Harvard, a private institution, can do as it likes. Theres nothing
illegal about coddling extremists or pumping out credentialed pseudointellectuals.
Do taxpayers have a constitutional duty to bankroll Harvard
University?
On MSNBC, David French argued that the Trump administrations
defunding of Harvard is little more than political retaliation. In
the United States, we dont sentence people before hearing the
verdict, the New York Times columnist said. Ignoring due process is
directly contrary to our constitutional principles.
French might not be aware that in addition to the joint-government
task forces claim that Harvard leadership failed to meaningfully
confront pervasive insults, physical assault and intimidation of
Jewish students, theres also a blistering internal university
taskforce report that maintains that Harvard allowed antisemitism to
permeate coursework, social life, the hiring of some faculty members
and the worldview of certain academic programs. Harvard concedes,
members of the Jewish and Israeli communities at Harvard reported
treatment that was vicious and reprehensible.
The verdict is in.
But, I suppose, Id pose the situation in another way: If a government investigation and internal review both found that white supremacists
on Harvard campus were terrorizing black students and engaging in
racist marchers and that their violent beliefs had found favor in the schools curriculums and in social life, would anyone on MSNBC argue
that the government had an obligation to keep funding this school
until a civil lawsuit worked its way through the courts? One suspects
not.
Now, Im not accusing French of being blind to the struggles of Jewish students. I am accusing him of being blinded by the presence of Donald
Trump. Are the presidents motivations political? Probably. So what?
So are those of Harvards defenders.
Harvard, a private institution, can do as it likes. Theres nothing
illegal about coddling extremists or pumping out credentialed pseudointellectuals. If the Trump administration failed to follow a bureaucratic process before freezing funds to the university, fine.
Get it done. But what constitutional principle dictates that the
federal government must provide this specific institution with $3
billion in federal contracts and grants? Giving it to them was a
policy decision made by the executive branch. Withdrawing the funding
is the same.
French reasons that the administration should, at very least, target
the entity and individuals responsible for the bad behavior. Defund
the Middle Eastern studies department, rather than, say, the pediatric
cancer research department. Im sympathetic to this idea. But funding,
as we all understand, is fungible. Targeting one department will do
nothing to change the culture.
Moreover, leadership is responsible for the culture. It allowed, nay, nurtured, a Middle East Studies department staffed by a slew of
nutjobs. Its not the only department. Think about it this way: There
is a far higher likelihood of finding an apologist of Islamic
terrorism than a Christian conservative on the Harvard faculty. Less
than 3% of the Harvard faculty identify as conservative. There are
real-world consequences for Harvards radicalism, as their grads are
staffing newsrooms, influential law firms and government agencies
without ever hearing a dissenting view.
Anyway, if the school values its pediatric cancer research efforts so
highly, why does it sacrifice grants and prestige by allowing bigoted
bullies to run around campus targeting Jews? Thats a choice. As far
as I can tell, not one student was expelled, much less suspended, for antisemitism in the two years since Oct. 7, 2023.
If your answer is that the school feels a profound obligation to
defend free expression, I suggest you speak to some pro-Israeli or pro-capitalist or pro-American or social conservative student on
campus and see how comfortable they feel about airing opinions.
Harvard finished last for the second year running in the Foundation
for Individual Rights and Expressions College Free Speech Rankings
in 2024, along with Columbia University and New York University. The
only speech Harvard values is the extremist variety.
We should feel no patriotic imperative to fund speech we dislike,
which is very different from the imperative of protecting speech we
dislike. This distinction seems to be lost on many.
Harvard, along with many left-wingers, argues that Trumps funding
freeze violates its First Amendment rights. Who knows what the courts
will say? If they force the funding to continue, something is
seriously wrong. Anyway, perhaps Harvard should dip into the $53
billion hedge fund it runs to backfill some of the funding. Or maybe
it can hit up the Islamic sheiks of Qatar for some more cash. How
about those Chicom apparatchiks? Maybe they can chip in. But taxpayers shouldnt be compelled to subsidize an institution that almost
exclusively teaches students to hate their values.
https://amac.us/newsline/education/we-have-no-constitutional-or-moral- duty-to-subsidize-harvard/
Do taxpayers have a constitutional duty to bankroll Harvard University?
On MSNBC, David French argued that the Trump administration’s defunding of Harvard is little more than “political retaliation.”
On 5/30/2025 11:12 PM, Planet of the apes wrote:
Do taxpayers have a constitutional duty to bankroll Harvard University?
Grants to Harvard are not "subsidies."
On MSNBC, David French argued that the Trump administration’s defunding
of
Harvard is little more than “political retaliation.”
French is 100% right.
Great and since they are not subsidies according to you, there is
no reason to continue them much less offer them.
On 3/6/25 6:15, Scout wrote:
Great and since they are not subsidies according to you, there is
no reason to continue them much less offer them.
The reason is if they do good for society.
On 03 Jun 2025, "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
posted some news:101mvci$1vd6$1@dont-email.me:
"Clave" <ChrisShitbagious@TheMonastery.com> wrote in message
news:%Wu%P.42581$x6q4.34487@fx46.iad...
On 5/30/2025 11:12 PM, Planet of the apes wrote:
Do taxpayers have a constitutional duty to bankroll Harvard
University?
Grants to Harvard are not "subsidies."
Great and since they are not subsidies according to you, there is no
reason to continue them much less offer them.
"Grants and subsidies are both forms of financial assistance provided
by governments or organizations,
but they differ in their purpose and how they are applied. Grants are
typically one-time payments for
specific projects or initiatives, while subsidies aim to reduce the
cost of goods or services, encourage
production, or support specific industries."
On MSNBC, David French argued that the Trump administration’s
defunding of
Harvard is little more than “political retaliation.”
French is 100% right.
How can that be if, as [sic] according to you, they aren't subsides?
You can't have it both ways there bubba...
+1
On MSNBC, David French argued that the Trump administration’s
defunding of
Harvard is little more than “political retaliation.”
French is 100% right.
How can that be if, as [sic] according to you, they aren't
subsides?
They're not subsidies, scooter. "as" is superfluous, scooter.
On 05 Jun 2025, Rudy Canoza <rudy@phil.hendrie.con> posted some news:HHs0Q.543185$mjgd.381185@fx09.iad:
On 6/5/2025 6:48 PM, pothead wrote:
On 2025-06-05, Billy Clubbs <BILCLU@hotmail.corn> wrote:
On 03 Jun 2025, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> posted some
news:101o0f6$b1m2$2@dont-email.me:
On 6/3/25 19:18, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 02 Jun 2025, Clave <ChrisShitbagious@TheMonastery.com> posted
some news:%Wu%P.42581$x6q4.34487@fx46.iad:
On 5/30/2025 11:12 PM, Planet of the apes wrote:
Do taxpayers have a constitutional duty to bankroll Harvard
University?
Grants to Harvard are not "subsidies."
Grants to Harvard are currently used as renewable subsidies. That >>>>>> needs to stop and Trump is putting the kibosh on.
The grants going to Harvard are <$0.7B/year ... since that's too
expensive for you, reallocate the work to the private sector in the
US National Labs ... because they employ PhDs & pay them well
instead of graduate students figure it will increase their current
$12B budget by a at least 10% = $1.2B, or roughly twice as
expensive.
Taxpayers for the win! Yay, you! /s
There are other colleges besides Harvard. Berkeley for all its
leftward leanings, would do a better job than Harvard hands down.
Has done a better job than Harvard historically.
Despite being totally leftwing, Berkeley is a very good college.
It is not "leftwing" [sic], and it's not a "college" ā€” it's a
university.
My cousin graduated from Berkeley and has had an excellent career soIn other words, your labeling of it as "totally leftwing" [sic] was
far.
TBH, I was kind of surprised but the school focuses on education and
leaves the political leanings to after school clubs and so forth.
complete bullshit.
There is a famous maxim popularized by Stephen Colbert:
Colbert is
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 16:57:48 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,944 |