Skip Navigation

Trump Finally Drops the Anti-Semitism Pretext | The latest letter to Harvard makes clear that the administration’s goal is to punish liberal institutions for the crime of being liberal.

www.theatlantic.com

Trump Finally Drops the Anti-Semitism Pretext

130 comments
  • That's.......not at all what the letter says. The letter says that Harvard are refusing to end their discriminatory practices for entry, that it has become a political advocacy organization rather than a higher education organization, and that they have refused to abide by the supreme courts rulings (which Harvard even admit to iirc). As such they will no longer get any federal funding. If they were to comply with the laws, they would get their funding.

    This seems pretty fair by any measure. To get federal funding you obviously should be following federal laws.

    • 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 based on the words of some guy who used to go to Harvard, the government no longer trusts Harvard nor thinks Harvard provides anything

        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.

        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.

        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?

130 comments