Hacker News Reader

Comment by WalterBright | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

A demand letter that said only "Harvard may not use race, gender, or national origin as criteria for admissions and hiring" would be a lot more defensible, and much harder to oppose.

But the government's list of demands includes all kinds of stuff that would be mildly insane even if offered in good faith. And we have seen enough already that any independent organization would be very irresponsible to assume good faith.

I would go so far as to say that any institution trying to make decisions based solely on merit is required to resist this kind of pressure very forcefully. There are many examples of the administration using "DEI" as a buzzword when firing meritorious women and minorities, all the while promoting totally meritless white men.

-JD '08

> the government's list of demands includes all kinds of stuff that would be mildly insane even if offered in good faith

And their demands are so insane you couldn't name one. I've gone through it and it all seems incredibly reasonable

https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/...

If you think 'viewpoint diversity' is any level of sane with the current administration then you haven't been keeping up with their actions:

> By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse.

This sounds like the federal government is demanding that they adhere to a department of Policing Wrongthink.

> Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity.

Insane

> Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension.

Insane

> reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship

Is even insane if you think about it for two seconds; nobody wants the government deciding what counts as activism and what counts as "real" scholarship. A good heuristic: do any of the proponents want a Bernie Sanders or AOC wielding this authority?

This sounds very similar to all the DEI stuff which they didn't have an issue with before. Forcing them to not be aggressively hostile towards Republicans does not seem like an unreasonable ask.

I had to take critical race theory classes for my grad school program, I'm sure they can find a Christian to make a powerpoint on avoiding hate towards Christians.

This is all stuff which has been happening in reverse for decades. The real solution is for schools to find a funding route other than government, but until then these shinanigans have been happening for decades and this isn't suddenly "insane".

Multiple problems here:

1. Universities aren't "incredibly hostile towards Republicans"

2. CRT: critical race theory is a real study. It's just understanding the historical context for the current socioeconomic landscape of America. Do you think black Americans were magically fixed after slavery ended? No? Congratulations, you support the fundamentals of CRT. It just became conservative spooky buzzword.

3. Avoiding hate towards Christians... who is out here hating Christians? This fetish for persecution is getting very strange. At absolute worst, people are asking Christians to avoid passing legislation using their religion. Which is happening at an alarming rate and should be concerning to every American who respects our Constitution!

4. "reverse"... yeah no, it's really not. Nobody has been silencing conservative voices, it's just difficult to hold a conservative voice while being in higher education. Because conservatism as an ideology is naturally opposed to higher education and new ways of thought. It's the same reason conservative pieces of media suck. Conservatism as an ideology is naturally opposed to artistic expression and radical creativity, so of course the media sucks. Nobody is doing it to them, it's just that the way they are is largely incompatible with that thing. There's other fun example of this, too. For instance, why does Christian Rock suck so bad? (Christianity and Rock as ideologies are antithetical).

I don’t care at all. For what it’s worth, yes, Harvard and other elite universities should be more welcoming to conservatives. But turning to the federal government to enforce “viewpoint diversity” is just an obviously bad idea.

I don’t want the government deciding what viewpoints need representation. And again, if you think about beyond the immediate case you may have a personal emotional investment in, I don’t think you do either.

I don’t want a future administration trying to enforce “viewpoint diversity” on oil and gas companies, investment banks, or rural family farms either, regardless of what federal contracts or subsidies they have. Exxon, Goldman Sachs, or an Iowa hog farm would be insane to submit to that.

Also, a mask ban enforced by suspension is just plain stupid. That’s not even viewpoint diversity, it’s just partisan chum, and it gives away the game on whether this exercise is in good faith.

I agree in that I'm not thrilled that federal government is enforcing viewpoints, however the original post was saying their requirements were insane and impossible to implement. The requirements laid out are very similar to prior requirements thrust upon them, the only difference is these requirements require right-wing viewpoint alignment instead of left-wing viewpoint alignment.

The federal government cannot attach conditions that limit free speech onto federal funding. There is precedent for the federal government expanding into areas it has no direct constitutional authority over through conditions on funding. But e.g. 'regulating commerce within a state' is not something the constitution explicitly forbids. Whilst 'abridging the freedom of speech' is very much explicitly forbidden.

There are regular legal battles about what public schools can and cannot teach in the schools.

Consider also the Equal Time rule and the Fairness Doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

As I am not a lawyer, I suppose we'll have to see what the courts have to say about it.

Importantly, the Civil Rights Act is a (well-litigated) law, not an ad hoc decree from the executive branch. If the current administration wants to strong arm universities, they should go through Congress.

If they want to abridge freedom of speech, they also need 2/3s of US states.

Or the Supreme Court.

> Importantly, the Civil Rights Act is a (well-litigated) law, not an ad hoc decree from the executive branch

That's right. And it's the function of the executive branch to enforce those laws.

I agree. Congress has allocated funds to Harvard. It’s not up to the executive whether to disburse them, unless that was specifically stated in the law.

As the Harvard letter says, "I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government..." This goes far beyond a demand to follow existing civil rights law. It's a demand for a full-on, government-monitored cultural revolution that will punish Trump's enemies and bring in his supporters. It's also hilarously self-contradictory. The government demands an END to all DEI programs, yet in the same breath, "Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity..."

> The Federal government has always attached conditions in exchange for Federal funding and Federal contracts. This is not dictating.

It effectively is. Just look up the history of the drinking age - a classic example of the federal government using extortion tactics to override state rights.

Which was also a law passed by Congress. Congress passes laws.

Should we also say that the president can strike down unconstitutional state laws because the Supreme Court is in the federal government?

> Which was also a law passed by Congress. Congress passes laws.

Indeed, but this was a clear evasion of prior laws. I don't like such workarounds in principle - either Congress should have gone the proper way and go for a constitutional amendment, or it should have buried the fucking bill. This created the nasty precedent that the current admin is using to push through the SAVE Act.

I meant this in the form of the Federal government handing out contracts and funding to private businesses, not state government.

I don't think most people would consider "You can't discriminate based on race", to be extortionary. Instead, its a well accepted principle in most of society.

I agree on the matter, but pressuring states with financial strings is not the way to go for it.

All other democracies on this rock just go and modify their constitution, that's the proper way. Y'all just are so completely gridlocked that this is all but impossible...

Same with speed limits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com