What exactly are the 'unsafe anti-Semitic actions' that Harvard Univ has committed? Is this whole thing about how Harvard hasn't suppressed the free speech rights of its students as they protested the wholesale bombing of Gaza? Its not like Harvard is rife with far-right activists denying the Holocaust and such. I can't imagine that Harvard wouldn't win their case quite roundly. Law firms & universities have to stop bowing to the wanna-be dictator.
jmclnx · 6h ago
>What exactly are the 'unsafe anti-Semitic actions' that Harvard Univ has committed?
I know you know. Harvard has the gall to give scholarships to people who are not Male and White. Plus Harvard is not kissing the demented orange clown's a**.
uhhhd · 6h ago
Why not try to do the minimum amount of research before complaining about it online? Here's a complaint from a recent lawsuit by a collection of Jewish Harvard students against the university. It's a good starting point. https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pd...
uhhhd · 6h ago
If you prefer a summary:
Key Allegations:
1. Hostile Environment: The complaint describes a campus atmosphere where pro-Hamas students and faculty have organized demonstrations featuring antisemitic slogans and calls for violence against Jews and Israel. These protests have reportedly disrupted classes and occupied campus spaces, creating an environment of fear and intimidation for Jewish students.
2. Administrative Inaction: Despite numerous complaints and reports of antisemitic incidents, the university administration is accused of failing to take appropriate disciplinary actions against perpetrators. The plaintiffs argue that this inaction amounts to deliberate indifference, exacerbating the hostile environment.
3. Double Standards: The lawsuit claims that Harvard enforces its anti-discrimination policies selectively, protecting other minority groups while neglecting the safety and rights of Jewish students. This alleged inconsistency is presented as evidence of institutional bias.
4. Faculty Conduct: Certain faculty members are accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric in their teachings and public statements, further contributing to the hostile climate on campus.
5. Failure to Uphold Policies: The plaintiffs contend that Harvard has not adhered to its own stated policies on discrimination and harassment, thereby breaching contractual obligations to its students.
Legal Claims:
• Violation of Title VI: The university is accused of failing to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, as mandated by federal law.
• Breach of Contract: By not enforcing its anti-discrimination policies, Harvard is alleged to have breached its contractual commitments to provide a safe educational environment.
• Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The plaintiffs argue that the university’s actions, or lack thereof, violate the fundamental expectations of fairness and protection owed to students.
Braxton1980 · 6h ago
These protests were mostly against the state of Israel which isn't a violation of Title IX.I know there were specific instances of Anti-Semitism, which were wrong and should be punished, but is there evidence Harvard didn't take action for those?
-----
My concern is that Anti-Zionism is being conflated with Anti-Semitism by the complainants in order to
1. Bolster their case wrongfully by increasing the number of incidents
2. Defend the Israeli government
3. Expand Anti-Semitism to include Anti-Zionism in court decisions making future criticism of Israel dangerous
For example the complaint you linked to opens with
".. Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and
slaughtered, tortured, raped, burned, and mutilated 1,200 people—including infants, children,
and the elderly"
Unnecessary details to the situation because if their claims against Harvard are valid the source of the anti-Semitism is irrelevant (edit: meaning anger at Israel's response to the attack)
This means it was placed at the beginning of the complaint to illicit an emotional reaction/reminder of the horrific event.
Edit: Just to add that if a person is criticizing Israel and a Jewish person feels threatened or avoids campus because of it that's not anti-Semitism.
uhhhd · 5h ago
"I know there were specific instances of Anti-Semitism, which were wrong and should be punished, but is there evidence Harvard didn't take action for those?"
That is literally the allegation made in the lawsuit. And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.
const_cast · 49m ago
> And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse
No actually I think it's right on the money.
Some vaguely brown people being very mad at Israel does not antisemitism make.
Are they denying the Holocaust? Are they saying Jews should die? Or... are they saying Israel is committing a genocide? Are they blaming those particular jews running Israel?
I think we all know it's almost entirely the latter, and almost none of the former.
Braxton1980 · 4h ago
>That is literally the allegation made in the lawsuit.
"I'd like to open my case against John Smith for murder your honor. My only piece of evidence that he committed this horrific crime is that he was accused of it. I rest my case"
>And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.
By all who were there or just some? Being the protest was open to all how can you lump all protestors together because of the views of some.
>intentionally obtuse
Because I avoided generalizations?
uhhhd · 5h ago
References to Israel are not unnecessary details when protestors call for the elimination of the only existing Jewish state. Anti-Zionism isn't criticism of Israel. Its eliminationist rhetoric and plainly bigoted.
Braxton1980 · 4h ago
>Anti-Zionism isn't criticism of Israel
"opposition to the establishment or support of the state of Israel"
There are some who think Israel shouldn't exist others who think their government is wrong.
If a person thinks all Israelis should be murdered then that's wrong. This is not the whole representation of Anti-Zionism but you are trying to make it
You can only be bigoted against a person or group of people, not a country or government.
pasttense01 · 5h ago
The President of Harvard University is a Jew. Do you really think he is going to allow Harvard to engage in anti-Jewish policies?
They should use their endowment to mitigate this. People should be concerned about that. But (1) other schools aren't in that position, and (2) whether or not the Harvard admin makes the right calls, we either are or aren't funding cancer research; we should be angry at anybody compromising that.
pasttense01 · 6h ago
They will to a certain extent, but the substantial majority of the funds are restricted (for example buy art for the museum).
tptacek · 5h ago
They have over $10Bn in unrestricted endowments, and both the unrestricted and restricted funds grow with the market.
WalterGR · 6h ago
Because they know what an endowment is, how they're used, what a 501(c)(3) nonprofit is, and very generally the tax rules around such nonprofits.
I can provide links if you'd like to learn. I'm just on mobile right now and it's a pain.
It would help, though, if you could describe in what way people should be bothered.
anonnon · 6h ago
> what a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
In the case of Harvard and many other institutions, it's a tax-dodge, and nothing more. Same thing with non-profit hospitals whose administrators pay themselves seven-figure salaries.
wasabi991011 · 6h ago
According to the article you linked:
> ... the National Association of College and University Business Officers issues a report on ... where the money [endowments] generate ends up. ... About 48 percent of investment income went to student aid ... about a quarter of the money ... went to academic programs and maintaining facilities.
To claim it's a "tax dodge, and nothing more" without elaborating is absurd.
I won't argue further with someone more interested in inflammatory statements than actually discussing.
anonnon · 36m ago
> About 48 percent of investment income went to student aid
How much of that "student aid" just covers some of the astronomical tuition Harvard charges?
WalterGR · 5h ago
> it's a tax-dodge, and nothing more. Same thing with non-profit hospitals whose administrators pay themselves seven-figure salaries.
What do you mean by tax dodge, in this context?
How familiar are you with taxes? Off the top of my head, people who work for non-profits have to pay withholdings and income taxes, just like the rest of us. Generally, 'business' expenses for both non-profit and for-profit organizations (whether a McDonalds, university, church) are tax-deductible. Tax rules differ between states, but being a non-profit doesn't automatically exempt you from collecting and forwarding other forms of tax, such as sales tax.
anonnon · 5h ago
They pay no corporate income or capital gains tax.
WalterGR · 5h ago
Well, right. In that case, all non-profits are "tax dodges" using the literal interpretation of the words. But tax dodge usually implies something unsavory...
Is the issue that you don't think that any university - or perhaps specifically Harvard? - should be granted non-profit status? If that’s the case, then I'm curious what you think about the same question for religion-affiliated universities and non-profit organizations whose missions you agree with?
anonnon · 38m ago
> all non-profits are "tax dodges"
No, some of them operate like genuine non-profits by promoting some public good and compensate their executives only modestly. For example, the Salvation Army.
Braxton1980 · 6h ago
Ok and?
What does this article have to do with nonprofits in general?
Also the board of the nonprofit sets salaries for admin
southernplaces7 · 6h ago
That's absolutely worth a serious debate, but that endowment falls well within existing laws for how universities are allowed to accumulate and govern their finances.
You know what doesn't fall within the rubric of existing laws (or things that anyone who respect the rule of law and controlled government should be comfortable with)? Trump unilaterally using the federal agencies under his control to vengefully, punitively attack a major public institution just because he wants it to do whatever his latest personal tantrum has dictated.
His whimsical funding cuts are indeed illegal (1) and even if you agree with the government not funding certain institutions in certain ways, i'd call it a bad fucking idea to claim that the president should break his government's own federal laws to do so.
People have issues with Universities for many years regardless of the Presidents.
People have screamed that Universities tuition fees are too expensive for the RoI. It’s a separate bipartisan issue.
ahazred8ta · 6h ago
Do you know of ANY countries where universities have to pay capital gains taxes on their endowments?
Braxton1980 · 6h ago
Bothered by harvard having a tax free endowment or all universities ?
spinarrets · 6h ago
Who says progressives aren't bothered by this?
Every leftist I know believes that education should be free and universally accessible. That holding capital (especially with the intent to make more capital, which is what an endowment is) is morally wrong. And that we should tax wealthy people and corporations to fund things like healthcare and education.
Constructing a strawman like this (inventing a position that progressives do not hold) and then trying to point out the hippocracy in that position is classic logical fallacy territory.
krapp · 6h ago
Progressives are busy being bothered by other things like transgender and autistic people being demonized, womens' rights being repealed, resegregation, the return of child labor, Nazis being cool apparently, the chilling effect of right-wing oppression and censorship causing the erasure of gay, female and non-white people from history and the public record, book bans and the whole "kidnapping political dissidents to foreign concentration camps" thing. But sure, we can add "rich assholes don't pay enough taxes" to the pile if you want.
Better question is why aren't conservatives bothered by any of this?
ArthurStacks · 6h ago
Now they'll learn the hard way that their role is education, not social activism or political indoctrination.
Braxton1980 · 6h ago
What evidence do you have of political indoctrination or social activism?
How is that evidence when entities settle suits all the time to avoid the cost and time of litigation?
uhhhd · 5h ago
Because the reputational damage to Harvard would probably exceed the minimal cost of litigating this (given its endowment) if they thought they would win. It's not evidence in legal sense, but it's a strong suggestion of culpability. Harvard isn't some kid that was arrested on false charges and settles because they're facing jail time. This is a massive institution with a 50B purse. Litigating this is peanuts for them.
Braxton1980 · 4h ago
>This is a massive institution with a 50B purse. Litigating this is peanuts for them.
Companies, large ones, settle all the time even if not at fault to avoid a lengthy trial which damages their reputation. It can have nothing to do with culpability.
Settlements are also a known fixed cost controlled by the business instead of a jury. Considering how Republicans are attacking Harvard I would say the desire to get this out the public spotlight as fast as possible is important
“ Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences will stop requiring a diversity, inclusion, and belonging statement as part of its faculty hiring process”
Professor Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School described these statements as "ideological pledges of allegiance" that pressure candidates to conform to specific viewpoints, potentially discouraging those with differing perspectives
For instance, computer science professor Harry Lewis observed that the course catalog contains over 100 classes referencing "social justice" and around 80 each mentioning "oppression" or "liberation,"
Those are some examples but clearly they have failed to address anti semitism on their campus. Harvard also appears to be an enabler of social activism
Braxton1980 · 5h ago
[8,9 dup] checked the course catalog and there are classes on topics that I think most would consider social activism.
The CS professor just running a word search is a poor experiment but this doesn't negate your point.
[1] The DEI intitive is social activism
[2] True but not an official school policy but a professor
[3] Independent organization
[4] Article on protests and
mentions faculty support them
[5-6] Accusations
[7] True
These are good examples. What about indoctrination though and is it wrong for Harvard to be social activists?
firesteelrain · 4h ago
The computer science professor isn’t some nobody either - long time faculty, graduated in 1968, former Dean.
In the case of the curriculum, it suggests an institutional preference for particular ideological narratives
Harvard selectively aligned with or tolerated specific activist ideologies while suppressing or distancing themselves from others
For DEI (which is just rebranded now honestly), it suggests that Harvard pushes only progressive policies and indoctrinated their students in this ideology.
They shouldn’t indoctrinate any students whatsoever
Braxton1980 · 4h ago
>They shouldn’t indoctrinate any students whatsoever
Are there?
>suggests that Harvard pushes only progressive policies
How does Harvard's DEI program suggest they ONLY push progressive policies?
Can you because it just opens to the post on my phone.
firesteelrain · 58m ago
“ Just because they are not intentionally indoctrinating does not mean the overwhelming majority of voices being liberal does not create a force to push people in that direction more than they would be otherwise.
It can also create a circle where people who are more conservative are less likely to view universites favorably, and therefore attend less and in different departments, thus creating an even more overwhelming majority.
This shows the difference in thinking between left and right on higher education. In general the longer you are at college, the more likely you are to be liberal. Is that 'indoctrination'? No, but I think it's a bit silly to not see a stray thumb on the scale”
Braxton1980 · 4h ago
>The computer science professor isn’t some nobody either - long time faculty, graduated in 1968, former Dean.
That's nice
"Although acknowledging his experiment’s limitations – “word frequency is an imperfect measure”
The classes exist and he could have confirmed by attending them or checking course material. I was complaining about his lazy method
It doesn't matter I said you proved that point
yieldcrv · 6h ago
75 years ago, universities were cautious about accepting Federal funds due to this specific possibility. It worked out. Not it isn't.
Federal funds comes with strings attached and administrations change. If the usefulness of the work has proven itself now, then other sources can fund it. This won't really be controversial or require grandstanding or debate soon, because it will be the status quo.
Yes, its also disruptive to many programs to cut off funding in this way. I think decoupling is for the better. This university daytraded tax free up to a $50bn endowment, for a rainy day. They just need to get liquid and plug the budget gap, which they are starting to do. Donors and other sources can be leveraged too.
spinarrets · 6h ago
On the flip side, accepting this funding has allowed for a lot of research to progress. Sometimes those strings attached still lead to a net good. Obviously, you should always have a plan for "what if this source of funding goes to zero, suddenly", and be prepared to walk away if needs be. But it's hard to imagine what university research would be like if they didn't accept Federal funding. (Much, much weaker, I'd imagine.)
yieldcrv · 6h ago
> If the usefulness of the work has proven itself now, then other sources can fund it.
beej71 · 4h ago
Let's remember that China funds all kinds of research, not just the research with guaranteed profit. (Indeed, private industry already funds research with guaranteed profit.)
aaomidi · 5h ago
There’s a lot of work that is “useful” but the return on investment is not direct, but rather indirect.
For example I don’t remember the detail exactly but this professors insistence to study extremophiles has directly translated to many improvements in medicine.
yieldcrv · 2h ago
there are many sources that don't look for profits, its illuminating that both respondents so far assumed that
AlotOfReading · 6h ago
75 years ago was right in the middle of McCarthyism, when universities were not only taking federal GI Bill money hand over fist, but instituting loyalty pledges and political review boards for staff and students. I don't think anyone needed to contemplate theoretical financial levers when they had much more straightforward examples immediately at hand.
programjames · 5h ago
Tuition money doesn't fund research, so how is the GI Bill relevant?
AlotOfReading · 4h ago
It's an example of universities accepting federal funds. I didn't actually know the breakdown of federal university funding in the 1950s, so I had to look it up. For separately budgeted research, federal funds were ~70% of dollars according to a 1954 NSF survey. For total expenditures, they were 42%. A bit over half of that went to medical and agricultural research.
Herring · 6h ago
“Differing political opinions” is a dealbreaker for liberals, but NOT for conservatives. And conservatives don’t know this, they just love to take advantage - a Supreme Court seat here, a presidency there… One fine day liberals will wake up and decide they’ve had enough, and conservatives will be so surprised.
I know you know. Harvard has the gall to give scholarships to people who are not Male and White. Plus Harvard is not kissing the demented orange clown's a**.
Key Allegations: 1. Hostile Environment: The complaint describes a campus atmosphere where pro-Hamas students and faculty have organized demonstrations featuring antisemitic slogans and calls for violence against Jews and Israel. These protests have reportedly disrupted classes and occupied campus spaces, creating an environment of fear and intimidation for Jewish students. 2. Administrative Inaction: Despite numerous complaints and reports of antisemitic incidents, the university administration is accused of failing to take appropriate disciplinary actions against perpetrators. The plaintiffs argue that this inaction amounts to deliberate indifference, exacerbating the hostile environment. 3. Double Standards: The lawsuit claims that Harvard enforces its anti-discrimination policies selectively, protecting other minority groups while neglecting the safety and rights of Jewish students. This alleged inconsistency is presented as evidence of institutional bias. 4. Faculty Conduct: Certain faculty members are accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric in their teachings and public statements, further contributing to the hostile climate on campus. 5. Failure to Uphold Policies: The plaintiffs contend that Harvard has not adhered to its own stated policies on discrimination and harassment, thereby breaching contractual obligations to its students.
Legal Claims: • Violation of Title VI: The university is accused of failing to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, as mandated by federal law. • Breach of Contract: By not enforcing its anti-discrimination policies, Harvard is alleged to have breached its contractual commitments to provide a safe educational environment. • Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The plaintiffs argue that the university’s actions, or lack thereof, violate the fundamental expectations of fairness and protection owed to students.
-----
My concern is that Anti-Zionism is being conflated with Anti-Semitism by the complainants in order to
1. Bolster their case wrongfully by increasing the number of incidents
2. Defend the Israeli government
3. Expand Anti-Semitism to include Anti-Zionism in court decisions making future criticism of Israel dangerous
For example the complaint you linked to opens with
".. Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and slaughtered, tortured, raped, burned, and mutilated 1,200 people—including infants, children, and the elderly"
Unnecessary details to the situation because if their claims against Harvard are valid the source of the anti-Semitism is irrelevant (edit: meaning anger at Israel's response to the attack)
This means it was placed at the beginning of the complaint to illicit an emotional reaction/reminder of the horrific event.
Edit: Just to add that if a person is criticizing Israel and a Jewish person feels threatened or avoids campus because of it that's not anti-Semitism.
No actually I think it's right on the money.
Some vaguely brown people being very mad at Israel does not antisemitism make.
Are they denying the Holocaust? Are they saying Jews should die? Or... are they saying Israel is committing a genocide? Are they blaming those particular jews running Israel?
I think we all know it's almost entirely the latter, and almost none of the former.
"I'd like to open my case against John Smith for murder your honor. My only piece of evidence that he committed this horrific crime is that he was accused of it. I rest my case"
>And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.
By all who were there or just some? Being the protest was open to all how can you lump all protestors together because of the views of some.
>intentionally obtuse
Because I avoided generalizations?
"opposition to the establishment or support of the state of Israel"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Zionism
>Its eliminationist rhetoric and plainly bigoted.
There are some who think Israel shouldn't exist others who think their government is wrong.
If a person thinks all Israelis should be murdered then that's wrong. This is not the whole representation of Anti-Zionism but you are trying to make it
You can only be bigoted against a person or group of people, not a country or government.
Why are progressives not bothered more by this?
I can provide links if you'd like to learn. I'm just on mobile right now and it's a pain.
It would help, though, if you could describe in what way people should be bothered.
In the case of Harvard and many other institutions, it's a tax-dodge, and nothing more. Same thing with non-profit hospitals whose administrators pay themselves seven-figure salaries.
> ... the National Association of College and University Business Officers issues a report on ... where the money [endowments] generate ends up. ... About 48 percent of investment income went to student aid ... about a quarter of the money ... went to academic programs and maintaining facilities.
To claim it's a "tax dodge, and nothing more" without elaborating is absurd.
I won't argue further with someone more interested in inflammatory statements than actually discussing.
How much of that "student aid" just covers some of the astronomical tuition Harvard charges?
What do you mean by tax dodge, in this context?
How familiar are you with taxes? Off the top of my head, people who work for non-profits have to pay withholdings and income taxes, just like the rest of us. Generally, 'business' expenses for both non-profit and for-profit organizations (whether a McDonalds, university, church) are tax-deductible. Tax rules differ between states, but being a non-profit doesn't automatically exempt you from collecting and forwarding other forms of tax, such as sales tax.
Is the issue that you don't think that any university - or perhaps specifically Harvard? - should be granted non-profit status? If that’s the case, then I'm curious what you think about the same question for religion-affiliated universities and non-profit organizations whose missions you agree with?
No, some of them operate like genuine non-profits by promoting some public good and compensate their executives only modestly. For example, the Salvation Army.
What does this article have to do with nonprofits in general?
Also the board of the nonprofit sets salaries for admin
You know what doesn't fall within the rubric of existing laws (or things that anyone who respect the rule of law and controlled government should be comfortable with)? Trump unilaterally using the federal agencies under his control to vengefully, punitively attack a major public institution just because he wants it to do whatever his latest personal tantrum has dictated.
His whimsical funding cuts are indeed illegal (1) and even if you agree with the government not funding certain institutions in certain ways, i'd call it a bad fucking idea to claim that the president should break his government's own federal laws to do so.
1 https://www.thefire.org/news/faq-responding-common-questions...
People have screamed that Universities tuition fees are too expensive for the RoI. It’s a separate bipartisan issue.
Every leftist I know believes that education should be free and universally accessible. That holding capital (especially with the intent to make more capital, which is what an endowment is) is morally wrong. And that we should tax wealthy people and corporations to fund things like healthcare and education.
Constructing a strawman like this (inventing a position that progressives do not hold) and then trying to point out the hippocracy in that position is classic logical fallacy territory.
Better question is why aren't conservatives bothered by any of this?
Companies, large ones, settle all the time even if not at fault to avoid a lengthy trial which damages their reputation. It can have nothing to do with culpability.
3% of civil cases reach a verdict.
https://arizonabusinesslawyeraz.com/when-to-litigate-and-whe...
Settlements are also a known fixed cost controlled by the business instead of a jury. Considering how Republicans are attacking Harvard I would say the desire to get this out the public spotlight as fast as possible is important
“ Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences will stop requiring a diversity, inclusion, and belonging statement as part of its faculty hiring process”
Professor Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School described these statements as "ideological pledges of allegiance" that pressure candidates to conform to specific viewpoints, potentially discouraging those with differing perspectives
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Too,_Am_Harvard
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Harvard
[4] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/11/1/pro-palestine-l...
[5] https://www.jdjournal.com/2024/07/05/critics-blast-harvard-t...
[6] https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2025/04/harvard-renames-dive...
[7] https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/05/28/harvard-university-neut...
For instance, computer science professor Harry Lewis observed that the course catalog contains over 100 classes referencing "social justice" and around 80 each mentioning "oppression" or "liberation,"
[8] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/18/harvar...
[9] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/1/8/lewis-reaping-wh...
Those are some examples but clearly they have failed to address anti semitism on their campus. Harvard also appears to be an enabler of social activism
The CS professor just running a word search is a poor experiment but this doesn't negate your point.
[1] The DEI intitive is social activism [2] True but not an official school policy but a professor
[3] Independent organization [4] Article on protests and mentions faculty support them [5-6] Accusations [7] True
These are good examples. What about indoctrination though and is it wrong for Harvard to be social activists?
In the case of the curriculum, it suggests an institutional preference for particular ideological narratives
Harvard selectively aligned with or tolerated specific activist ideologies while suppressing or distancing themselves from others
For DEI (which is just rebranded now honestly), it suggests that Harvard pushes only progressive policies and indoctrinated their students in this ideology.
They shouldn’t indoctrinate any students whatsoever
Are there?
>suggests that Harvard pushes only progressive policies
How does Harvard's DEI program suggest they ONLY push progressive policies?
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ip031k/commen...
It can also create a circle where people who are more conservative are less likely to view universites favorably, and therefore attend less and in different departments, thus creating an even more overwhelming majority.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/07/10/sharp-partis...
This shows the difference in thinking between left and right on higher education. In general the longer you are at college, the more likely you are to be liberal. Is that 'indoctrination'? No, but I think it's a bit silly to not see a stray thumb on the scale”
That's nice
"Although acknowledging his experiment’s limitations – “word frequency is an imperfect measure”
The classes exist and he could have confirmed by attending them or checking course material. I was complaining about his lazy method
It doesn't matter I said you proved that point
Federal funds comes with strings attached and administrations change. If the usefulness of the work has proven itself now, then other sources can fund it. This won't really be controversial or require grandstanding or debate soon, because it will be the status quo.
Yes, its also disruptive to many programs to cut off funding in this way. I think decoupling is for the better. This university daytraded tax free up to a $50bn endowment, for a rainy day. They just need to get liquid and plug the budget gap, which they are starting to do. Donors and other sources can be leveraged too.
For example I don’t remember the detail exactly but this professors insistence to study extremophiles has directly translated to many improvements in medicine.