Federal agencies continue terminating all funding to Harvard

I’m confused. the declaration does not say anything about swearing fealty to a genocidal foreign government.

That's really not more chilling. I recommend actually reading the document. There are multi billion dollar cuts to IT programs and CISA/cyber security infrastructure, along with massive cuts to basic research, EPA protections and toxic site cleanup, and basic social services, the list goes on. Instead we're plowing extra money into military spending, but because the defense budget is already so bloated it amounts to a small percentage increase there, and huge percentage decreases in everything else.

No. Chilling that despite making massive cuts everywhere (read the source) they put most of the savings into the military budget.

WordPress seems advanced for a government body whose head of health actively promotes for himself and his grandchildren swimming downstream from sewerage to boost the immune system.

The only presidents that made any attempt to balance the budget in the last 40 years were members of the Democratic party. The perception of "right = fiscally responsible" and "left = reckless spending" just isn't accurate.

>The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt.

But

>I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China

> I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China.

How much do you believe each country spends on defense?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...

Based on that, the US spends more than the remainder of the top 10 countries combined, most of which are allies.

The US could cut its defense budget in half and still be spending more than China and Russia (spots 2 and 3) combined.

It's exactly what the entire campaign platform you voted for was: unprincipled, random bullshit designed to stoke an angry, bigoted, ignorant base.

I can respect principled patriotism and fiscal conservativism, but voting for an icon of xenophobia, illiteracy, and graft and expecting anything but that is kinda...

Also if you actually gave a shit about containing China, it would probably be in your best interests to vote for a candidate who doesn't base their campaign on alienating the entire rest of the free Western world while simultaneously denigrating and disrespecting the armed services... but what do I know.

Right, if you assume competency and hard work from the administration involved. Seriously, many of the cuts reference returning power to the states, does that mean it will be returned in its entirety as block grants, or as non-corporate tax cuts? Based on past performance I doubt they'll accomplish either yet the money and programs and federal jobs will still be gone. Federal jobs many considered to be good jobs and even the biggest cynic would admit provided -some- public good (e.g. National Parks NSF, NHS, many others).

How many times is woke (and related words) mentioned? Is dragging culture war BS into the budgeting process really the way forward. In the limited descriptions that they gave, was dedicating so much headspace to nebulous buzzwords really a good use of tax payer money? Are we really machete'ing giant programs and saying its all because of woke?

Green New Scam was plastered everywhere, likely referencing Biden's infrastructure bill where ~80% of funds were earmarked for conservative districts (it was the only way to pass the bill!).

I'm not here to disparage the way you vote or your beliefs and certainly not what you think is best for the country, but taken within the context of Trumps ~5 years in political office, does this really look like a good thing?

How is that evidence when entities settle suits all the time to avoid the cost and time of litigation?

[8,9 dup] checked the course catalog and there are classes on topics that I think most would consider social activism.

The CS professor just running a word search is a poor experiment but this doesn't negate your point.

[1] The DEI intitive is social activism [2] True but not an official school policy but a professor

[3] Independent organization [4] Article on protests and mentions faculty support them [5-6] Accusations [7] True

These are good examples. What about indoctrination though and is it wrong for Harvard to be social activists?

These protests were mostly against the state of Israel which isn't a violation of Title IX.I know there were specific instances of Anti-Semitism, which were wrong and should be punished, but is there evidence Harvard didn't take action for those?

-----

My concern is that Anti-Zionism is being conflated with Anti-Semitism by the complainants in order to

1. Bolster their case wrongfully by increasing the number of incidents

2. Defend the Israeli government

3. Expand Anti-Semitism to include Anti-Zionism in court decisions making future criticism of Israel dangerous

For example the complaint you linked to opens with

".. Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and slaughtered, tortured, raped, burned, and mutilated 1,200 people—including infants, children, and the elderly"

Unnecessary details to the situation because if their claims against Harvard are valid the source of the anti-Semitism is irrelevant (edit: meaning anger at Israel's response to the attack)

This means it was placed at the beginning of the complaint to illicit an emotional reaction/reminder of the horrific event.

Edit: Just to add that if a person is criticizing Israel and a Jewish person feels threatened or avoids campus because of it that's not anti-Semitism.

[flagged]

According to the article you linked:

> ... the National Association of College and University Business Officers issues a report on ... where the money [endowments] generate ends up. ... About 48 percent of investment income went to student aid ... about a quarter of the money ... went to academic programs and maintaining facilities.

To claim it's a "tax dodge, and nothing more" without elaborating is absurd.

I won't argue further with someone more interested in inflammatory statements than actually discussing.

> it's a tax-dodge, and nothing more. Same thing with non-profit hospitals whose administrators pay themselves seven-figure salaries.

What do you mean by tax dodge, in this context?

How familiar are you with taxes? Off the top of my head, people who work for non-profits have to pay withholdings and income taxes, just like the rest of us. Generally, 'business' expenses for both non-profit and for-profit organizations (whether a McDonalds, university, church) are tax-deductible. Tax rules differ between states, but being a non-profit doesn't automatically exempt you from collecting and forwarding other forms of tax, such as sales tax.

... Are you suggesting that Harvard is a for-profit enterprise? Do you think it pays dividends or something?

Ok and?

What does this article have to do with nonprofits in general?

Also the board of the nonprofit sets salaries for admin

They have over $10Bn in unrestricted endowments, and both the unrestricted and restricted funds grow with the market.

Let's remember that China funds all kinds of research, not just the research with guaranteed profit. (Indeed, private industry already funds research with guaranteed profit.)

There’s a lot of work that is “useful” but the return on investment is not direct, but rather indirect.

For example I don’t remember the detail exactly but this professors insistence to study extremophiles has directly translated to many improvements in medicine.

What other sources? You can't just hand wave like that, make a specific proposal.

It's an example of universities accepting federal funds. I didn't actually know the breakdown of federal university funding in the 1950s, so I had to look it up. For separately budgeted research, federal funds were ~70% of dollars according to a 1954 NSF survey. For total expenditures, they were 42%. A bit over half of that went to medical and agricultural research.