Harvard Withdraws Fellowship Invitation to Chelsea Manning | Hacker News Reader

Harvard Withdraws Fellowship Invitation to Chelsea Manning

npr.org

47 pointsstaz37 comments

Might get down-voted, but I don't think Chelsea Manning is a hero.

Do I think she is an evil traitor? Also no, but I don't understand the worship of some of these very morally grey personalities.

I think that she did something very brave, but also very stupid. As I recall, WikiLeaks did the right thing then and proved themselves to be reliable, trustworthy actors in releasing details that were important for the public to know.

Recent events have changed my opinion of WikiLeaks, but not of Manning, who took an enormous risk to reveal crimes committed by the military.

I disagree that Wikileaks was acting consistently with its core value of radical transparency for governments.

They heavily edited the "Collateral Murder" video to make it appear to be murder in the first degree. The entirety of the video shows it to be negligent homocide.

Wikileaks is well-known for omitting information about countries with which it is ideologically aligned. Though this is normal and logical, Wikileaks is being disingenuous when it describes its ideals as such.

Additionally, Assange groomed Chelsea to give up the information. It wasn't just a case of simple whistleblowing. It was more consistent with an intelligence operation with Chelsea as an asset. Again, there isn't anything inherently wrong with that, it is just inconsistent with the narrative of Wikileaks just being a repository for voluntary leaks.

Manning leaked out private diplomacy between the US and other countries, damaging the standing of the United States and contributing to the destabilization of those regimes. Manning's leaks are widely thought to have contributed to, or even triggered, the Arab Spring which has not only been a disaster for American interests, but a disaster for almost everyone in the Middle East except the jihadists.

Wikileaks has become an arm of the Russian government. Any Russian dirt spilled lately???

I said nothing about Wikileaks.

Yeah most people are only happy with Wikileaks when they're going after Republicans. They can't stand the same heat when they go after Democrats.

I have always been, and will remain, a fan of the truth being exposed.

It's my personal belief that WikiLeaks is, perhaps has been for some time, a tool of a foreign state actor to threaten political candidates and push conspiracy theories (see: Seth Rich, Pizzagate.) That crosses a line for me, and the amount of "moral good" they do is significantly diminished when, instead of working with leaks that help align politician's actions with their speeches, seek to undermine democratic norms by dealing in crass and unfounded conspiracies.

I'd venture a guess that many people who don't like wikileaks now didn't feel that way when wikileaks was exposing the democratic president. Many likely thought and continue to think of Snowden as a hero. I find wikileaks sensationalist in a way that mirrors the sensationalism of grocery store checkout-aisle tabloids.

Promoting conspiracy theories about satanic rituals, pizzagate, the seth rich lies, and clinton-organized child kidnappings is not in any way exposing something resembling truth. They promoted conspiracy theories criticizing that the Panama Papers release was a George Soros-funded conspiracy to target Russia and the former USSR.

None of these claims had evidence attached to them. Leaks of truth are valuable, but I have lost all faith that wikileaks publishes in a non-partisan "truth for truth's sake" mission, rather, I think they have specific targets in mind and publish whatever it takes to harm those targets and help others.

But I think therein lies a horrible truth: Manning, her crime, her release, and everything that flows from that, has been turned into a purely political issue. What might have happened had it never entered the political arena? Perhaps a shorter sentence, confinement to a hospital instead of a prison, better care for her psychosis, an assortment of things could have been better. Her commutation was the single, greatest act of political f* you to America. Not even the pardoning of Nixon, or the failures of every single President since comes close to this level of politicization.

You mean the "truth" about Seth Rich that Assange's organization has been spreading.

I wouldn't claim to know the truth about that situation unless you're involved in the investigation.

And I suppose you wouldn't claim to know the truth about chemtrails and Bigfoot either? The Washington PD has already ruled it a botched robbery.

Agree with this. I have no problem with her personally, but I do have a problem with the leaking of classified information. And I don't have a problem generally with felons, sometimes one might be charged with a felony for doing something just. This is not one of those times. I don't think someone who did what she did should be invited to be a visiting fellow.

That's what makes it strange. Michael Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, resigned loudly from a completely different part of Harvard in protest to the invitation they extended to her. https://twitter.com/Mosheh/status/908367178067574784 There's a lot of "morally grey" people around Harvard, so why such a strong reaction to her?

Because she rattled the existing power system at a fundamental level.

A lot of established institutions and companies talk a big game, but they aren't serious about effecting real social change. They do little things at the margins, then go on PR campaigns about how they changed the world.

I find it kind of bizarre whoever made the decision to award the Fellow title didn't anticipate immediate, massive backlash. Or maybe they did and now Harvard's internal decision-making process about this will change.

Because of the politicalization of her crimes, and the steadfast resolution of each side of the spectrum as to her guilt or innocence.

I don't think she's a hero, or a villain really. I believe she did commit treason, and should have been punished far longer than she was. That said, I've met Manning, and I believe she suffers from deep psychological issues, both before her imprisonment, and certainly after. I think she needs help, and should've been confined to a hospital for her sentence, instead of the brig. We should not glorify those who break the law, no matter their justifications. The ends do not justify the means in these circumstances.

Morally grey? She made it known that US troops were committing war crimes.

I'm sure I'll get downvoted as well, but I do not get it either. What thing of merit or heroics did Bradley Manning do, other than gain publicity by becoming Chelsea Manning, complaining about being deployed to Iraq, and leaking classified military documents? How is any of that heroic?

I don't think Manning is a hero or the devil either. I just think he's a guy that did some stuff and made a bad choice for his own personal reasons. Don't we all do that, to one degree or another, with unfortunate frequency?

"Leaking classified military documents" is a negative (but somewhat legitimate) framing of what transpired. Her complaints and gender issues are just distractions from the important issues; I agree that they're irrelevant. (Similarly, it's unproductive to consider Trump's fashion choices or Obama's distate for mayonnaise when their policy decisions are what actually affect billions of people - but people will always highlight anything that can enhance their own position and detract from their opponents. Ignore the gender issues and complaints, they are meaningless.)

The alternative, positive framing is that she sacrificed a secure career to stop endemic corruption, war crimes, and violations of human rights described in the files she had access to. The cables and other files she leaked contained evidence of torture, of collusion, of abuses of power, and other atrocities, and bringing those into the public has hopefully reduced the rate at which those terrible things happen. On an individual level, rather than recognizing that she needed whistleblower protection, the government tortured and imprisoned her. Fortunately, a significant part of her sentence was commuted, but she still spent most of a decade in prison.

She has helped to prevent terrible crimes from continuing, and personally suffered for it. That's heroic and meritorious.

I disagree that exposing classified military secrets is heroic or meritorious. War is an ugly business and any view into any side of any war is going to reveal atrocious things. That's what happens during a campaign to kill people. So, were the secrets Manning risked everything to expose really that different from the day-to-day happenings of war? Just to touch on a couple of revelations in Manning's leaked documents:

1. The tortures and rapes Manning exposed were committed by Iraqi soldiers and police, which was business as usual under Sadam, and it is naive to think we could jump in and stop that ingrained behavior right away.

2. Soldiers trying to escape a deadly situation with guns blazing is hardly new to Afghanistan.

3. I don't see a problem with the U.S. targeting the leadership of the U.N. with intelligence campaigns.

Are any of these things really big meritorious revelations? I mean we knew about the Iraqi torture and rape before Bush ever declared war on them, didn't we?

One thing you seem to be glossing over is that Manning wanted out of the military anyway. He was upset about being shipped to Iraq and it is reasonable to posit that his leak was much more self-serving than heroic.

>gain publicity by becoming Chelsea Manning

I largely agree with you, but it's not fair to suggest that the gender change was a publicity stunt.

I'm not saying it was. I'm simply stating that gender change is one of the few things Manning is known for.

Earlier discussion (10 hours ago, 61 comments):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15255018

As a move, I think that this was extremely daft of Harvard. The name Harvard implies so much -- so the idea that it's able to bow to public pressure does a lot of harm to that reputation. You could always argue that they made the wrong decision, but I think standing by what they said as an institution would carry more weight than backing down. That is, recognizing Chelsea is a cross to die on. Backing down shows an abundance of malleability.

Maybe they're unaware of how much respect the Harvard name has? Hopefully this teaches them something.

It's very confusing how a prestigious institute , like Harvard makes decisions. They first offer fellowship to Chelsea Manning but back off after threatened by CIA chief. They honor Aung San Suu kyi, the top leader of Myanmar, as the Humanitarian of the year 2016 when her country is literally going through ethnic cleansing by persecuting Rohingya minority. Really curious who makes these calls there...

The world is a difficult place, isn't it. Nothing is black and white. Sometimes it's hard for people to understand that...

Slight off-topic/meta:

"...In a statement released late Thursday, Elmendorf said the school did not intend to honor Manning in any way or to endorse any of her words or deeds..."

What is the purpose of having visiting fellows? As a reader, if I knew that, I might have some initial ability to start forming opinions about this story. Is it an honor? A job? Both? Neither?

ADD: But I guess I'll never know due to the flag-kill brigade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visiting_scholar

> The purpose of a visiting scholars programs is generally to bring to the university or educational institution in question an exceptional senior scholar who can contribute to and enrich the community's intellectual and research endeavors and international projection.

So for somebody without a lot of academic experience to bring to bear, it's basically a sinecure. Unless I missed something.

Thanks.

There are paths to knowledge which don't pass through the Ivory Tower.

Dan Gillmor at University of Arizona comes to mind. Many lawyers, doctors, and computer science professionals. An enormous number of politicians. Military officers. Political activists.

I'd strongly recommend you consider some of the existing and prior examples, your response doesn't do the reality justice.

I'm happy with my response, although I understand that for a college with a lot of money to spend, the definition and mission of fellows can be quite broad.

To defend my position a little more, I was asking for a definition of the job of visiting fellow that was presented in a format that advanced the institution's mission. I found the Wikipedia page quite adequate in that regard. I also understand that people like their colleges with a diverse and outstanding mix of personalities and folks with unusual life experiences to share. I have no problem with that. I think it's a great idea. It's just that it's a sinecure. Nothing wrong with being honest about it. Manning or some military person is not going to visit Harvard and proceed to discover the cure for cancer. It's a checkbox both on their resume and the college's brochure.

I think it's a mistake to view this in terms of supporting or attacking either Harvard or Manning. The purpose of my question was simply to clarify terms of the discussion. It seems to me that there are two definitions of "visiting fellow'. One definition is based on the academic credentials of the fellow. The other is based on the type of experience the unviersity can provide undergrads by having somewhat famous people hanging around. I'm okay with that.

What were they thinking in the first place? It was a stupid move to begin with.

Harvard has to be very careful in their decision making. They're only $37.6 billion dollars away from bankruptcy.

Certain study programs at Harvard such as 'Global Governance' seem to be primarily designed to raise corrupt politicians and give future mass murderers the rhetorical means to justify their actions, so that's maybe not such a big loss for Manning.

"Harvard also announced this week that it had invited former White House press secretary Sean Spicer, former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and MSNBC hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski to be visiting fellows."

It is really just a business, isn't it? To a European it is so odd to see universities being... capitalistic.

Tacky is the word that comes into mind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com