science research point to a simple truth: You won’t get managers on board by blaming and shaming them with rules and reeducation. Let’s look at how the most common top-down efforts typically go wrong.
Diversity training. Do people who undergo training usually shed their biases? Researchers have been examining that question since before World War II, in nearly a thousand studies. It turns out that while people are easily taught to respond correctly to a questionnaire about bias, they soon forget the right answers. The positive effects of diversity training rarely last beyond a day or two, and a number of studies suggest that it can activate bias or spark a backlash. Nonetheless, nearly half of midsize companies use it, as do nearly all the Fortune 500.
Many firms see adverse effects. One reason is that three-quarters use negative messages in their training. By headlining the legal case for diversity and trotting out stories of huge settlements, they issue an implied threat: “Discriminate, and the company will pay the price.” We understand the temptation—that’s how we got your attention in the first paragraph—but threats, or “negative incentives,” don’t win converts.
Another reason is that about three-quarters of firms with training still follow the dated advice of the late diversity guru R. Roosevelt Thomas Jr. “If diversity management is strategic to the organization,” he used to say, diversity training must be mandatory, and management has to make it clear that “if you can’t deal with that, then we have to ask you to leave.” But five years after instituting required training for managers, companies saw no improvement in the proportion of white women, Black men, and Hispanics in management, and the share of Black women actually decreased by 9%, on average, while the ranks of Asian American men and women shrank by 4% to 5%. Trainers tell us that people often respond to compulsory courses with anger and resistance—and many participants actually report more animosity toward other groups afterward.
But voluntary training evokes the opposite response (“I chose to show up, so I must be pro-diversity”), leading to better results: increases of 9% to 13% in Black men, Hispanic men, and Asian American men and women in management five years out (with no decline in white or Black women). Research from the University of Toronto reinforces our findings: In one study white subjects read a brochure critiquing prejudice toward Blacks. When people felt pressure to agree with it, the reading strengthened their bias against Blacks. When they felt the choice was theirs, the reading reduced bias.
Companies too often signal that training is remedial. The diversity manager at a national beverage company told us that the top brass uses it to deal with problem groups. “If there are a number of complaints…or, God forbid, some type of harassment case…leaders say, ‘Everyone in the business unit will go through it again.’” Most companies with training have special programs for managers. To be sure, they’re a high-risk group because they make the hiring, promotion, and pay decisions. But singling them out implies that they’re the worst culprits. Managers tend to resent that implication and resist the message.
Hiring tests. Some 40% of companies now try to fight bias with mandatory hiring tests assessing the skills of candidates for frontline jobs. But managers don’t like being told that they can’t hire whomever they please, and our research suggests that they often use the tests selectively. Back in the 1950s, following the postwar migration of Blacks northward, Swift & Company, Chicago meatpackers, instituted tests for supervisor and quality-checking jobs. One study found managers telling Blacks that they had failed the test and then promoting whites who hadn’t been tested. A Black machine operator reported: “I had four years at Englewood High School. I took an exam for a checker’s job. The foreman told me I failed” and gave the job to a white man who “didn’t take the exam.”
This kind of thing still happens. When we interviewed the new HR director at a West Coast food company, he said he found that white managers were making only strangers—most of them minorities—take supervisor tests and hiring white friends without testing them. “If you are going to test one person for this particular job title,” he told us, “you need to test everybody.”
But even managers who test everyone applying for a position may ignore the results. Investment banks and consulting firms build tests into their job interviews, asking people to solve math and scenario-based problems on the spot. While studying this practice, Kellogg professor Lauren Rivera played a fly on the wall during hiring meetings at one firm. She found that the team paid little attention when white men blew the math test but close attention when women and Blacks did. Because decision-makers (deliberately or not) cherry-picked results, the testing amplified bias rather than quashed it.
Performance ratings. More than 90% of midsize and large companies use annual performance ratings to ensure that managers make fair pay and promotion decisions. Identifying and rewarding the best workers isn’t the only goal—the ratings also provide a litigation shield. Companies sued for discrimination often claim that their performance rating systems prevent biased treatment.
But studies show that raters tend to lowball women and minorities in performance reviews. And some managers give everyone high marks to avoid hassles with employees or to keep their options open when handing out promotions. However managers work around performance systems, the bottom line is that ratings don’t boost diversity. When companies introduce them, there’s no effect on minority managers over the next five years, and the share of white women in management drops by 4%, on average.
Grievance procedures. This last tactic is meant to identify and rehabilitate biased managers. About half of midsize and large firms have systems through which employees can challenge pay, promotion, and termination decisions. But many managers—rather than change their own behavior or address discrimination by others—try to get even with or belittle employees who complain. Among the nearly 90,000 discrimination complaints made to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2015, 45% included a charge of retaliation—which suggests that the original report was met with ridicule, demotion, or worse.
Once people see that a grievance system isn’t warding off bad behavior in their organization, they may become less likely to speak up. Indeed, employee surveys show that most people don’t report discrimination. This leads to another unintended consequence: Managers who receive few complaints conclude that their firms don’t have a problem. We see this a lot in our interviews. When we talked with the vice president of HR at an electronics firm, she mentioned the widely publicized “difficulties other corporations are having” and added, “We have not had any of those problems…we have gone almost four years without any kind of discrimination complaint!” What’s more, lab studies show that protective measures like grievance systems lead people to drop their guard and let bias affect their decisions, because they think company policies will guarantee fairness.
https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail
Interesting when you consider that it wasn't much more than a generation ago when it was almost exclusively men that were allowed to pursue higher learning... back when facts and science were considered more important than feelings and fiction...
Ken, so women cannot seek higher learning? What faction of the Taliban do you hail from?What I am saying is the Universities now cater to the... non-STEM orientated population and hence the rise in things like Social Justice degrees which are about feelings and fiction... and don't have much to do with science and facts.
Do with that information what you will... extrapolate it as you like... but it is impacting the focus of Universities and by extension the types of students they attract... or don't attract.
To the great Sage, open a book or two and learn a little history as to why Affirmative Action was initiated.
“2.2 Fair Employment -- The Executive Order
The longest-standing federal affirmative action program has its roots in World War II. The Executive Order barring discrimination in the federal government and by war industries was issued by President Franklin Roosevelt. The action was taken to forestall a planned march on Washington organized by A. Philip Randolph, the President of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Roosevelt's order barred discrimination against blacks by defense contractors, and established the first Fair Employment Practices Committee. However, federal compliance programs were routinely understaffed, underfunded and lacked enforcement authority.
After World War II, gains that had been made by women and blacks receded as returning GIs reclaimed their jobs. By 1960, the 10 million workers on the payrolls of the 100 largest defense contractors included few blacks. The $7.5 billion in federal grants-in-aid to the states and cities for highway, school, airport, school and public housing construction went almost exclusively to whites. The U.S. Employment Service, which provided funds for state-operated employment bureaus, encouraged skilled blacks to register for unskilled jobs, accepted requests from white employers and made no efforts to get employers to accept African American workers. The President's Committee on Government Contracts, chaired by Vice-President Nixon in 1959, blamed "the indifference of employers to establishing a positive policy of nondiscrimination," stated that such indifference was more prevalent than over discrimination, and called for remedial steps.
In response to the civil rights movement, President John F. Kennedy created a Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity in 1961 and issued Executive Order 10925, which used the term "affirmative action" to refer to measures designed to achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 requiring federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure equality of employment opportunity without regard to race, religion and national origin. In 1968, gender was added to the protected categories.”
——-
As I said before, you present the resentment and perpetual bias that we all have had to contend with over centuries of time. There is no credibility there.
So, Sherlock, am I not to believe that there was sufficient bigotry in American society both by law and custom that allowed for the accommodation of discrimination against minorities whether they were qualified or not, to necessitate such a program as Affirmative Action, particularly in areas of federal employment?
DEI as I have said before is just a racial slur, I wasn’t born yesterday….
According to Trump racists, Harris and Obama were DEI candidates. Who says that they were unqualified? I can say the same about Trump who is historically ignorant about our Constitution and the way that our Government is prescribed to operate. I can also look at the example of DUI Hegseth as Secretary of Defense, I would say that that would deserve ‘one more for the road”. Why is this man considered eminently qualified while Harris or Obama is not? I don’t need to be “Columbo” to figure that one out.
We should teach that racism by law and by custom is as American as apple pie and I wont have that fact played down by right wing apologists. It is the truth and not an exaggeration. History is history whether you like it or not. No one is blaming those living today for what happened in the past, but it did happen and denying that it did pisses me off as a travesty.
Yes, indeed, Wilderness, the list does go on but not quite in the way you describe.
Ken: You draw a lot of generalizations that don't necessarily follow from this article.
"Social justice judges how far the distribution of economic and social benefits among social groups departs from how they “ought” to be distributed. Practically, social justice also justifies the exercise of the state’s coercive power to distribute “fairly” goods that include education, employment, housing, income, health care, leisure, a pleasant environment, political power, property, social recognition, and wealth."
How does that imply those who agree with this discipline think service jobs are beneath them?
What I glean from the article is that the "redistribution" of income and wealth would be the result of fairly distributing "education, employment, housing, health care, leisure, a pleasant environment, political power, property, and social recognition."
Isn't that the definition of The American Dream we like to claim is achievable by everyone?
Kudos to President Donald Trump for having the courage to stand up to ivy league universities who don't feel they have an obligation to fight antisemitism and openly promote it. These are universities that allowed blatant antisemitism to go unchecked at pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protests. Jewish students feared for their lives. They were told not to go to class if they were Jewish because it could be "problematic."
The threats against Jewish students and attacks continue at these institutions.
NO group of students who have paid for an education should have to live in fear for their lives because they want to attend class at a university that they paid to be at. Singling out a single group for harassment and hatred is wrong.
I hope President Donald Trump continues to show the courage and commitment necessary to protect all Jewish students on college campuses.Be careful what you wish for when you're on a slippery slope...
Would it be justified for the next Democratic administration to remove funding and tax free status for all Evangelical churches who encourage their congregation to vote MAGA? A can of worms is being cracked open here. If it's ok to dictate to Harvard, then it's ok to to clamp down on maga minded bastions with similar politically motivated demands also, right?"Democratic administration to remove funding and tax free status for all Evangelical churches who encourage their congregation to vote MAGA?"
Huh?
If that was an attempt at an analogy...it is one of the worst I've seen.
There is NO connection between the two situations.
Encouraging voting is not the same as permitting violence and threats of violence against a particular student group. A student group paying to attend any particular university should not have to endure harassment and potential violence.Trump is floating removing Harvard's tax exempt status....
Willowarbor: "Would it be justified for the next Democratic administration to remove funding and tax free status for all Evangelical churches who encourage their congregation to vote MAGA?"
By law right now tax free status should be removed from any church that encourages one political party over another. That law is already on the books.
"Harvard 'failed its Jewish students' and must face antisemitism lawsuit, judge rules
Harvard University "failed its Jewish students" and must face a lawsuit over antisemitism on campus following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack against Israel, a federal judge in Boston ruled.
Judge Richard Stearns said Jewish students plausibly claimed Harvard had been indifferent to their fears of walking through the campus and missing classes and extracurricular activities when they were allegedly harassed by pro-Palestinian protesters.
He did not rule on the merits of the claims, only that the lawsuit could move forward.
"The protests were, at times, confrontational and physically violent, and plaintiffs legitimately fear their repetition," Stearns wrote. "[P]laintiffs have plausibly pled that they were subject to severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment."
Stearns said he was "dubious" of Harvard's claim that it allowed the protests to continue in order to protect the free speech rights of demonstrators. Instead, Harvard's reaction was "at best, indecisive, vacillating, and at times internally contradictory," the judge concluded.
"To conclude that the [lawsuit] has not plausibly alleged deliberate indifference would reward Harvard for virtuous public declarations that for the most part, according to the allegations of the [lawsuit], proved hollow when it came to taking disciplinary measures against offending students and faculty," Stearns wrote in the opinion. "In other words, the facts as pled show that Harvard failed its Jewish students."
n a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for Harvard said the university "has and will continue to take concrete steps to address the root causes of antisemitism on campus and protect our Jewish and Israeli students, ensuring they may pursue their education free from harassment and discrimination."
"We appreciate that the Court dismissed the claim that Harvard directly discriminated against members of our community, and we understand that the court considers it too early to make determinations on other claims," the spokesperson added. "Harvard is confident that once the facts in this case are made clear, it will be evident that Harvard has acted fairly and with deep concern for supporting our Jewish and Israeli students."
In a statement in December, then-Harvard President Claudine Gay said there are "some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students."
"Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard," she said, adding, "Those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account."
In the months since Oct. 7, numerous universities have faced criticism for their handling of both antisemitism and Islamophobia on campuses.
More than a dozen pro-Palestinian Harvard students filed a civil rights complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights in January, alleging the university had failed to protect them from harassment, threats and assault.
Harvard isn't the only one to face a lawsuit. Jewish students have also sued UCLA, New York University and Columbia University over their response to pro-Palestinian campus protests.
The U.S. Department of Education has opened Title VI discrimination investigations into both antisemitism and Islamophobia at several educational institutions, including major universities and the New York City Department of Education.
Federal officials have said the Jewish community, as well as the Muslim and Arab communities, have faced a sharp uptick in threats and hate speech since Oct. 7.""In my view, conservatives are always the pain in the ass within the modern world."
The truth can hurt, and it often does!Racism, xenophobia, mysogeny... bigotry 101.
Great guys we have here.
Related Discussions
- 110
College Degrees Not Needed - Harvard Find.
by Sophia Angelique 14 years ago
'“It would be fine if we had an alternative system [for students who don’t get college degrees], but we’re virtually unique among industrialized countries in terms of not having another system and relying so heavily on higher education,” says Robert Schwartz, who heads the Pathways to Prosperity...
- 25
Socialism = Injustice
by Kathryn L Hill 3 years ago
Everyone knows it is not fair to tax someone just because they generate huge amounts of money. Yet the democratic/(Left-influenced)/youth take the rich for granted targeting them just for being successful. The rich already pay a higher tax rate. The rich are people too. Why take unfair advantage of...
- 10
Do you prefer higher education or trade school?
by Satire Thoughts 12 years ago
Do you prefer higher education or trade school?
- 118
What does SOCIAL JUSTICE mean in the world today?
by JON EWALL 13 years ago
The meaning of SOCIAL relates to individuals or groups. JUSTICE relates to fair treatment, correct treatment or judgment. Simple words that have so many interpretations in our world today. The world today has not changed, the poor, the middle class and the rich continue to inhabit the earth as it...
- 5
Is it time to abolish grades in higher education?
by edmondpogi 10 years ago
Is it time to abolish grades in higher education?
- 19
university or college?
by matherese 13 years ago
What do you prefer would you send your child to university or college?