Can someone ELI5 the power networks involved here?
I didn't expect to see Harvard getting smacked around or humiliated like this.
Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government. And that key figures in government were interested in maintaining and benefiting from that influence.
And a lot of that influence seemed aligned with national interests. (For example, getting things done with prestige connections, domestically and internationally. And the international diplomatic goodwill, when children of the world's wealthy and powerful go to prestigious schools in the US.)
Is some other faction at work now, or is it the same people as before? Are the power networks changing? If the distribution of power is changing, is it partly due to someone willing to sacrifice national power from which all parties benefited (and everyone else wasn't expecting that, or wasn't ready to defend against that from within)? Better questions?
> For example, getting things done with prestige connections, domestically and internationally. And the international diplomatic goodwill
What you describe is relatively recent development of US foreign policy. In 1959, John F. Kennedy purchased a copy of The Ugly American for all of his fellow US Senators. After Kennedy was elected, many foreign service programs were initiated to leverage soft power. That was JFK's legacy.
Prior to that, the US acted much in the same way as it is today. It came up with Bretton Woods, along with the UK. The people that ran the world were the Averill Harrimans and Prescott Bushes.
In 1956, the US basically told the UK it wasn't going to back the Prime Minister (Anthony Eden) with regards to the Suez Canal. That was probably a sobering indication that the UK was going to be a supplicant in the relationship. The US also returned Vietnam to France (as was policy after WW2), which of course precipitated 20 years of war in southeast asia.
The end of the WW2, and the discovery of the infiltration of Russian agents in the dead Roosevelt administration put Truman in panic mode. The iron curtain and cold war basically turned foreign policy into a huge power grab after the war to position against a perceived threat.
Much thanks for the jfk link. New info. Interesting info to me at least.
I will add a little nuance or my take. Balance as always is key. Toxic feminity or hopes/prayers/empathy holism alone is hardly an answer. Would it kill the dems to get some street smarts? No!
> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government.
The simple answer is that they don't. Alumni are often in powerful positions, but even they are, that is very different from the school itself exerting influence.
A friend is a big Harvard alum. He says that most of his classmates are very unhappy with the direction of the university. So in his circle the alumni may be cheering this on. Maybe not the extremism but the general idea of telling Harvard that it needs to get back to truth-seeking.
The fund-raising email the President of Harvard sent us after the gov pulled federal funding begins: "Dear Alumni and Friends,
In recent weeks, thousands of you have sent encouraging messages, asked thoughtful questions, provided candid feedback, and made generous new gifts to the University. Many of you also shared deeply moving stories of how Harvard changed and shaped your lives. Your outpouring of appreciation and support reinforces the importance of our institution and what it represents. Thank you for your commitment to the University and its ideals." It goes in at length, and as the international recipient of a full-ride scholarship you can bet I was happy join in and double my annual gift. Just as trump was able to raise money from his various trials, so to Harvard draws sympathy from this: and while trumps's supporters are many, Harvard's supporters are rich, so it comes out in a wash and is effectively just melodrama to wind us all up with. The Harvard network is wide and varied so while I am sure there are some like your "big Harvard alum" who are cheering attacks on a major source of their own and their country's prestige, but in my circle of conservative alumni friends I have heard exactly the opposite reaction: even those who were still card-carrying Republicans were already apoplectic about the tariff debacle's impact on their net worth so all this petty virtue-signaling against the alma-mater that launched them on their successful careers hasn't done anything to heal the growing rift...
Not a single alum I've talked to is happy about what Trump is doing.
That said, it's not only the Harvard issue that is giving everyone pause, it's the direction of the Administration in general. In fact, for a lot of them, Harvard is the least of the problems the US will be facing the next 20 years due to this Administration. Europe is moving. China is moving. And neither are moving in the direction we thought they were moving prior to Trump coming into office.
My general feel on conservative Harvard/MIT alums is "Buyer's Remorse". A fair sentiment likely shared by most of the nation at this point. I keep hoping that maybe it gets better? At some point, someone, somewhere has to realize the economy, at minimum, has to be brought back in hand. When that happens, maybe we see more movement on these other issues. If it doesn't happen, we'll see movement on new political leadership over the next few election cycles.
I didn't want to measure relative genitalia size with "friend of Big Harvard", but as it happens I was on the Executive Board of an Asian country's Harvard Club during a trump election campaign, and, duty-bound to attend multiple in-person events a month for the year, I accumulated plenty of anecdotes that confirm your experience. Instead of doxing myself with them, I crunched some central bank numbers from this unaligned Asian country for us instead: before trump (2016) the ratio of Western-sphere FDI to Chinese FDI was ~5:1 in favor of the West, but as of 2024 it had reached ~5:1 in favor of China. (Subjectively, the loss of soft-power has been order of magnitude more gradual than the abrupt swing in business influence here.) Regardless, the local Harvard Club has in fact already sent out a subsequent "support" email specific to this international issue, and I'm sure local elites are circling wagons full of generational wealth to defend their offspring's future Ivy credentials regardless of who they're going to end up in business with once they get back.
Those of you who took the time to flag this completely innocuous comment should take a moment to review the site guidelines as you are abusing the mechanism.
You and others in this thread are using HN for political or ideological battle, which is against the guidelines. It's inevitable in a thread of this nature that people are going to do this, but if you want to herald the guidelines, which we appreciate, we need you to also make a sincere effort to observe them.
> You and others in this thread are using HN for political or ideological battle
You look to be an admin so you can do whatever you want, but I would point out that the only post I made that expressed an opinion is still up [0]. I don’t really have a strong opinion about the issue. I find that I only ever get flagged on HN when I ask clarifying questions on threads like these, presumably because people simply don’t like to be questioned about the claims they are making.
Yes I'm a moderator here. These politics-based threads are the most difficult for us to manage, because, whilst mainstream politics stories are generally considered to be off topic here, if a story contains "significant new information" and the weight of community sentiment supports having a thread about it, we'll yield - which means turning off the flags and flamewar penalties and spending much of the day moderating it. But then too many people treat the presence of a political topic on the front page as an open door to post whatever they want, without any regard for the guidelines at all. Then we have to spend time adjudicating between different people making accusations against other community members about breaking the guidelines, when, really, the entire thread is against the guidelines, so the whole matter is kind of moot.
> I only ever get flagged on HN when I ask clarifying questions on threads like these
We can't know exactly why people flag things, but it may be because it comes across as stirring up controversy with plausible deniability. It looks like you're trying to bait another user into making a comment that is controversial and could be attacked (or considered to be breaking the guidelines), whilst being seen as being a neutral participant yourself.
Of course we can't know your true intention, all we can know is the consequences of this kind of conduct when we see it.
So, given that you seem to care about the guidelines, which we appreciate, we ask you to demonstrate a sincere intent to observe them yourself and also to avoid baiting others into breaking them.
It boggles my mind that anyone with, apparently and allegedly, such a high tier education, would be against the actions Harvard has been taking this year.
They are literally just fighting for basic academic freedoms.
People go to Harvard because they want a prestigious career, not because they have an insatiable palate for knowledge that somehow in 2025 they can't satisfy in any other way.
"Harvard's not a real school, therefore these actions are justified"
Even if you were right about Harvard not being a real school (which is a strange thing to claim), your conclusion still doesn't follow.
Separately, is there a name for this debating technique? I would like to call it "baiting the assertion".
You claim A => B where, in fact, A does not imply B. To distract attention from the faulty logic, however, you pick a highly divisive assertion A. That makes people argue about whether A is correct, instead on focusing on the faulty implication.
Here's an example:
"Ukraine provoked Russia therefore we should send 0 aid to Ukraine"
(I have seen this argument both in the US and non-US discourses.)
When this argument is presented, people feel compelled to argue whether Ukraine did or did not provoke Russia. However, this hides the fact that _even if Ukraine did provoke Russia_, if might still make sense to provide aid:
- due to humanitarian concerns
- because you think the Russian response (even if provoked) is not commensurate
- because you think the EU should present a united front
- etc
However, saying things like "even if you are right <rest of argument>" is a difficult thing to do when A is a very divisive (or glaringly incorrect) statement, which is why this is a common troll argument.
Thank you for this comment. It got me into researching more about the rhetoric types and think about all the people I've come across who make similar arguments.
Visas and academic accreditation shouldn't be leverage against speech the government disagrees with, they should be granted and removed according to a predictable and unbiased process.
Really all government actions should follow a predictable and unbiased process, a.k.a "The Law".
Just, throwing this out there, but it seems a distinct possibility that this Administration doesn't hold the same regard towards "Rule of Law" as did previous Administrations.
I'm not altogether certain I'd rely on "Rule of Law" to save anyone in the current environment.
Kristi Noem doesn't know what Habeas Corpus is; she defined it as "the constitutional right of the president to protect America from terrorists" or some such nonsense,so - ya think?
Possibly after she had it explained to her in front of the millions of viewers watching her demonstrate a frankly unbelievable lack of basic knowledge for someone in her position.
But then such things are expected with the current kakistocracy.
When it's targeted solely at one institute for the purpose of hampering it's academic activities as retribution? You're being deliberately obtuse here.
Harvard really tarnished it's reputation when the president, under oath, said that calls for the genocide of Jews would comply with their code of conduct "depending on the context". The president did end up resigning a year ago, though they have a lot of work to do to come back from that.
While what the Trump admin is doing is wrong, Harvard has given them ample cover for their actions. It would be intellectually lazy to assert, even implicitly, that Harvard has no responsibility over the current state of affairs.
As a person of Jewish descent I am sickened by the way this administration is twisting the definition of antisemitism to mean things that have nothing to do with antisemitism. Antisemitism is real: devaluing it into bullshit is going to lead to the deaths of millions.
if there are harvard alum are cheering this on they are morons without a doubt. Trump couldnt care less about truth seeking in the slightest he just wants complete and full control with his delusional backwards thought process. you can want change on something but that doesnt mean that when another individual/goverment comes along theyre going to change something for the better.
people were unhappy with bidens handling of israel so they voted for trump and where did that get them?
Bill Ackman may be the most visible. Billionaire hedge fund manager. He's a Jew who is horrified by the school's tolerance for pro Hamas protests. He was a big Democrat supporter before that, including for Obama, Booker, and Cuomo.
Bill Ackman made his bed with Trump and will now have to deal with the fact that his fate is tied to whatever random whims Trump has over the next 1,340 days.
I suppose there is a possibility that on January 21, 2029 this country won't be viciously angry about the past four years, and everyone associated with it. But I wouldn't want to bet on that.
it seems what all of these powerful, big thinkers are actually mad about is a school's tolerance for <anything>, the very thing that graduates of prestigious institutions don't need to like but should understand.
Yeah this is also my read, people are horrified by the university behavior and generally supportive of the administration on this stuff. The 'elite' schools are becoming a counter signal it'll be embarrassing to have attended.
The circle embarrassed by ignorant students screaming for intifada.
Mao is a good example because it was similarly ignorant students that drove the cultural revolution and ended up killing millions. There's a line from these Harvard students to the two Jews a "Free Palestine" communist executed this week.
You're right that communism is a threat - you're wrong about where the threat lies.
I mean that alumni are invested in the prestige of the alma mater, and in the network they have through that. Also, that some people at the universities are very connected, and can get a lot of people on the phone.
But why stick your head out? The people you’re referring to got where they are now by being ruthless, egocentric, power-hungry opportunists; these kinds of people don’t risk their careers over some vague sense of gratitude for their Alma mater.
That would be about as smart as challenging an actual silverback. Trump, and his administration by extension, are just past their power zenith right now. They ignore the judicial branch, send people to gulags without fair trial, accept 400 million dollar bribes on live TV, fuck over allies, suppress the press, force universities and schools to align with propaganda, lie openly about about government affairs, prioritise personal acclaim over national security, trash the global economy due to an elementary school level understanding of trade relations… This list could go on for quite a while and would still miss critically dangerous and unprecedented acts.
The democrats can't find a coherent voice; the republicans have been dismantled and are firmly in MAGA control; the people trust random TikTok influencers more than reputable journalists; judges must fear being imprisoned over doing their job; scientists and activists could get detained, deported, or imprisoned at any time and are fleeing the country.
That is the setting. That is what is happening right now. Even on the highest echelons of power, rebelling against this tsunami of corruption, delusion, and destruction is futile. All you get is a demotion, a muzzle, or a sentence. Just look at Marco Rubio; I seriously doubt he believes even a shred of all the bullshit he has to proclaim with a straight face, but he's as trapped in this as the rest of us, whether he's behind his administration or not.
A big wakeup call for me is I believed the idea that there was a small group of people in the US that had the "real power". The billionaires, the corporations, the elite whoevers. And on a certain level that was comforting, because their self-interest to keep the United States as the best place for capitalism meant that certain political excesses would be limited.
But with the Trump admin, I've realized that just isn't the case. There's nobody who has the ability to rein this in.
A big problem with other spheres like education is that they do not react immediately in the sense that the effects of a change in policy won't be realized for decades. The economy on the other hand basically has an instant reaction to policy changes. When Trump put out tariffs and saw the instant economic reaction, he somewhat walked it back.
But the reaction to changes in areas like research and education isn't realized for years if not decades. So Trump doesn't feel the consequences. For non-economic spheres, the only real immediate reaction to these changes is the social reaction, which comes from people Trump is actively aligned against and entrenches his position.
In my opinion the reason why they are getting smacked is because they are powerful. This is textbook 101 dictatorship power grab in action. Harvard in the US is law. If they can't fight this, probably nobody else can or will.
One explanation might be that the objects of their influence are nested within agencies.
Most presidents let the agencies run mostly unsupervised, it seems like. With the agencies now under heavy fire structurally, they may not be able to do what they would normally do to prevent this kind of thing.
I think the whole agency model gives the president way more power than they are meant to have. I guess this exists to serve as a form of blame laundering from the people without term limits to the guy with term limits? But if the president does not play ball, suddenly they have power over things congress would otherwise have power over. Oops.
1. As the US grew and the workload required to govern it grew, Congress' ability to directly and quickly manage the country was outpaced. Consequently, agencies served as the grease between Congress' high-level actions/funding and the low-level implementation.
2. Due to the ever-adversarial nature of Congress, it was recognized that most Congresses operated slowly, and consequently didn't have the capacity to micromanage at the level required for direct control.
3. Circa 1900, civil service reform by the then-progressive wing of the Republican party pushed for greater isolation of the expertise that drove good government outcomes (in civil service employees) from politicians (administrators).
The flaw Trump revealed was that the President has too much direct power over the civil service, if he chooses to ignore tradition.
This wasn't always the case, and laws that previously restrained the President's ability to fuck with the civil service were substantially relaxed in the 60s - 80s (?).
Conversely, the flaw of the civil servant plan during Trump 1 was that stonewalling the top of your org chart can really bite you if he sticks around too long or, maybe worse, comes back.
In any case, the President will keep having too much power until Congress starts taking theirs back.
This is an explanation from my department chair which I've expanded. In the context of a university, there are four main power groups - the alumni, the faculty, the students, and the board of trustees. (Within each group of course are subfactions.) The actual power balance between these groups is never precisely certain (it's an unobservable "latent variable"). Whenever large events happen that involve the university, we get observations that allow us to estimate the latent variable better.
In the case of Harvard, I think the current observations are most consistent with the following: the Board of Trustees, faculty, and students have currently aligned in their goals - which we might summarize as (1) maintaining independence from the government and (2) the ability to hold/teach specific "controversial" viewpoints (benefits of diversity, anti-colonialism, potentially other "progressive" concepts). I suspect that within the factions the relative importance of these two goals is not balanced. The fact that the coalition has survived much longer than, e.g., Columbia, is somewhat surprising.
My suspicion is that the answer to your question is that the persistent "smacking around" is only in part due to the external factors other replies have mentioned. I think a major piece of the situation can be explained by a change in the power dynamic with the alumni. Under normal circumstances, the faculty presumably hope to maintain long lasting influence over their alumni, which the board of trustees leverage to bring in more money and influence to the university. The current situation suggests that the high-power/high-$$$ portion of the alumni who are in a position to leverage the public conversation about what's going on are not doing it. This implies that the strength of that edge of the power graph is much weaker than it was expected to be. I think it remains to be seen whether this is true. Further observations that would support that would be reduced donations, public complaints, etc. Conversely, increased fundraising and more public support would suggest the opposite.
The key point about the university power network is that USUALLY, the best situation is to avoid situations that actually reveal too much information. Everyone would prefer to believe they have more power than they do. Obviously the alumni are composed of factions, and presumably a large fraction of the potential participants are also members of other organizations with latent power networks and participating in this particular situation would involve expending capital in these other networks with potential reduction in power. Some alumni that have spoken up (i.e., Ackman) are clearly unaligned with the current coalition, and this MAY reflect the fact that the wealthy/powerful group of alumni that have sustained Harvard are really unhappy with the current stances of the university and would like it to shift (return?) to a different set of ideologies. But it's also possible that he represents a minority, and the rest are just nervous about getting involved.
My conclusion from this analysis is that things will persist as they have, with everyone who might be involved hoping that lawsuits will be successful in resolving the situation with the minimum of their involvement. If this approach is unsuccessful, I think we'll end up in a situation where we get a much better observation of the power balance between alumni, faculty, and board (I think the students rarely have as much power as they think they do!).
It feels like a situation where alumni are holding their breath. It reminds me of that moment in basketball games where the ball bounces around the rim - will it go in or will it bounce out? If I'm on the sidelines of that game, then I'm not going to vocalize until the ball settles.
> This implies that the strength of that edge of the power graph is much weaker than it was expected to be
Funnily, 2 Harvard profs have written the easiest way for me to point out that the media / Information economy in America is broken. (Network Propaganda)
Which would explain why Alumni dont have power, or for that matter any experts. This is fundamentally why Trump is in power, and why decisions that have zero connection to scientific fact or even reality.
Either everyone starts talking in terms of the reality being litigated on Fox and other related networks on the Right, or people find a way to actually engage in a fair debate. Democracy is fundamentally conversation.
It's hard for me to see this as anything more than "they resisted Trump, that pissed him off and now he's further retaliating."
Side question I've been wrestling with to whoever feels like commenting:
At what point would you look at our current US situation and say "yep, we're now in a dictatorship"
the usa is seeing the state employ that monopoly right now:
- against opposing members of the legislative branch (lamonica mciver)
- against opposing members of the judicial branch (hannah dugan)
- against opposing members of the executive branch (ras baraka, andrew cuomo)
- against opposing private organizations (harvard, institute for peace)
- against opposing private individuals (chris krebs)
- against defenders of opponents (multiple lawfirms)
- not to mention rewarding private individuals who employed private violence against political enemies -- we saw this during duterte (ashli babbitt, the rest of the insurrectionists)
if there is no monopoly on violence in the usa, who else exactly is the monopolist permitting to use it?
The proletariat has the capacity to violently resist (See: Butler,PA), but the Venn overlap among those with the most firepower and those who actually support the oppressors is two concentric circles.
Agreed, dictatorship is a gross exaggeration. Sliding toward fascism? Sure. Would Tump like to do away with election? He’s said he does, that they won’t be necessary.
In the bill that has recently been passed, the republicans have inserted a clause that means no administration official can be found guilty of criminal contempt by the federal courts.
This will mean that the courts are literally powerless against the administration's malfeasance. The executive will be able to do what they like, and even if this bill doesn't pass the senate, SCOTUS will likely strike down as unconstitutional any appointment by the courts of a private attorney to prosecute criminal contempt because it has been stuffed with useful idiots.
This isn't sliding towards fascism, this is speed running 30's Germany.
An election only puts a few people in an office. If those people try to exert their will through force (which, I wouldn’t classify cutting Harvard off as using force, just being a jerk) and there can be severe physical consequences done to the state for that action, then I wouldn’t call it a dictatorship at that point.
Most of my money is not in my wallet and I'm only wearing one of my many pairs of pants, but if someone stabs my wallet with a knife and puts a hole in my pants pocket, they are using force.
There are no consequences. The president has immunity and the courts are about to have the option of criminal contempt prosecutions removed. Cletus and his stockpile of ammunition are going to have little or no impact and he will be hunted down by law enforcement who are very much toeing the line.
The US regulatory system is intertwined with enough of the country that dictatorship can be wrought through its abuse.
E.g. if the US court system were more MAGA, Trump would be ignoring the Constitution today (habeas corpus), instead of toeing around the line
E.g. Trump silencing media speech by abusing FCC spectrum transfer authority
Institutions and the Constitution are what prevent the US from being a dictatorship, and ultimately both of those things rest on elected (indirectly or directly) officials, and therefore free and fair elections.
I would read the constitution and come to terms with the fact that the executive authority is vested in a president. It’s not quite a king, because it’s not passed down by inheritance and they can’t enact laws by fiat… but the president is supremely powerful during their term.
And that’s good. There’s no denying that the executive branch (its agencies, officers, regulators, etc) is supremely powerful. The only question is whether the public have any democratic control over the exercise of that authority.
If you've been aware of Trump at all since the 1970's he's always been vastly inferior to anyone who takes academic effort seriously. And he knows it, his whole life, a lot better than anyone else, that's way longer than the general public who didn't really become aware of it until the '70's.
Even though he went to a prestigious school himself he's not the kind to make an academic pursuit resembling anything like truly sensible Presidents. The complete opposite of the league of actual accomplished Harvard men like Bush and Obama. What a weenie, Trump is probably just jealous and hates himself and everyone else because he'll never measure up to people having average-to-above-average intellect & integrity. Completely on brand to whine like a child with the most amplified voice he's ever had. So that's what he's going to do instead of something worthwhile for the citizens.
Many people associated with the University are pretty happy about it getting smacked down.
Shameless, wrong, and overtly illegal discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and creed, suppression of free speech, even the compelling of speech have all been de rigeur for Harvard for the past decade.
I just wish they would use a scalpel rather than a sledge hammer.
It’s a short but sweeping claim without a citation in sight. That’s a recipe for a flame war but it probably won’t lead to a useful discussion since anyone who would respond is simply guessing at what you’re even talking about or whether you actually arrived at that position through research rather than simple partisan loyalty.
Ah. I worked there for years, still spend a lot of time there, and therefore know a lot of people who either are or were there. I should have said that.
It’d be especially useful to have more specifics about what you’re talking about. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of university administrators, politics, etc. but without even knowing what you’re talking about a lot of people, especially those who’ve been here for a while, are going to see that, decide it won’t have a positive outcome, and downvote.
The University (and many other universities) has been engaging in overtly illegal discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and creed in hiring, grants, and I'm sure many other areas. There were many job postings where the CVs of white men were never looked at, because of their skin color and sex. There were many grant-funded opportunities (often federally-funded) where a white man, or a man, or a straight person would not have a chance because of those characteristics. Oh, and I should mention "diversity statements", now called "belonging statements". These are political tests: regardless of your skin color and genitals, if you don't sing the right political song you have no chance. This was a first line assessment at many places (e.g., UC Berkeley). This was all overt in that it was openly talked about, people would send emails to the effect "this job opening must go to a brown woman", etc. People generally, somehow, even Americans, didn't understand it was illegal. I would be greeted with quizzical looks if I enlightened them! (in casual conversation, of course, never officially!). This is all for hiring and similar. Students are different, and since the end of affirmative action Harvard has been still doing everything it can to continue discriminating against e.g. East Asians and Whites, which is of course illegal.
You risked losing your job for expressing an uncool belief (e.g., Carole Hooven: https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/02/15/carole-hooven-wh...). Of course, they will try to force you to resign before actually firing you, which would leave open the possibility of legal problems. This may be a sort of "why not, it's a small thing, just say it" to a chemist, but to an endocrinologist or social scientist it can be intolerable.
Compelled speech was on the table, too, which is a bright line we have so far, as a society, have managed not to cross. Harvard and other elite universities were crossing it, and the Biden admin's Title IX rules overtly crossed it (by forcing you to use someone's preferred pronouns). A bad look, to put it mildly.
Nice. But none of the anti - trump comments bother with evidence. I hate what aboutism but this is too blatant. Everyone who follows the media even a little bit is fully aware of what OP is talking about. Very ugly things are taking place under the guise of DEI and other such dishonest terms.
This is a great example of the problem. You clearly think there’s some “ugly things” which are widespread in your media diet, but nobody else can read your mind to know what those things are or how honest the people who told you about them were, and we don’t even know if they’re the same things the original poster had in mind.
Now, based on your characterization of even questioning a bold assertion of illegality as anti-Trump we can make some assumptions about your position and media diet, but those aren’t likely to be completely accurate and it’s unlikely that a thread started on a poor footing will result in a good conversation.
For every person that went through these elite schools, they must have rejected five or more other people. These schools pride themselves on turning people away. Perhaps, they have far more enemies than friends, explaining their seeming lack of influence in this situation
Harvard (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the Ivy League) collects a lot of federal money, this comes with certain conditions around treating people fairly without respect to skin color, ethnicity, or religion.
A regular corporation with the same fact pattern of discrimination would be looking at a billion+ dollar fine.
this is just Harvard losing some special privilges and being expected to act reasonably fairly like any other publicly funded institution.
> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government.
Harvard and Yale didn't hire the right lobbyists [0][1][2]
The other universities like Dartmouth, MIT, and public university systems did.
One of the side effect of being large endowment private universities meant Harvard and Yale remained extremely insular and concentrated on donor relations over government relations.
For example, MIT across town remained much more integrated with public-private projects compared to Harvard, and ime Harvard would try to leverage their alumni network where possible, but the Harvard alumni network just isn't as strong as it was 20 or 30 years ago.
Also, don't underestimate the Israel-Palestine culture war's impact on campus alumni relationships. Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli campus orgs have continued to bombard me and other alumni to fight political battles against Harvard leadership for their side. Benefits of signing up to both Islamic orgs and Chabad to broaden my horizons back in the day I guess. Alumni from orgs on both sides are fine targeting the entire university, because fundamentally, Harvard is a very isolated experience where loyalty is to your house, a couple clubs, or your grad program - not Harvard as a whole.
And because Harvard has a lot of HNW alumni, they always try to meddle in some shape or form - Wen Jiabao's best friend funds the Fairbank Center, Kraft funds and hosts events at Chabad, some al Saud branches fund a couple Islamic clubs, a bunch of alt-right leaning Catholic traditionalists fund the Abigail Adams Institute, etc. It's just inter-elite fratricide at this point because no one truly gives a poo about Harvard.
Honestly, Harvard should prevent alumni from funding campus orgs, but they won't do so because donor relations.
Edit: I am extremely pro-academic freedom. This move is a HORRIBLE affront to free speech and campus autonomy. My cynicism and disillusionment may sound like I support the move by the administration, but it is the complete opposite.
Dartmouth is a smaller target without the name recognition of Harvard, and MIT has stronger ties to the MIC without the strong public image of a liberal institution. Harvard is a test case (what can this admin do) and a symbol almost in its own category for Trump's followers.
Harvard (the University, not it's alums) has had a near nil presence on K-Street for a looooong time - and their primary lobbyist with the GOP has been on Trump's bad side for sometime after he pissed off David Sacks.
I'm also an (severely disillusioned) alumni of some of the student orgs that are mutually using Harvard the institution as a punching bag to fight their culture wars.
A lot of this is honestly very childish BS done by some petulant alums who were already dicks on campus.
There is very little campus loyalty at Harvard which makes it easier to use it as a punching bag for your culture war (whichever way you lean).
To talk with this admin, you need a person who's part of the Florida GOP milleu in the 90s. Susie Wiles is the one who's managing/operating the show. Almost everyone who matters in Florida republican politics since the 90s owes favors to her.
Similar to how if you had an in into Chicago or IL Dem politics in the 90s or 2000s, you had an in with the Obama admin becuase of Axelrod, Rahm, and Jack Daley.
That is just shockingly cynical. We're facing a situation where a sitting government feels empowered to go to war against an elite university solely over the speech it doesn't like to hear on its campus.
And your response is to dismiss it all as a kerfuffle over "bad lobbying" and "inter-elite fratricide"? Really?
Surely there are existing institutions of some form or another you'd like to see not made enemies of the state. You don't maybe see a principle at work here beyond your personal dislike of academia?
Fighting antisemitism is clearly not the true motive behind this ideological "war", just as denazification was clearly not the motive for Russia's invasion of Ukraine; it's just a convenient excuse to target institutions such as Harvard that are unwilling to distance themselves from the progressive left.
Exactly this. It's nothing but an attempt to punish them for not kissing the ring. If only we had another arm of government able to hold this clearly corrupt behavior to account....
Pretty bold to blame RBG without spending a breath on Mitch McConnell, who stole an appointment from Obama because he said it was too close to the election to fill the seat; and then rushed to fill the seat vacated by RBG even though it was so close to the election. Treating the court with that kind of partisan contempt is the reason why the court is as partisan as it is.
I expect McConnell to be an advocate for harm. But RBG could have made a decision that made it impossible for the GOP to flip her seat in the way that she did. I expect people that are ostensibly fighting for the same things as me to act in ways that help achieve that.
Instead of the hubris to hold onto the job until death and thereby subsequently undo many of the things she spent her life fighting for.
A bit off-topic, but this seems to be an ongoing problem for the Democratic party. They just lost an important vote on a budget bill in the House by a single vote, because Gerry Connolly wasn't willing to give up his House seat and instead clung on until he (very predictably) died of cancer a few days ago.
But if the Democratic guy had stepped down and they had a non sick person then the story would have been much better: Republican bill fails because one of their members was asleep and missed the vote.
Yeah, that was a pretty bad decision, but the bigger issue is still a population that votes based on misinformation and 'alternative facts'. Until that is resolved, if it even can be at this point, then this tribal and sometimes cultish behavior is only going to become more prevalent, in turn doing more damage to the country.
Personally, I think we've started on a path to self-destruction that can't be reversed.
Oh, I mean the US specifically. I'm optimistic the other western powers won't go down the same self-destructive path the US has chosen, largely because they have much better public education pre-college, and much more accessible higher education.
I expect even China and India to start improving drastically in all the ways that matter as the US continues to downlside.
I'm a severely disillusioned alum of a couple of the campus orgs really driving some of this.
> Surely there are existing institutions of some form or another you'd like to see not made enemies of the state. You don't maybe see a principle at work here beyond your personal dislike of academia
Hold up - I'm massively pro-academic freedom and autonomy. I'm just pointing out that there's a fight happening behind this fight that has been going on in a subset of the Harvard alum community that has snowballed into this fiasco.
> That is just shockingly cynical
You don't understand unless you actually attended Harvard. It's a very isolating and cliquish experience which incentivizes you to exist within your echo chamber.
Even joining god damn clubs on campus required "Comping" (basically the same as rushing in frats)
Major reason I spent most of my time at MIT and BU or the grad schools like HKS and HBS instead - middle class schools tend to have less of a stick up their butt.
Edit: can't reply to you below, but tl;dr I agree with your callout. I edited my initial comment because as you pointed out it did come off as if I had schachenfreude.
> I can say with 100% sincerity that'd I'd feel the same horror if a White House was similarly going after TCU, or Liberty University, or even Yale
I agree. I'm just exasperated by this whole fiasco and that's why my post is so angry in tone
> Hold up - I'm massively pro-academic freedom and autonomy.
Then maybe you'd like to rephrase your upthread comment which seems very comfortable with a clear and obvious attack on academic freedom and autonomy?
> You don't understand unless you actually attended Harvard.
Class of '96. But really I don't see how that's relevant in the face of the current crisis. I can say with 100% sincerity that'd I'd feel the same horror if a White House was similarly going after TCU, or Liberty University, or even Yale.
It's. Awful. And it's not made less so because some of the students are Zionists, or Palestinian Sympathizers, or Vegan, or whatever it is you're upset about.
> Then maybe you'd like to rephrase your upthread comment which seems very comfortable with a clear and obvious attack on academic freedom and autonomy?
On it! I agree with you 100% - it's horrid.
> But really I don't see how that's relevant in the face of the current crisis
There are some interpersonal relations and egos that got mixed into this, along with a very cynical anti-establishment play. It takes a couple bad apples to spoil the batch, and that's what it feels like has happened. I was a Gov secondary during the Obama years so I bumped into a lot of the people who ended up on either side of the political and cultural divide. I feel digging into that helps explain how this has really snowballed. It's been a rolling crisis for a couple years now.
> It's. Awful. And it's not made less so because some of the students are Zionists, or Palestinian Sympathizers, or Vegan, or whatever it is you're upset about
I agree, but ignoring some of the ego and personal clashes that has caused this crisis means you lose the bigger picture.
>Harvard and Yale didn't hire the right lobbyists.
I don't think it's as simple as this. To my knowledge, Dr. Sian Leah Beilock handled the protests of the past 2 years much better than their counterparts.
Oh easily! But the issue is Brian Ballard (their GOP lobbyist) stepped on a lot of feet and pissed people (primarily David Sacks) off, leading him to get metaphorically slapped by the Trump admin.
So they're frozen out from K-Street in the medium term.
On top of that, a couple extremely active and very wealthy alumni have continued to maintain a grudge and have an ear in the admin
And finally, it's an easy anti-establishment win.
Finally, this is specifically a Harvard College thing - the alumni of other schools at Harvard are much less... let's say idealistic.
>And because Harvard has a lot of HNW alumni, they always try to meddle in some shape or form - Wen Jiabao's best friend funds the Fairbank Center, Kraft funds and hosts events at Chabad, some al Saud branches fund a couple Islamic clubs, a bunch of alt-right leaning Catholic traditionalists fund the Abigail Adams Institute, etc. It's just inter-elite fratricide at this point because no one truly gives a poo about Harvard.
When you put it like that... should I make some popcorn?
When elephants fight, it's the grass that gets trampled.
Harvard plays a significant role multiple fields of study (from social science to humanities to hard sciences), and a significant portion of their grad students are affected by the SEVP revocation.
Furthermore, a number of fields just don't have that many domestic graduate students because the domestic pipeline for a number of fields such as Distributed Systems is almost non-existent, and students often get poached with just a bachelors for industry. Not bad for students, but applied research or part-time industrial PhDs don't exist in the US.
It’s less a shift in power networks and more about Trump using existing presidency tools more aggressively. Harvard didn’t lose influence, it’s being targeted because it's outspoken and symbolic. The immigration authority falls under the executive branch, so the president can act unilaterally, without needing broader support.
The Project 2025 people and the Yarvinists agree that elite universities like Harvard are spreading the “woke mind virus” and must be destroyed. They consider their movements a revolution, not an iteration on the status quo.
I downloaded the file (must still be somewhere in my "Downloads" folder with many other forever-unread PDFs). I would suggest for anyone living in the US, to find and read that because this is (more or less) what will happen in the/your country in the next 3.5 years.
(if I remember well it's 150-170 pages - and since I don't live in the US the meme "Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" is spot on).
It's around 900 pages. In NYC we have a study group to go over it -- we've covered just a handful of chapters. But most people can get a lot out of just reading the opening section.
You can understand, for example, most of their tactics about immigration by reading the section on Homeland Security, tariffs by reading the Economy section (by Peter Navarro), and so on. They are in fact hewing pretty closely to the plan.
To be fair, they took the two most average Americans and sent them to the future in the movie. We skipped steps and chose someone the most average person could completely understand today. Apparently, the future is now.
The movie also sent Upgrayedd but left that story arc for a sequel.
> Can someone elucidate the power networks involved here?
Major players, regarding the Gaza/Hamas issue:
- Harvard itself. The administration, not the faculty or students.
- The US Eastern Establishment, the Ivy League and its graduates. They once ran the US, and still run finance, but are less influential politically than a few decades ago.
- The Netanyahu faction in Israel. Understanding this requires more info about Israeli politics than is worth posting here. Wikipedia has a summary.[1] There are a huge number of factions. Netanyahu leads a coalition. The coalition seems to need an enemy to hold it together.
- MAGA. "Project 2025" is the MAGA playbook. Despite some denials, the Trump administration has mostly been following that playbook.
- Israel's lobby in the US, starting with AIPAC. American Jews as a group average left of center, but the Israel lobby is hard-right.
- Major donors to Harvard. Some are closely associated with the Israel lobby and vocal about it. Others aren't.
- The US courts. Anyone can bring a case to court, and courts have to do something about it.
- Trump.
Minor players:
- Fox News. 23 of Trump's appointees came from Fox News. The MAGA base listens to Fox News.
- The United Nations. Provides some aid, but hasn't been able to do more than that.
- US Congress. Has the real power, but is too divided to do anything with it.
- Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. They're the ones most affected, but lack any real power at this point.
It's not even suggested that they be represented in international meetings.
Fox and the rest of the media network is the main player. They spend the energy required to present an alternative reality for their base, and have insulated their viewers from any discussion on a shared common reality.
Furthermore, they are effectively part of the Republican Party. So they create and maintain a political reality which is purpose built to achieve political goals.
The underlying assumption of western liberal democracies is that participants can figure things out together. You cannot figure things out when you have one side intentionally creating alternate narratives to stymie conversation and debate, to shore up negotiating power for the leaders of their bloc.
I am not entirely sure what you mean but I will disagree with other commenters that there are no factions at war with each other. If you look at the prosecutors who went after Trump in the past few years, they were disproportionately Harvard Law grads. So that is Merrick Garland, Matthew Colangelo, Alvin Bragg, and Jack Smith. I do think that law schools in particular have cultivated a particular political view and are not independent or nonpartisan but I very much disagree with what Trump is doing.
I think there are almost certainly factions here. I personally think Trump is targeting Harvard because of the above reason. Overall I think the situation is quite bad but that isn't what you asked.
No it's the fact that it's the exact same phenomenon of a rich club getting their way it just happens to be another rich club. There's nothing to celebrate here as you did in your previous comment.
But they aren't, in this case. Trump and his ilk are attacking academia because they think that universities are all woke. There's no other reasoning required. Leaders within his community have said this in public very clearly. The goal is to destroy academia.
And attacking Harvard, specifically, because they won't bend the knee. There's not really anything more to it than that. Trump is a petty, small man who cares only about enriching himself and punishing his perceived enemies.
Superman fought Lex Luthor in Action Comics #NN and on and on
Most people just default to faith in their native political and religious traditions. So yeah “our guy is better than their guy” and fuck your individual self, you’re on the one true team normalization, becomes the default by sure lack of will of enough people to rock the boat even gently through public debate and discussion.
I mean this crowd can circumlocute an endless set of rhetorical perspectives. Ground truth is this group is outnumbered by Trump #1 and all kinds of other tribal group thinks.
Harvard is not an old money university anymore, none of those schools really are. Old money in the sense you are thinking of it is a liability for Harvard especially since the SFFA lawsuit. There isn't a record that tracks that sort of thing so I would point to admissions statistics generally. You may find old money there but there is no backdoor to let them in easily and that's not the vast majority of students so I would not refer to those schools that way.
Isn't a lot of the appeal of Trump that he does not owe anything to these power networks? Others in the Republican party may do so, but Trump has the Republican party well under control, and so doesn't have to listen to anyone. Trump has drained the previous swamp and erected a new one, and Harvard never got an invitation.
I think its a few reasons/things here...(some already noted in some way by others)
* Trump does not care or maybe lacks the understanding of the concept of a network and influence with entities outside the U.s.
* Trump probably figures that he can use this as sort of leverage against negotiations with non-U.s. entities...but using a blunt instrument instead of nuance, or backchannels.
* Trump is foolishly following the guidelines from the architects of project 2025...whether those folks are educated enough to understand value of schools of higher educatioin, or worse, these architects fear having an educated population - regardless if that population are U.S. citizens or folks outside of U.S.
* Trump is behaving like a child having a tantrum, and is demolishing the "swamp" of current political arenas, and re-building it for himself/his party...and Harvard and other entities (that typically might be invited) are not invited in the upcoming new world order.
* Trump has little desire in any/all of this, and this is simply another stab at pushing the envelope of what the U.s. Executive branch can/can not do...much like a child who pushes boundaries to see how far they can get...and if no one pushes back/challenges (at least in meaningful ways), then they will keep pushing until greater power has been obtained.
...of course, it could be a combination of many of the above at the same time as well...and could be other stuff that i didn't note above too. In other words, welcome to the modern U.S. tyranny. ;-)
> project 2025...whether those folks are educated enough to understand value of schools of higher educatioin, or worse, these architects fear having an educated population
They may or may not be educated, but they're openly and actively against an educated populace for a multitude of reasons, from resistance to their ideas, to "get to work and start having babies for Christ". They will openly say that the first preference for a male school leaver/graduate should be to find a job, not further education.
The problem is that deals made under duress have little lasting value. The bullied party feels little moral compunction to uphold the terms a moment longer than necessary, plus they will naturally be skeptical of the bullying party's commitment to do so in the future.
Disregarding whatever surface-level motivations Trump might have, let's look at some things attacking Harvard accomplishes.
1. Maybe most importantly, attacking academic institutions is part of the fascist coup playbook. [1] That could really be enough motivation on its own - these steps have lead to the desired outcome before, if you follow them closely enough they will probably work again. Just like the seemingly out-of-the-left-field framing of DEI, of all things, as the big Enemy that is corrupting art, science and the American people itself. It seems crazy, but notice how well it's working.
2. It's another vase to throw in the air, forcing you to catch it, cartoon-style. People who care and believe in process will spend time and energy going through the court system to limit the damage done, but the defenders will lag behind, their focus divided, while the attackers can just keep breaking bigger and bigger things, since they not care much what damage they do to people or their country.
3. It lets them target pro-Palestine protesters gradually starting from the most extreme. The genocide in Gaza can go a lot further. It is mutually beneficial for Trump, Netanyahu and Putin to divide both domestic and international outrage between them (see point 2.) By the time the full scale of the atrocities are clear, arresting and prosecuting protesters for "antisemitism" will be routine. And if you're not willing to stand up and protest, and therefore be removed, chances are you won't stick your neck out when they instate "temporary" changes to federal elections - only out of some extreme necessity, of course.
WASHINGTON – Today, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered DHS to terminate the Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification.
This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.
Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment. Many of these agitators are foreign students. Harvard’s leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide.
“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” said Secretary Noem. “It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”
On April 16, 2025, Secretary Noem demanded Harvard provide information about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus. Secretary Noem warned refusal to comply with this lawful order would result in SEVP termination.
This action comes after DHS terminated $2.7 million in DHS grants for Harvard last month.
Harvard University brazenly refused to provide the required information requested and ignored a follow up request from the Department’s Office of General Council. Secretary Noem is following through on her promise to protect students and prohibit terrorist sympathizers from receiving benefits from the U.S. government.
I think a fair answer might be that this immediate action is primarily about Israel, and Harvard's toleration and apparent support of organizations that the US government considers to be terrorists. Harvard has quite consciously taken an antagonistic approach here, and the government feels it is responding in kind.
Secondarily, it's about the way that elite schools have aligned themselves with the progressive politics associated with the Democratic party. Harvard is the target here because they are strongest, not necessarily because they are the most liberal. If the government can humble Harvard, they expect that all the weaker institutions will fold without a fight.
I'll take this opportunity to mention that I don't think the DHS press release should be taken as "authoritative" on anything other than the government's intentions. As you point out, the administration is being wonderfully clear that they intend to make an example of Harvard and punish those who would side with them.
I'm glad that despite being immediately being voted to a negative score and pushed to the bottom, some people like you are reading the link. If the goal is to understand what Harvard is up against, I think it's really useful to read what the government is actually claiming. I wasn't expecting that many people here would be persuaded by it!
A lot of people don't want to hear it but Trump isn't really a part of the Washington elite and is bringing in his own circle of people from his first pass at being President. Along the way he has picked up various sycophants and of course likes to hob knob with other billionaires. That is the clique you are dealing with, not the traditional washington crowd from Ivy Leagues. Harvard has a history of standing up to Trrump and he doesn't like that and is a very veangeful person, whether he was in the wrong or not. Unless you bend the knee (he can be very "forgiving" then if it benefits him or his ego) you are going to be a target. Mix that with his sociopathy and zero concern over rule of law and it doesn't look good for Harvard or Columbia for the next few years, unless courts move quickly
The stated reasons are not the real reasons. None of this is above-board. If you pay too much attention to what phony reasons are stated you will just be lead around by your nose.
The part of the real reason that is made very obvious is that Harvard is not rolling over and doing whatever the regime asks of it, and attacks of the administration on Harvard will continue until that capitulation occurs.
>Harvard is not rolling over and doing whatever the regime asks of it
The regime only started asking such things after large Pro-Palestinian protests took place at Harvard. That's absolutely the root cause, especially since Trump took hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from committed Zionists.
I was recently banned from r/worldnews over a comment which I thought was relatively innocuous. Anyway, that made me start investigating and smelling things and suddenly when you see it, it's hard to ignore. r/worldnews is completely, unmistakably compromised. It's the third largest subreddit with about 50 million subscribers. The situation is so vivid and clear that it's unthinkable that owners are unaware that it is compromised, from moderations to the dominant commenting user base. So what in the world is happening and how did it come to be this way? Spez et al were compromised? How?
The most charitable and perhaps the most rational explanation is that the 'propaganda' effort is impressively, surprisingly, exhaustively grassroots [1] and that's why reddit's overlords cannot simply contain it -- after all, it's real people, very committed and very real indeed. Although I would think that even if this were true, were reddit's operators uncompromised, they'd at least feel compelled to investigate the moderators of the subreddit which has a readership of 50 million, because even if the activity is organic, what's going on crosses a certain threshold of what should be permissible, if only for the richness of debate and discussion. I won't approach the complex topic of whether grassroots led propaganda effort constitutes something that is illegitimate and whether it warrants management, moderation, or some sort of penalty.
I'm not extremely educated about the complex history of Israel and jewish people, though I'm trying to learn more these days. Knowing what I know so far: It is a unique group of people for sure, and 2000 years of oppression, I think, has resulted in a special kind of cohesion that even when scattered throughout the world, they partake in strong self-advocacy. In my experience, this kind of self-advocacy doesn't exist with any other group.
I apologize if my comment reads prejudiced or inappropriate, please tell me if it does, certainly and obviously it is not meant to be.
Trump is also an authoritarian and so is committed to strengthening existing regimes he sees as "strong". Presumably on the assumption that they will be "allies" or at least give him something back. Pro-Palestinian protests are very anti-authoritarian (next thing you know, those same protesters will be against mass U.S. deportations) and so a priority target for suppression.
Though I would not have guessed, it seems more about China:
"Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment. Many of these agitators are foreign students. Harvard’s leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide."
Precisely. This administration's concern for the Uyghurs is skin-deep; it's essentially just a justification to punish any unauthorized connections to China. The actual details of the conflict (for instance, that the Uyghurs are ethnically Muslim) aren't relevant to them.
I don't think the Trump admin gives a rat's ass about Jews. It's an excuse for legal action, in the same way that "fentanyl" was the excuse for tariffs on Canada.
You're probably right, they seem to care more about Israel and not Jews (or Palestinians), and especially care about "Israel as a concept" and to use it as a means to an end.
You're correct that Christian Zionists only care about Jews to the extent that the right number of them will be in Israel to be killed as part of the End Times prophecies based off of Revelations. But they are fanatical supporters of the state of Israel because they see it as necessary to bring about the rapture.
This is one part of a large pattern of Republicans trying to end-run around the First Ammendment specifically to defend Israel from criticism. For instance, in Texas they make school teachers sign contracts that include terms forbidding criticism of Israel. Republicans have also been extremely reliable supporters of unconstitutional Anti-BDS laws.
Make no mistake, the Republican party (and half the Democratic Party FWIW) is fully captured by the Israel lobby.
> if you replace "Zionist" with "Jew" you're at Goebbels levels of antisemitism
This is a weird statement. It seems to suggest this as a reason not to criticize Zionists but if you replace "fascist" with "Jew" you're in a similar situation and that doesn't mean people shouldn't criticize fascists.
far be it from me to defend harvard but it's on the accuser to provide positive evidence for their claim, not the defendant to provide negative evidence against the claim.
On the contrary, the issue is that Harvard allowed pro-Hamas students to attack and persecute Jewish students. Harvard failed to protect the Jewish students, even rewarded those students who intimidated Jewish students on campus. Pro-Hamas students barged into classrooms with bullhorns. Camped out on campus and prevented Jewish students from reaching their classrooms, forming lines and locking hands outside of classrooms to prevent Jews from attending classes.
Harvard recently released a 311-page report detailing these issues[0].
It's for this reason that the federal government is withholding its funding: we don't want to fund open racism and race-based discrimination on American campuses.
> Harvard recently released a 311-page report detailing these issues[0].
Can you be more specific about what was detailed in the report and where? Because the things you mention aren't in your linked article at all.
There were protests that got way too heated, but calling them "pro-Hamas students" has me, uh, doubting your take on this a bit. The highlights called out in your article are wholly different, focused instead on campus behavior that seems drawing back from embracing diversity and is instead alienating whole cultures.
> It's for this reason that the federal government is withholding its funding
We aren't talking about funding, though? We're talking about denying attendance by any international student.
Sure. One example in the opening paragraphs of the report: a Jewish student was set to give a presentation on how his grandfather survived the Holocaust and found refuge in Israel after the war.
He was told not to give the presentation because it would "justify oppression."
The report also details Jewish students were called out in classrooms, told they were oppressors, that their history is a sham, and that anti-racism norms do not apply to supremacists.
Protests on campus pressured Jews to disavow allegiance to Israel and the right of Jews to return to their historic homeland; Zionism. Those who didn't comply were harassed and deemed complicit in supposed crimes of the world's only Jewish state.
Pro-Hamas groups on campus disseminated cartoons of a hand with a star of David holding nooses around the neck of Blacks and Arabs.
After Hamas invaded Israel on October 7th, 33 Harvard student groups praised Hamas and blamed Israel.
Harvard invited commencement speakers who blamed Israel for the genocide in the Congo.
The Harvard page report contains all this and more, and found that over 60% of Jewish students at Harvard had faced discrimination.
The administration’s letter to Harvard (which they later claimed to have sent in error) made it clear that their intent is to root out what they perceive as liberal ideological bias at Harvard - nothing really to do with Israel, that was just an excuse.
Whether there is a liberal bias is something I will leave others to debate (and if there is, whether that provides grounds for federal action, given the freedoms afforded by the first amendmemt), but I think the Administration’s actions had more to do with throwing red meat to the base than it did with an factual inquiry
Evangelical Christians are a huge voting block in the US and might be even more supportive of the current Israeli regime than the average Israeli. I wouldn’t necessarily conclude that Israel is controlling the American government as directly as you’re suggesting.
> A staggering amount of American Christians support Israel because of their end times prophecy.
I'm a Catholic but I can expand on this.
The evangelicals believe that the Third Temple must be built for the Second Coming of Christ to happen, and are determined to politically and financially support the nation of Israel to make it happen as soon as possible.
They also actively work torwards the destruction of al-Aqsa Mosque and the rebuilding of the 3rd Temple.
This belief comes form 2 Thessalonians:
"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."
The Church Fathers were unanimous on agreeing that the "Son of Destruction" was the anti-Christ, and while there was some disagreance over what St. Paul meant (in Galatians 6:15-16) by temple the majority consensus was that it was referring to the eartly Temple. But, as it stands, the Second Temple was shortly destroyed. Which means that in order for the Second Coming to happen again, the Temple will once again need to stand.
Both Catholics and Protestants are Christians but this is a major area of disagreement between us.
Yes I considered this. for the evangelicals who support Israel, they would not necessarily try to crush the critics in anti war protests. Israel’s war on Gaza does not coincide with the evangelical mission to trigger the second coming.
>Israel’s war on Gaza does not coincide with the evangelical mission to trigger the second coming.
Maybe you don't see it because you aren't willing to think this darkly. Rebuilding the Temple is not a particularly popular idea, either domestically in Israel or internationally. The country would have to be much further radicalized for that to become realistic. Executing an ethnic cleansing of their Arab population with the tacit endorsement of the US would arguably be steps along that path to creating a world in which the Third Temple might be built.
Are suggesting that average Israelis do not support the pressure campaign against universities, even those who generally support Israel’s actions in Gaza? Seems plausible, I haven’t seen any polling about that.
If you are suggesting that Israeli politicians are not involved with American Israel supporters who are advocating a strict crackdown on speech at universities I don’t think that is plausible. We know there is communication between the military and some influential American Israel supporters.
You are attributing too much power to the Israeli. Trump signed a ceasefire with Houthi last week that doesn't protects Israel: that is, the US stops bombing them as long as they don't attack US ships, and attacks against Israel aren't a casus belli for the US anymore.
The Republican party is strongly favorable to Israel, but since Netanyahou pissed Trump, they don't get special treatment anymore, that's what happen when your foreign policy depends on the mood of a single guy. The old alliance and ideological alignment can mean nothing overnight just because the supreme leader said so.
I am not sure why you think overseas policy going against Israel’s wishes directly means Israel doesn’t have influence in the United States.
I find it awkward you think that Israel is not giving special treatment to the US if the US does not do something in favor of Israel in foreign affairs. Awkward.
More awkward is that you think the US is not protecting Israel if it has a ceasefire with Houthis.
> Israelis are upset at the student protests and are influencing the university to crush them.
That's putting it mildly. Jewish students got beaten up, spat upon and verbally abused just for being Jewish after Oct 7th. No matter on which side one is in the I/P conflict, there is no justification at all to attack random Jews because of whatever Bibi is doing - it's not just bullshit because what can a Jew in the US even do to change Israeli government policy, but also chances are high that the Jew in question doesn't like Bibi himself.
Academia should be a safe place for everyone who is not a threat to other students, the facilities and the staff - and wearing a kippah or david's star is not being a threat to anyone.
Trump is a fool, this new policy is even more foolish, not to mention blatantly unconstitutional - but it's unfortunately hard to deny that he has a point here.
> Jewish students got beaten up, spat upon and verbally abused just for being Jewish after Oct 7th
Actually Palestinians have gotten beaten up spat on and verbally abused. This is documented multiple times on YouTube. There has even been false flag attacks by Israeli supporters dressing up as Palestinian supporters and then falsifying abuses. There has been attempts to lure pro Palestinians to attack Jews as well. OTOH journalists have reported no documented incidents of Jews being spat at.
Even if no one likes Bibi, universally they support Bibi’s actions in the current climate.
Protesting against a country does not make a protester a threat.
> Protesting against a country does not make a protester a threat.
Indeed but protesting a country happens at an embassy or on some public square usually used for rallies.
Let's draw a comparison: I don't like Trump but I don't go and beat up some random on the street for wearing an American flag, I go and protest in front of the local embassy (which, for the record, I actually did during his first term when Heather Heyer was murdered. Man, time flies.) I also don't go and throw rocks through the window of a McDonalds (something that happened to many Jewish restaurants), I also don't go and throw incendiary bombs on the nearest Evangelical church, and for fucks sake I also don't take a gun and shoot someone leaving the embassy like in yesterday's double murder of Jews in Washington.
> Trump is a fool, this new policy is even more foolish, not to mention blatantly unconstitutional - but it's unfortunately hard to deny that he has a point here.
This feels a bit like saying he has a point dooming Kilmar Abrego Garcia to an El Salvadoran gulag because MS-13 exists. You do not, in fact, gotta to hand it to ISIS.
Your hatred is clouding your judgement. It is very clear that the issue of the protests is being used by an American government to pursue a much broader agenda. Israel and antisemitism are merely the most convenient instrument. But since you are trapped in (charitably) a prejudicial mind bubble you can only see this as further proof of a tiny group of people somehow controlling everything...
> It is very clear that the issue of the protests is being used by an American government to pursue a much broader agenda. Israel and antisemitism are merely the most convenient instrument.
There's nothing antisemitc about criticizing Netanyahu's government. I was a big supporter of Israel's right to take the fight to Hamas for a while after Oct 7th, but then it just kept going and going until it became inhumane. At some point it becomes about punishing Gazans just for living there. That's incredibly disproportionate.
At any rate, American students should have the right to protest anything. Free speech and what have you.
you make a good point regarding pretexts employed with ulterior aims
also, I can think of some more charitable ways to engage with the message in question than to dismiss it with unsubstantiated claims that the messenger is 'trapped in a prejudicial mind bubble', and I bet you are smart and can, too
Which conservative ideas do you think aren’t being represented? The current US administration is a criminal enterprise which is actively destroying the nation.
>>notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds
You are describing the inability for dissent as normal. In fact, it's considered an international human right. Despite it also being in our constitution, the Trump Administration's actions resemble your comment closely.
Arguably, this is part of the intent. It’s important to see through/past it even if for nothing else than your own personal sanity. Personally, I have found a lot of comfort in local protests; There are a lot of people who really don’t want this regime to stick around.
I think it's fine to ask these kinds of questions, in the hope that the HN audience may include individuals with particular insights. A response like this has the same ring to it as posting a link to LMGTFY, which is disallowed here.
I didn't expect to see Harvard getting smacked around or humiliated like this.
Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government. And that key figures in government were interested in maintaining and benefiting from that influence.
And a lot of that influence seemed aligned with national interests. (For example, getting things done with prestige connections, domestically and internationally. And the international diplomatic goodwill, when children of the world's wealthy and powerful go to prestigious schools in the US.)
Is some other faction at work now, or is it the same people as before? Are the power networks changing? If the distribution of power is changing, is it partly due to someone willing to sacrifice national power from which all parties benefited (and everyone else wasn't expecting that, or wasn't ready to defend against that from within)? Better questions?