They're so "accepting of diverging viewpoints" they mandated Harvard to devote effort to monitoring the viewpoints of foreign students so they can be deported for wrongthink...
Zero? I’m a visa holder in the US and I’m aware that supporting terrorists and celebrating violence against Jewish people is probably not going to make the country keep me here.
Weird how wide the definition of "supporting terrorists" seems to be. Especially given that State has now said that people's "expected future beliefs" can be used to disqualify them.
Have you no hesitation, even at this late juncture?
Read everyone elses comment above, and try to stretch your critical thinking ability just a bit.
Trump is our Caesar, we have ceased to be a constitutional republic, and you defend this with blithely pretending that 2 months of pure power-madness have not been occurring in plain view of the entire world?
I suspect that such discourse as we have will not be "permitted" indefinitely.
Because I read the letter from the government to Harvard. Did you? Racially-based admittance is only one bullet out of ten. The government isn't demanding specific policy changes, they are demanding cultural and ideological control of the university.
Did you? As you can read, they tackle racial bias immediately and follow up with preventing advocacy for terrorism and racism, then viewpoint divergence. At no point are they arguing for a single viewpoint to exist, they are CONSISTENTLY doing the exact opposite:
The people we must be concerned about that are arguing for a single viewpoint controlling American universities are those like yourself that oppose pluralism.
> The people we must be concerned about that are arguing for a single viewpoint controlling American universities are those like yourself that oppose pluralism.
I'm all for pluralism. I have no objection at all to the existence of as many conservative academics as you please or whole (private) universities explicitly committed to conservative ideology. But there is no legal basis for the government to tell a private university who it should hire, fire, promote, or admit on ideological grounds. And it's also a super-ultra-clear first amendment violation to compel the speech of a private institution.
Finally, I'd like to point out the rank hypocrisy of calling for "merit-based" hiring and admissions in one breath, and then in the next demanding a quota system for ideology: "Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity." The government, as conservatives are so fond of saying, shouldn't "pick winners."
If there are a "critical mass" of "viewpoint diverse" Harvard-caliber professors out there looking for a position they should start their own university and admit that critical mass of "viewpoint diverse" Harvard-caliber students.
"By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its
competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for
viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually
viewpoint diverse."
They are calling for Republican commissars in universities and accusing you of being the one who wants to enforce a single viewpoint and call you the enemy of pluralism. Not surprised, but I continue to be infuriated to witness such shameless insincerity from Republicans.
Yes, because universities have shown they want to enforce a single viewpoint on students, the government is using its funding contributions to encourage viewpoint diversity. There is certainly some shameless insincerity going on, as well as a disgusting disregard for logic.
Typical conservative doublespeak - speak as though there are commissars suppressing political dissidence so you can actually have an excuse to install commissars to suppress political dissidence. Conservatives have long disdained education for decades and abandoned its institutions, and now that they aren't bowing down, you want to use the government to force them to do so. The disgusting disregard for logic here is on you.
I imagine you would sign a different tune if Biden admin hypothetically forced your employer via federal funding to make you say "Trans Rights!", for plurality of thought of course.
Your logical fallacy is false equivalence. Nobody is asking for compelled speech here.
And yes, after being forced to start business meetings with a brief mention of whether anyone is transgender for the last few years, nearly everyone hates that. That’s why democrat approval is so low.
It's implicit, you just don't want to see it. It's literally political commissars.
> And yes, after being forced to start business meetings with a brief mention of whether anyone is transgender for the last few years, nearly everyone hates that.
What are you talking about? I never seen that or do you mean that people present themselves in a business meeting? Is this compelled speech to you? Hearing "Hi my name is Mark, call me he" is such a earth shattering trauma that you'll allow party officials in your universities?
So if I tell you to call me by my foreign middle name I'm forcing you to know I'm not white? Will you shit and cry if a woman talks about her wife during a coffee break?
The obvious fact is that what makes you mad is not the mention, it's the presence. Now you will say something of the lines "you are slandering me without evidence" because in bizarro land one cannot read beyond the strictly literal.
It's the same (intentional) blindness that can read this:
> [...] the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. This audit shall begin no later than the summer of 2025 and shall proceed
on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching unit-by-teaching-unit basis as appropriate. [...]
> [...] Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity. [...]
And not get that "viewpoint diversity" is literally whatever the federal government wants. You don't succumb in some lite-Maoist struggle session? Fired. Your department grows a spine? Fired and subsumed to an already captured department. Posted anti-Trump sentiment in social media? Sorry, we reached the quota for liberals.
If I did find/replaced all the indications that this is a Trump initiative and gave you this during the Biden presidency you would be foaming at the mouth. Be honest with yourself.
No, you have accused without basis, because you know you have no defense of installing conservative Republican commissars in schools, and to privilege the Republican students and workers present, so your only hope is to gaslight and imply that your opposition is the same—again, typical of authoritarian conservative Republicans. You can keep accusing and gaslighting, but I will never submit to your dishonest narratives to justify the Trump regime's actions.
There is absolutely basis to say that you prefer an ideologically uniform college campus and are campaigning against plurality of thought. For example, your comments in this thread arguing against efforts to support a diverse range of viewpoints in higher education.
Accusing people that support diversity of thought as being authoritarian is more projection and also quite funny.
There are no Republican commissars. That is the conspiracy theory you made up.
There is no privilege for Republican students or workers. That is a conspiracy theory you made up.
The Trump administration is not a regime (in the traditional sense this word is used, ie for dictatorships) because you dislike it winning an election.
I am not a republican. I would desperately like the Democrats to become electable again. Advocating for admissions racism and brainwashing children into racist conspiracy theories about Jewish people doesn’t seem to be a good way to do that.
I accuse you of gaslighting because you speak well enough that you are probably not stupid, but rather completely aware of what you are saying is false. I suspect you think your righteous anger makes what you say true. It does not.
I'm literally quoting the letter saying that they demand an external party to audit the student body, the leadership, the staff, and their teaching units for sufficient "viewpoint diversity," which reports directly to the federal government. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see that this is a euphemism for instilling conservative Republican thought in the student body and in the classes they take. And yes, this will privilege conservative students and staff, because non-conservative staff will be fired and students will be denied admission as a result of this.
Do you think dictatorships have never been elected? Trump will not be held accountable for the laws he breaks, because his party would never betray him as their leader. He will not leave office. He will send and has sent people illegally and without due process to a confinement center in El Salvador in co-operation with Bukele, another authoritarian. I doubt there will be fair elections in red states - they'll probably claim mass fraud and throw out allegedly fraudulent votes. They already tried to send fraudulent electors to make Trump president in 2020, and a violent mob to the Capitol after that, as well as pressured election officials in swing states to find votes.
You may not call yourself a Republican, but I make no distinction among those who defend the regime so wholeheartedly. Keep playing the fool; it will not justify your authoritarian apologetics.
> But there is no legal basis for the government to tell a private university who it should hire, fire, promote, or admit on ideological grounds.
That's true. Harvard can absolutely continue to hire for, advocate for, and grade for a single political viewpoint, provided it does not take federal funding.
They can also continue to racially discriminate as title IX only applies to organizations that take federal funding.
Harvard should also lose their current non-profit status per Bob Jones University v. U.S. (1983) if they continue to racially discriminate.
"It's fairly clear that Herr Hitler only means to instill properly virtuous German educational values."
No, we've seen more than enough to know exactly what kind of administration this is, and how it lies.
FFS it's just 3 months in and already they're kidnapping people from America into concentration camps for the rest of their lives (however short that might be) with no trial nor even the pretense of charges.
Come to think of it, what's The Hacker News policy on storing user information? Is it time for people who aren't fans of the current administration to make new accounts?
They're so "accepting of diverging viewpoints" they mandated Harvard to devote effort to monitoring the viewpoints of foreign students so they can be deported for wrongthink...
Weird how many people with "diverging viewpoints" are getting grabbed off the street by masked ICE agents then.
Zero? I’m a visa holder in the US and I’m aware that supporting terrorists and celebrating violence against Jewish people is probably not going to make the country keep me here.
Weird how wide the definition of "supporting terrorists" seems to be. Especially given that State has now said that people's "expected future beliefs" can be used to disqualify them.
Have you no hesitation, even at this late juncture? Read everyone elses comment above, and try to stretch your critical thinking ability just a bit.
Trump is our Caesar, we have ceased to be a constitutional republic, and you defend this with blithely pretending that 2 months of pure power-madness have not been occurring in plain view of the entire world?
I suspect that such discourse as we have will not be "permitted" indefinitely.
No, I have no hesitation. How are you not finding it obvious that the government are trying to end racially based admittance programs?
Because I read the letter from the government to Harvard. Did you? Racially-based admittance is only one bullet out of ten. The government isn't demanding specific policy changes, they are demanding cultural and ideological control of the university.
Did you? As you can read, they tackle racial bias immediately and follow up with preventing advocacy for terrorism and racism, then viewpoint divergence. At no point are they arguing for a single viewpoint to exist, they are CONSISTENTLY doing the exact opposite:
https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/...
The people we must be concerned about that are arguing for a single viewpoint controlling American universities are those like yourself that oppose pluralism.
> The people we must be concerned about that are arguing for a single viewpoint controlling American universities are those like yourself that oppose pluralism.
I'm all for pluralism. I have no objection at all to the existence of as many conservative academics as you please or whole (private) universities explicitly committed to conservative ideology. But there is no legal basis for the government to tell a private university who it should hire, fire, promote, or admit on ideological grounds. And it's also a super-ultra-clear first amendment violation to compel the speech of a private institution.
Finally, I'd like to point out the rank hypocrisy of calling for "merit-based" hiring and admissions in one breath, and then in the next demanding a quota system for ideology: "Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity." The government, as conservatives are so fond of saying, shouldn't "pick winners."
If there are a "critical mass" of "viewpoint diverse" Harvard-caliber professors out there looking for a position they should start their own university and admit that critical mass of "viewpoint diverse" Harvard-caliber students.
"By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse."
They are calling for Republican commissars in universities and accusing you of being the one who wants to enforce a single viewpoint and call you the enemy of pluralism. Not surprised, but I continue to be infuriated to witness such shameless insincerity from Republicans.
Yes, because universities have shown they want to enforce a single viewpoint on students, the government is using its funding contributions to encourage viewpoint diversity. There is certainly some shameless insincerity going on, as well as a disgusting disregard for logic.
Typical conservative doublespeak - speak as though there are commissars suppressing political dissidence so you can actually have an excuse to install commissars to suppress political dissidence. Conservatives have long disdained education for decades and abandoned its institutions, and now that they aren't bowing down, you want to use the government to force them to do so. The disgusting disregard for logic here is on you.
[flagged]
I imagine you would sign a different tune if Biden admin hypothetically forced your employer via federal funding to make you say "Trans Rights!", for plurality of thought of course.
Your logical fallacy is false equivalence. Nobody is asking for compelled speech here.
And yes, after being forced to start business meetings with a brief mention of whether anyone is transgender for the last few years, nearly everyone hates that. That’s why democrat approval is so low.
> Nobody is asking for compelled speech here.
It's implicit, you just don't want to see it. It's literally political commissars.
> And yes, after being forced to start business meetings with a brief mention of whether anyone is transgender for the last few years, nearly everyone hates that.
What are you talking about? I never seen that or do you mean that people present themselves in a business meeting? Is this compelled speech to you? Hearing "Hi my name is Mark, call me he" is such a earth shattering trauma that you'll allow party officials in your universities?
> It's implicit
Cool, you have no evidence.
> What are you talking about? > Hearing "Hi my name is Mark, call me he"
So you know.
So if I tell you to call me by my foreign middle name I'm forcing you to know I'm not white? Will you shit and cry if a woman talks about her wife during a coffee break?
The obvious fact is that what makes you mad is not the mention, it's the presence. Now you will say something of the lines "you are slandering me without evidence" because in bizarro land one cannot read beyond the strictly literal.
It's the same (intentional) blindness that can read this:
> [...] the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. This audit shall begin no later than the summer of 2025 and shall proceed on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching unit-by-teaching-unit basis as appropriate. [...]
> [...] Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity. [...]
And not get that "viewpoint diversity" is literally whatever the federal government wants. You don't succumb in some lite-Maoist struggle session? Fired. Your department grows a spine? Fired and subsumed to an already captured department. Posted anti-Trump sentiment in social media? Sorry, we reached the quota for liberals.
If I did find/replaced all the indications that this is a Trump initiative and gave you this during the Biden presidency you would be foaming at the mouth. Be honest with yourself.
> We have established
No, you have accused without basis, because you know you have no defense of installing conservative Republican commissars in schools, and to privilege the Republican students and workers present, so your only hope is to gaslight and imply that your opposition is the same—again, typical of authoritarian conservative Republicans. You can keep accusing and gaslighting, but I will never submit to your dishonest narratives to justify the Trump regime's actions.
There is absolutely basis to say that you prefer an ideologically uniform college campus and are campaigning against plurality of thought. For example, your comments in this thread arguing against efforts to support a diverse range of viewpoints in higher education.
Accusing people that support diversity of thought as being authoritarian is more projection and also quite funny.
There are no Republican commissars. That is the conspiracy theory you made up.
There is no privilege for Republican students or workers. That is a conspiracy theory you made up.
The Trump administration is not a regime (in the traditional sense this word is used, ie for dictatorships) because you dislike it winning an election.
I am not a republican. I would desperately like the Democrats to become electable again. Advocating for admissions racism and brainwashing children into racist conspiracy theories about Jewish people doesn’t seem to be a good way to do that.
I accuse you of gaslighting because you speak well enough that you are probably not stupid, but rather completely aware of what you are saying is false. I suspect you think your righteous anger makes what you say true. It does not.
That is a circular argument. Your basis that I'm arguing against plurality of thought is that you have labeled my comments as having done so.
Yes, I'm calling Republican commissars authoritarian.
I'm literally quoting the letter saying that they demand an external party to audit the student body, the leadership, the staff, and their teaching units for sufficient "viewpoint diversity," which reports directly to the federal government. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see that this is a euphemism for instilling conservative Republican thought in the student body and in the classes they take. And yes, this will privilege conservative students and staff, because non-conservative staff will be fired and students will be denied admission as a result of this.
Do you think dictatorships have never been elected? Trump will not be held accountable for the laws he breaks, because his party would never betray him as their leader. He will not leave office. He will send and has sent people illegally and without due process to a confinement center in El Salvador in co-operation with Bukele, another authoritarian. I doubt there will be fair elections in red states - they'll probably claim mass fraud and throw out allegedly fraudulent votes. They already tried to send fraudulent electors to make Trump president in 2020, and a violent mob to the Capitol after that, as well as pressured election officials in swing states to find votes.
You may not call yourself a Republican, but I make no distinction among those who defend the regime so wholeheartedly. Keep playing the fool; it will not justify your authoritarian apologetics.
> But there is no legal basis for the government to tell a private university who it should hire, fire, promote, or admit on ideological grounds.
That's true. Harvard can absolutely continue to hire for, advocate for, and grade for a single political viewpoint, provided it does not take federal funding.
They can also continue to racially discriminate as title IX only applies to organizations that take federal funding.
Harvard should also lose their current non-profit status per Bob Jones University v. U.S. (1983) if they continue to racially discriminate.
So long as they're their viewpoints.
You don't see letters going out to conservative institutions demanding they hire gender ideology professors or communists.
I’m not sure the government is funding many conservative institutions.
You'd be hilariously incorrect about that.
[flagged]
> I asked an LLM
A half step from "I asked a magic 8-ball" on this type of question.
> it's fairly clear they mean
"It's fairly clear that Herr Hitler only means to instill properly virtuous German educational values."
No, we've seen more than enough to know exactly what kind of administration this is, and how it lies.
FFS it's just 3 months in and already they're kidnapping people from America into concentration camps for the rest of their lives (however short that might be) with no trial nor even the pretense of charges.
Come to think of it, what's The Hacker News policy on storing user information? Is it time for people who aren't fans of the current administration to make new accounts?