The linked essay by Dr Malone is well worth reading. That Harvard hosts these insufferable courses should motivate us all that H needs to lose any/all government support.
"Colleges must reform themselves — voluntarily and meaningfully — to protect free expression and academic freedom. Harvard, and institutions like it, must demonstrate a renewed commitment to these principles, not because the Trump administration or any politician has told them to, but because it’s the right thing to do for their campuses and for the country."
Except they haven't and they won't, and when the violations of students' legitimate rights and and safety have been breeched, as they repeatedly and systemically have at Harvard, federal intervention is not only legally warranted, it is legally required. You merely contradict yourself when you have spent years pointing out the rot and cancer in the institution and now when surgery and chemo is finally being attempted you suddenly prefer a non-invasive faith healing? As if the progressive disease will spontaneously enter remission if we only continue to tolerate it for long enough even as it continues to poison our youth and culture? Harvard, as an institution, has demonstrated itself to be unethical, immoral, and illegal, unfit for purpose, a glaring negative example of what a university should not and must not become. That its doors are still open at all is an undeserved and likely unwise grace.
In Greg's article the phrase "facile utopian ideology" - brilliant. So pregnant. Love the use of the word "Facile" here - especially in the light of today, with victims in the U.S. (over the last few months even murder victims) of a facile idealogy.
Anyone who is inclined to think the efforts (by Trump this year and by federal judges last year) to punish so-called "antisemitism" might want to consider the words and wisdom of James Madison in his Memorial and Remonstrance in 1785:
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
"Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance."
Trump and federal judges punishing "antisemitism" aren't trying to prevent discrimination based on religion, they're inflicting it and promoting it. And there's no reason to believe they'll stop anytime soon. Of course, they know they're actually harming the people they're purporting to protect.
Ellie, how is Harvard violating laws? One obvious fatal flaw in the pretense that Trump is enforcing the law is the very vague definition of "antisemitism." Do you know what Trump or Noem (or federal judges in their letter last year) mean by "antisemitism"?
At least one definition of "antisemitism" targets the content--specifically at least the political content, if not religious content--of expression. For example, it defines "antisemitism" as even merely "claiming that" the "State of Israel is a racist endeavor" or even "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy" (e.g., the creation and destruction of Gaza) "to that of the Nazis" (e.g., the creation and destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto). Even more blatantly unconstitutional, Trump and Noem (and federal judges in their letter last year) targeted the viewpoint of expression (that's the point of targeting expression that is "anti" a religious or political viewpoint).
Jack, Harvard is violating one of the most basic of rights, the civil rights of their students. Hate speech by anyone, especially noncitizens is not protected nor is it legal. I’m glad I’m not currently a Jewish student at Harvard.
Ellie, it seems you might have missed the point of the cartoon at the top of this piece. Jewish students from Israeli are among the nearly 7,000 Harvard students being victimized by Trump and Noem. All those students are being victimized for merely being from another country.
If your position is that students' ability to study where they're enrolled should not be infringed by others, I agree. I agree with respect to all students, regardless of their nationality or political or religious viewpoints. The overt attacks by Trump and Noem--representing all of us and our nation--are a far greater concern than whatever Harvard merely failed to do to protect someone. For starters, the attacks by Noem and Trump are violating our Constitution. I don't think anyone has claimed that Harvard is violating our Constitution. Moreover, Trump has said he will expand his attacks on universities. At what point is it time to stop Trump's tyranny?
Ellie, one of the problems with pasting a label on expression is that the label, itself, creates ambiguity. I don’t know what you mean by “hate speech,” but SCOTUS repeatedly emphasized that very hateful, hurtful speech is protected when it pertains to public people or public issues.
You did not explain how Harvard is violating any law.
If Harvard complied with Civil Rights Law its admitted class would be 1% black.
Instead its 15% black, like every other year.
MIT at least tried to comply with the Supreme Court, going to like 5% black. Not perfect but at least like 2/3rd in the correct direction and worth praising.
I could cite all sorts of other things. I mean I think it's dumb they support the worst human beings on the planet (Palestinians). But that's just one of their many many demonic cultural norms. Its a deeply broken institution.
Harvard hates America and violates the constitution. It ought to be punished until it yields and complies. If it must be snuffed out because it refuses, so be it.
We are not talking about free speech, here. The issue being discussed here is whether Harvard is complying with federal policy concerning foreign students.
It is a red herring to suggest that the issue, as Trump presents it, is a first amendment issue.
But, speaking of the first amendment, who is that keep pontificating and agitating to censor 'hate' speech? And where in the constitution does it say that 'hate' speech, as defined by political operatives, is not protected by the first amendment? Nowhere, that's where. Any propagandist, may it be Stalin, Goebbels, Hitler, Pelosi, or Alinsky will tell you, accuse your opponent of that which you are doing. Sig heil, Heather.
What makes you certain that "the issue, as Trump presents it," is not "a first amendment issue"? What words did Trump (or Noem) use that convinced you?
Oh, for Pete's sake. I have a mind of MY OWN. I don't hang on any politician's words, nor any journalist's. Why do you?
I read the above post, and it's a running son sequitur (look it up). I think we all have a basic understanding of the first amendment. It in no way protects the 'right' of a person from a foreign county to attend an American school, so that they can then come here and have free speech.
You said "as Trump presents it," so I asked how Trump's presentation convinced you. If you can say, please do.
It should be obvious that the issue here is very far from the one you presented (the absence of a "right" of foreign students "to attend an American school, so that they can then come here and have free speech"). Trump is punishing (at the very least) Harvard, which is an association of Americans exercising their freedom of association and freedom of expression and communication.
Trump and Noem chose to punish Harvard for something they expressly (but vaguely) contended was "antisemitism." I still don't know what they mean by "antisemitism." Do you?
Reread your little essay, and explain how it relates to anything I've said.
Then, reread the Lukanoff essay that I was commenting on. HE is the one who brought the first amendment into this, and THAT is what I was commenting on. To suggest that freedom of association includes the right to bring people from other countries to the USA so that they can associate is patently absurd. The first amendment does NOT even suggest such a thing. In your foolishness, your previous comment has made MY case. Nice going.
Radical, you said, "It is a red herring to suggest that the issue, as Trump presents it, is a first amendment issue." So I' asked (and am asking) what words (the way "Trump presents it") convinced you that Trump was not abridging Americans' freedom of expression, freedom of communication and freedom of association.
You repeatedly try to distract with the red herring of a "right" of "people from other countries." Our Constitution and I are talking about the rights of Americans (Harvard and most of its students are American). More precisely, we are addressing the limits of the powers that the People vested in or delegated to federal officials.
As James Wilson emphasized, "A bill of rights annexed to a constitution is an enumeration of the powers reserved" to the People. As James Madison emphasized when he introduced the proposed amendments in 1789, the entire bill of rights was primarily the People "enumerating particular exceptions to the" limited "grant of power" by the people to our public servants to administer our Constitution.
The Preamble and the Tenth Amendment emphasized the same principle. "We the People . . . delegated to the United States by the Constitution" certain "powers;" we "prohibited by it to the States" certain "powers;" we "reserved to the States respectively" some "powers" and all other powers we "reserved" to "the people."
"In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example" of "charters of power granted by liberty." Madison followed that statement by properly characterizing our national Constitution as a "revolution in the practice of the world."
So I'm asking you what about the way that "Trump presents it" convinced you that Trump was not violating our Constitution by usurping powers that were not delegated to the federal government (and even were expressly denied in the First Amendment to all federal public servants).
Harvard existed even before the Declaration of Independence. President John Adams was a graduate. At the time (and long before) our Constitution was created, Harvard was dominated by religious zealots or their influence (that's why people called them "Puritans"). They were against (anti) other religions and even other sects of Christians.
What about the way Trump presents it makes you think our Constitution vested in the federal government the power to attack Harvard because of
"antisemitism" expressed by anyone at Harvard? What about the way Trump presents it makes you think our Constitution vested in the federal government the power to attack Harvard because of the people with whom Harvard and its American students and faculty associate?
The burden of proof is on the person making the charge. It is not up to Trump to prove that he did not violate the first amendment. It is up to Lukianoff to prove that he did.
And have you noticed, thru all of your diatribes, that you have made no case whatsoever for how Trump's actions have violated the first amendment? You just keep challenging me to prove he didn't.
Need to read the comments by Dr Robert Malone (https://www.malone.news/p/wwf-president-trump-vs-harvard?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=583200&post_id=164362072&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=1wyto6&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email) Problem is that Harvard has a whole host of sins beyond it's anti-semitism problem
The linked essay by Dr Malone is well worth reading. That Harvard hosts these insufferable courses should motivate us all that H needs to lose any/all government support.
"Colleges must reform themselves — voluntarily and meaningfully — to protect free expression and academic freedom. Harvard, and institutions like it, must demonstrate a renewed commitment to these principles, not because the Trump administration or any politician has told them to, but because it’s the right thing to do for their campuses and for the country."
Except they haven't and they won't, and when the violations of students' legitimate rights and and safety have been breeched, as they repeatedly and systemically have at Harvard, federal intervention is not only legally warranted, it is legally required. You merely contradict yourself when you have spent years pointing out the rot and cancer in the institution and now when surgery and chemo is finally being attempted you suddenly prefer a non-invasive faith healing? As if the progressive disease will spontaneously enter remission if we only continue to tolerate it for long enough even as it continues to poison our youth and culture? Harvard, as an institution, has demonstrated itself to be unethical, immoral, and illegal, unfit for purpose, a glaring negative example of what a university should not and must not become. That its doors are still open at all is an undeserved and likely unwise grace.
In Greg's article the phrase "facile utopian ideology" - brilliant. So pregnant. Love the use of the word "Facile" here - especially in the light of today, with victims in the U.S. (over the last few months even murder victims) of a facile idealogy.
Greg's article was outstanding! The audience to which it was directed was intriguing. I was reminded of another speech about convictions to a somewhat similar audience: https://religionnews.com/2024/02/23/trump-promises-a-revival-of-christian-power-in-speech-to-national-religious-broadcasters/
Anyone who is inclined to think the efforts (by Trump this year and by federal judges last year) to punish so-called "antisemitism" might want to consider the words and wisdom of James Madison in his Memorial and Remonstrance in 1785:
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
"Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance."
Trump and federal judges punishing "antisemitism" aren't trying to prevent discrimination based on religion, they're inflicting it and promoting it. And there's no reason to believe they'll stop anytime soon. Of course, they know they're actually harming the people they're purporting to protect.
So let the schools continue to violate laws? Got it. Glad I’m not a Jewish student at any of these institutions.
Ellie, how is Harvard violating laws? One obvious fatal flaw in the pretense that Trump is enforcing the law is the very vague definition of "antisemitism." Do you know what Trump or Noem (or federal judges in their letter last year) mean by "antisemitism"?
At least one definition of "antisemitism" targets the content--specifically at least the political content, if not religious content--of expression. For example, it defines "antisemitism" as even merely "claiming that" the "State of Israel is a racist endeavor" or even "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy" (e.g., the creation and destruction of Gaza) "to that of the Nazis" (e.g., the creation and destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto). Even more blatantly unconstitutional, Trump and Noem (and federal judges in their letter last year) targeted the viewpoint of expression (that's the point of targeting expression that is "anti" a religious or political viewpoint).
Jack, Harvard is violating one of the most basic of rights, the civil rights of their students. Hate speech by anyone, especially noncitizens is not protected nor is it legal. I’m glad I’m not currently a Jewish student at Harvard.
Ellie, it seems you might have missed the point of the cartoon at the top of this piece. Jewish students from Israeli are among the nearly 7,000 Harvard students being victimized by Trump and Noem. All those students are being victimized for merely being from another country.
If your position is that students' ability to study where they're enrolled should not be infringed by others, I agree. I agree with respect to all students, regardless of their nationality or political or religious viewpoints. The overt attacks by Trump and Noem--representing all of us and our nation--are a far greater concern than whatever Harvard merely failed to do to protect someone. For starters, the attacks by Noem and Trump are violating our Constitution. I don't think anyone has claimed that Harvard is violating our Constitution. Moreover, Trump has said he will expand his attacks on universities. At what point is it time to stop Trump's tyranny?
Ellie, one of the problems with pasting a label on expression is that the label, itself, creates ambiguity. I don’t know what you mean by “hate speech,” but SCOTUS repeatedly emphasized that very hateful, hurtful speech is protected when it pertains to public people or public issues.
You did not explain how Harvard is violating any law.
I translate courage of conviction as an absence of curiosity and confidence.
If Harvard complied with Civil Rights Law its admitted class would be 1% black.
Instead its 15% black, like every other year.
MIT at least tried to comply with the Supreme Court, going to like 5% black. Not perfect but at least like 2/3rd in the correct direction and worth praising.
I could cite all sorts of other things. I mean I think it's dumb they support the worst human beings on the planet (Palestinians). But that's just one of their many many demonic cultural norms. Its a deeply broken institution.
Harvard hates America and violates the constitution. It ought to be punished until it yields and complies. If it must be snuffed out because it refuses, so be it.
We are not talking about free speech, here. The issue being discussed here is whether Harvard is complying with federal policy concerning foreign students.
It is a red herring to suggest that the issue, as Trump presents it, is a first amendment issue.
But, speaking of the first amendment, who is that keep pontificating and agitating to censor 'hate' speech? And where in the constitution does it say that 'hate' speech, as defined by political operatives, is not protected by the first amendment? Nowhere, that's where. Any propagandist, may it be Stalin, Goebbels, Hitler, Pelosi, or Alinsky will tell you, accuse your opponent of that which you are doing. Sig heil, Heather.
What makes you certain that "the issue, as Trump presents it," is not "a first amendment issue"? What words did Trump (or Noem) use that convinced you?
Oh, for Pete's sake. I have a mind of MY OWN. I don't hang on any politician's words, nor any journalist's. Why do you?
I read the above post, and it's a running son sequitur (look it up). I think we all have a basic understanding of the first amendment. It in no way protects the 'right' of a person from a foreign county to attend an American school, so that they can then come here and have free speech.
What is your "basic understanding of the first amendment" relevant to this issue? I doubt it's the same as my understanding.
You said "as Trump presents it," so I asked how Trump's presentation convinced you. If you can say, please do.
It should be obvious that the issue here is very far from the one you presented (the absence of a "right" of foreign students "to attend an American school, so that they can then come here and have free speech"). Trump is punishing (at the very least) Harvard, which is an association of Americans exercising their freedom of association and freedom of expression and communication.
Trump and Noem chose to punish Harvard for something they expressly (but vaguely) contended was "antisemitism." I still don't know what they mean by "antisemitism." Do you?
Reread your little essay, and explain how it relates to anything I've said.
Then, reread the Lukanoff essay that I was commenting on. HE is the one who brought the first amendment into this, and THAT is what I was commenting on. To suggest that freedom of association includes the right to bring people from other countries to the USA so that they can associate is patently absurd. The first amendment does NOT even suggest such a thing. In your foolishness, your previous comment has made MY case. Nice going.
Radical, you said, "It is a red herring to suggest that the issue, as Trump presents it, is a first amendment issue." So I' asked (and am asking) what words (the way "Trump presents it") convinced you that Trump was not abridging Americans' freedom of expression, freedom of communication and freedom of association.
You repeatedly try to distract with the red herring of a "right" of "people from other countries." Our Constitution and I are talking about the rights of Americans (Harvard and most of its students are American). More precisely, we are addressing the limits of the powers that the People vested in or delegated to federal officials.
As James Wilson emphasized, "A bill of rights annexed to a constitution is an enumeration of the powers reserved" to the People. As James Madison emphasized when he introduced the proposed amendments in 1789, the entire bill of rights was primarily the People "enumerating particular exceptions to the" limited "grant of power" by the people to our public servants to administer our Constitution.
The Preamble and the Tenth Amendment emphasized the same principle. "We the People . . . delegated to the United States by the Constitution" certain "powers;" we "prohibited by it to the States" certain "powers;" we "reserved to the States respectively" some "powers" and all other powers we "reserved" to "the people."
In 1792, after the Bill of Rights had been ratified, James Madison reminded Americans of the very real revolution wrought by (even) our original Constitution. (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-0172)
"In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example" of "charters of power granted by liberty." Madison followed that statement by properly characterizing our national Constitution as a "revolution in the practice of the world."
So I'm asking you what about the way that "Trump presents it" convinced you that Trump was not violating our Constitution by usurping powers that were not delegated to the federal government (and even were expressly denied in the First Amendment to all federal public servants).
Harvard existed even before the Declaration of Independence. President John Adams was a graduate. At the time (and long before) our Constitution was created, Harvard was dominated by religious zealots or their influence (that's why people called them "Puritans"). They were against (anti) other religions and even other sects of Christians.
What about the way Trump presents it makes you think our Constitution vested in the federal government the power to attack Harvard because of
"antisemitism" expressed by anyone at Harvard? What about the way Trump presents it makes you think our Constitution vested in the federal government the power to attack Harvard because of the people with whom Harvard and its American students and faculty associate?
Do you have any clue at all?
The burden of proof is on the person making the charge. It is not up to Trump to prove that he did not violate the first amendment. It is up to Lukianoff to prove that he did.
And have you noticed, thru all of your diatribes, that you have made no case whatsoever for how Trump's actions have violated the first amendment? You just keep challenging me to prove he didn't.
Only a fool argues with a fool. I am outa here.