My bad. I don’t understand most submissive dialects.

Yeah, reread it incase I missed something. Sure didn’t

Page 2 paragraph 4 mentions a court decision from 2023. Harvard has reviewed and revised policy since then. They found that a disproportionate amount of admitted students were white due mostly to either being related to alumni or from a family that made large financial contributions. DEI policies had very little impact compared to those factors. Idk what you want them to do from here, and that is the only actual legal thing mentioned anywhere.

Yes, Harvard has no need to act like a government entity when they are not one and will survive just fine without grants. The American people and economy will be the ones suffering from this snappy decision.

And yes, socialist or communist. The research is a service being paid for. If the published results being public isn’t enough for you, then neither should any other company’s services. Following your logic, SpaceX and Starlink should be publicly owned by the U.S. government as well as the banks, corporations, and small businesses that get a contract, grant, or tax break. The actual allocation of funds doesn’t matter to you based on your comments.

It definitely says such a thing. If the “review” had no part then why include it? The first page only spews political factoids, mentions a plagarism scandal, and something about discrimination in the past. The first page of the letter literally doesn’t mention what Harvard is currently doing illegally to justify this decision about grants and funding.

More importantly, yes, Harvard is private but the grant money isn’t for their operation costs. Your own source lists it as research funding.

Speaking of your own source, maybe read it first, because it says “Harvard… rejected demands from the Trump administration.” Nothing about noncompliance with the law.

As a side note, I didn’t think I’d find a communist or socialist out here in the wild today. How has that ideology been working for you?

Oh, I agree. My comment came from a place of “wow, a lot of people wanted to react.” Not a, “omg bestie soo true”

It is especially bad in the deep-red states. The Tulsa race riots are still often lied about in Oklahoma depending on the school. Basically they said, “it worked on Native American history, so just do that for everything we don’t agree with.”

Defend who? How much worse? What is your imagined scenario, O wise Melvin Ferd?

Nah, it’s the science funding cuts that I’m focused on. That’s going to harm America pretty badly.

You have my thoughts so well organized. Thanks. If only that was the point and could be refuted so easily instead of being pointless doublespeak used to justify garbage decisions.

Ty for grabbing the context for me. Yeah, I think it’s also fair to say there are literally criminally conservative ideals in some of the student body based on the survey. Not enough to condem the entire student body, but I think their point is that those ideals already exist within Harvard, so the point of political repression/reprogramming is moot. At least, that’s how I look at it.

This is a fascinating conversation to follow. The Nazi’s absolutely were not left nor socialist, but there might be a history class difference. American hatred of socialism is soo deep and history textbooks are so useless (since most are made in Texas and cater to those politics) I remember a HUGE emphasis on Nazi being National Socialist and another example of why socialism never worked. It starts early here man. I think we’re seeing a lot of the effects these days.

This is exactly why they complain about liberalism and just added another slimy definition. (Not left, but looks like people pointed that out already.)

You sure got a lot of downvotes for that one. Internet people like their colloquialisms.

TLDR: Lol, no.

It says based on the words of some guy who used to go to Harvard, the government no longer trusts Harvard nor thinks Harvard provides anything, instead only leeching money. It never gave any proof of it not currently trying to comply with laws and court decisions, as that would require the judicial branch or third party input/audits.

This is not the definition of fair. This is using a single customer review to force political teachings they want by withholding unrelated funds.