Harvard University rejects Trump admin's demands, risking billions in funding

Mostly Trump lies that he would lower prices.

 

The Democratic Party's loss in the 2024 U.S. presidential election was influenced by several key factors that led voters to favor the Republican candidate, Donald Trump.

1. Economic Concerns and Inflation

A significant portion of the electorate expressed dissatisfaction with the economy, particularly regarding inflation and wage stagnation. Despite efforts to highlight economic recovery, many voters felt that the benefits were not reaching them, leading to a perception that the Democratic Party was not effectively addressing their economic concerns. Latest news & breaking headlines

2. Decline in Democratic Voter Turnout

Voter turnout among key Democratic demographics, including young and working-class voters, decreased notably. This decline was attributed to a sense of disillusionment and a perception that the Democratic Party was not adequately representing their interests. Additionally, some voters who stayed home were not necessarily opposed to Trump but were dissatisfied with the Democratic candidates. Latest news & breaking headlinesVox

3. Messaging on Cultural Issues

The Democratic focus on cultural issues, such as transgender rights, was perceived by some voters as sidelining more pressing economic and security concerns. This shift in focus may have alienated certain voter segments who felt that their immediate needs were being overlooked. Latest news & breaking headlines

4. Trump's Appeal to Working-Class Voters

Trump managed to resonate with working-class voters, including those from minority backgrounds, by emphasizing economic nationalism and promising to address issues like immigration and job losses. His message found traction among voters who felt left behind by globalization and economic policies associated with the previous administration. Wikipedia+2Latest news & breaking headlines+2Le Monde.fr+2

5. Perception of Harris as a Continuation of the Status Quo

Kamala Harris's association with the Biden administration led to her being viewed as a continuation of existing policies. This perception made it challenging for her to present herself as a change candidate, which was a significant factor in an election where voters were seeking change. Wikipedia

In summary, the combination of economic dissatisfaction, reduced voter turnout, a shift in focus to cultural issues, Trump's appeal to working-class voters, and the perception of Harris as a continuation of the status quo contributed to the Democratic Party's loss in the 2024 election.

 

Yes, I also can use ChatGPT. Do you have your own opinions?

 

It appears to me that the list is in order of importance.

I note that no where does it mention what you said

Your sentence is actually nonsense. What it is is the view of the far right political wing. It doesn't explain the thought process of anyone else. The far right wing individual is not at all likely to have voted for Kamala Harris in any case. When doing an analysis of an election the critical electorate to analyze is the independent voter. It's, of course, also not an explanation for Trump's current behavior.

 

This info is complementary and not all-inclusive.

 

I dont remember people voting for Trump because they wanted him to destroyed higher education in America. Most people said it was something about lowering the cost of eggs, which he still hasnt done.

 

Trump isn't wrong, exactly, when he says schools should not be tax exempt entities if they're engaging in political activity. Frankly, I agreed with Sen. Chuck Grassley when he questioned what Harvard was doing with its multi-billion-dollar endowment to justify its tax exemption. That was long before Trump.

Here's the thing. Harvard will still be obscenely rich even if it were to lose its tax exemption. Harvard will still be incredibly influential and powerful even if it pays tax on its investment income. But if Harvard loses its tax-exempt status, there will be no restraint upon its political activities! President Trump will have removed the leash from an extremely unfriendly mastiff!

Trump never seems to look into the future beyond gratifying his immediate desires.

 

Harvard surrenders! University professor ALAN DERSHOWITZ reveals the secret deal being struck with Trump... and it'll make his woke colleagues furious

Many in the mainstream media and academia are cheering on Harvard University as this storied institution has, in the words of the New York Times, 'decided to fight the Trump administration.' But as a Harvard faculty member for more than 60 years, I can tell you that's not quite what is actually happening. Don't tell Harvard's left-wing professors, but the university seems ready to make a deal with President Trump.
You may have expected Harvard's President Alan Garber, a man I know and admire, to be defiant in the face of such an onslaught, and while he is putting up a combative front, he seems to be preparing to negotiate a settlement. That's something that legions of far-left academicians and advisers may find abhorrent. But it's the reality. While Harvard University is older than the US, richer than many countries (with its $50 billion endowment), and among the most influential academic institutions in the world, it depends on federal research grants, tax-deductible contributions from alumni and tax exemptions on its profits to perform its educational and research functions.

Perhaps the Trump administration has been overbroad in demands to 'audit' the views of students and staff, exert more influence over course material and slash funds from legitimate research projects. But these are complex and nuanced issues, but for many academics, that choice is simple: whatever side Trump is on is wrong.

The truth is that many of the government's demands are quite reasonable and necessary. Harvard does have a serious lack of intellectual, ideological, and political diversity. It is largely a left-wing institution where many points of view are effectively muzzled, largely by self-censorship and peer pressure.

To give one very personal illustration: for 50 years, I was among the most popular faculty members, teaching and lecturing to over 10,000 students. But since October 7, 2023, when Hamas perpetrated the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust, I have never once been invited to present my centrist pro-Israel position on campus. Even before that, the one time I was invited by a student group, my talk had to be moved off campus for fear of my safety.

Dozens of students have communicated with me in recent years about how they feel silenced. These include not only Jewish and Zionist students but also Christian and conservative students. The same is true for some faculty members. Harvard's culture is infected by a deeply rooted cultural bias that even President Trump cannot quickly cure. This is largely attributable to Harvard's tenured faculty, whose rehabilitation is nearly impossible and utterly impractical, because these professors–whose jobs are contractually protected–are essentially accountable to no one. That academic freedom, while justified in many ways, has been abused for decades.

The oppressive campus culture is also due to 'programs' and departments that are inherently ideological. These include Women Studies, Gay Studies, Black Studies, and yes, Jewish Studies departments. These divisions and similar ones tend to be more ideological than academic. In addition, there are the racial, ethnic and gender offices, such as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). These entrenched bureaucracies have undue influence.

A negotiated settlement between Harvard and the Trump administration may be another step toward reform, but it cannot be the last.

Finally, for those who claim that their defense of university autonomy and academic freedom is ideologically neutral, it is important to remember the 1950s, when I was a college student. In those bad old days, many recalcitrant southern universities had been forced by the federal government to integrate their student bodies, yet the schools were still tolerating the harassment of African American students and teaching racist curricula. Had the federal government threatened to withhold funding from such racist universities unless there were changes, many liberals, civil libertarians and advocates of academic freedom would have applauded. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, many progressive academics are taking exactly the opposite position they would've taken back in the 1950s. For them, it's about politics, not principles.

Link: https://archive.is/UHjg4

 

Alan Dershowitz is an unreliable source. He famously defended Trump in court as they are close friends. Im not even going to get into the Epstein stuff, but I wouldn’t believe a word he says without proof. Much of this piece seems like speculation at best anyways.

 

That may be true. Still, he is a professor at the very institution, so he does have some insider knowledge. Plus, some of the points he makes appear quite sensible and non-partisan. I don't think it's controversial to say that Harvard isn't currently known for "intellectual, ideological and political diversity." I've mostly known him for sparring with Norman Finkelstein on Palestine.

 

It was an interesting article. I appreciate the doubts expressed. I hold the same doubts but we will eventually see what happens. Thanks for posting.

 

I thought that I'd just post a new personal doubt that I have on this article. The article source is rated horribly for reliability. It's LOW reliability. Low is an absolutely horrible rating especially for a written source that should have editors checking the writers.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

 

Many conservatives view left-leaning institutions—especially universities, mainstream media outlets, and parts of the entertainment industry—as liberal indoctrination centers. The perception is that these institutions do more than just lean left politically; they actively shape values, norms, and attitudes that align with progressive ideology, often from a young age or during formative years like college. The result, in this view, is a kind of cultural pipeline that produces reliable Democratic voters.

I haven’t independently fact-checked whether these claims hold across the board, but the stereotype is deeply rooted and continues to influence how many on the right view cultural and educational power structures.

I can see why, from a conservative perspective, there would be a push to curb what they view as ideological indoctrination or outsized influence.

 

According to Wikipedia: "The [UK-based] tabloids in turn have been divided into the more sensationalist mass market titles, or 'red tops', such as The Sun and the Daily Mirror, and the middle-market papers, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail."

Daily Mail is a tabloid, so a word of caution is advised. But this particular piece was presented as written by the Harvard professor for the newspaper. Personally, I read tabloid opinion sections, as you may occasionally find some valuable points of view. Obviously, the tabloid would not be the best resource for news gathering due to the sensationalist appeal.

 

Legal scholars seem to agree that the threats by the administration against Harvard are probably not legal. Like Trump's threats against the law firms aren't legal but still many firms rolled over for Trump just to avoid the hassles.

 

If I could just get them to read the syllabus...

 

Granted. Liberal professors don’t have the kind of will overpowering influence that would create legions of political clones. The overheard response may be appropriate for that kind of criticism. But many professors complain about the inability to broach certain subjects in class due to a climate of ideological conformity or empowered activist students who happily adopt the role of a censor or snitch with full approval from the university administration. This also impacts the kind of research that gets published, situated within the narrow range of “acceptable discourse” that doesn’t rock the boat. Furthermore, the academician’s speeches are cancelled for reasons related to student emotional harm protection, thus treating lecture participants as children rather than adults capable of hearing challenging ideas. These problems are real, not imagined. And they occur in publicly funded institutions.

 

So real that you had to emphasize it twice in the same sentence.