this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
805 points (99.6% liked)

politics

23397 readers
3730 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

As a side note

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.

[–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ok so you have terrible comprehension skills then.

[–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 0 points 22 hours ago

My bad. I don't understand most submissive dialects.