politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
TLDR: Lol, no.
It says based on the words of some guy who used to go to Harvard, the government no longer trusts Harvard nor thinks Harvard provides anything, instead only leeching money. It never gave any proof of it not currently trying to comply with laws and court decisions, as that would require the judicial branch or third party input/audits.
This is not the definition of fair. This is using a single customer review to force political teachings they want by withholding unrelated funds.
It says no such thing. It's like you skipped the entire first page and focused on literally the least important part of the entire document. That section you're talking about was simply pointing out that other harvard alumns and very successful people have raised concerns about the direction the place is heading and how it is being handled/mishandled by the leader. That persons "review" wasn't what made this decision. It played no part in it. Harvards actions caused this decision.
The letter never gave any proof? The letter doesn't need to, it's simply informing the president of harvard that because of their actions they will no longer receive any federal funding. This letter isn't a court case. Harvard have openly said that they're not going to comply with the laws: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/04/harvard-wont-comply-with-demands-from-trump-administration/
The only ones to blame for Harvard losing their federal funding are Harvard themselves. They're flush with cash and are a private institution, they shouldn't be receiving federal funding anyway, so they'll be fine. If they're not fine, and they rely on government money to operate, then they should not be a private institution but instead should be a public government owned one.
It definitely says such a thing. If the "review" had no part then why include it? The first page only spews political factoids, mentions a plagarism scandal, and something about discrimination in the past. The first page of the letter literally doesn't mention what Harvard is currently doing illegally to justify this decision about grants and funding.
More importantly, yes, Harvard is private but the grant money isn't for their operation costs. Your own source lists it as research funding.
Speaking of your own source, maybe read it first, because it says "Harvard... rejected demands from the Trump administration." Nothing about noncompliance with the law.
As a side note, I didn't think I'd find a communist or socialist out here in the wild today. How has that ideology been working for you?
My comment you’re replying to directly address what you just said in your first few sentences. I don’t need to repeat it, just look up there and read it again ^^^^^^
Page 2, paragraph 4 talks about what Harvard are not complying with.
Using grants for research vs operating costs is irrelevant. It’s government money. If they RELY on it then they should not be a private company.
Trump demanded that they follow their executive orders and laws. Harvard very publicly and loudly refused. They fucked around, now they’re finding out.
I don’t think you know what a communist or socialist is if you think anything I said is a socialist or communist opinion. Scratch that - I know you don’t.
Yeah, reread it incase I missed something. Sure didn't
Page 2 paragraph 4 mentions a court decision from 2023. Harvard has reviewed and revised policy since then. They found that a disproportionate amount of admitted students were white due mostly to either being related to alumni or from a family that made large financial contributions. DEI policies had very little impact compared to those factors. Idk what you want them to do from here, and that is the only actual legal thing mentioned anywhere.
Yes, Harvard has no need to act like a government entity when they are not one and will survive just fine without grants. The American people and economy will be the ones suffering from this snappy decision.
And yes, socialist or communist. The research is a service being paid for. If the published results being public isn't enough for you, then neither should any other company's services. Following your logic, SpaceX and Starlink should be publicly owned by the U.S. government as well as the banks, corporations, and small businesses that get a contract, grant, or tax break. The actual allocation of funds doesn't matter to you based on your comments.
Ok so you have terrible comprehension skills then.