Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The Supreme Court has held that the government can use its control over funds to condition speech in ways it couldn’t directly: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/government-funding-a...

The Supreme Court has also held that the government can revoke tax exempt status of a private organization where it furthers a compelling government policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United...

Control over federal funding is also the hook for Title VI’s application of non-discrimination laws to private universities.

The government also has the trump card up its sleeve that Harvard is almost certainly violating Title VI through extensive programs of race consciousness. It’s well established that the civil rights laws apply equally to whites as to non-whites. Harvard has many programs for non-whites where, if those programs were for whites instead, that would be a Title VI violation that would jeopardize Harvard’s federal funding. E.g. Harvard had various racially segregated graduation parties last year: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/harvard-university-to-of.... If you can’t have a “White Celebration” then you can’t have a “Black Celebration” either. If Harvard doesn’t settle they’ll get hit with a Title VI lawsuit and they’re going to lose it.

Your first link involves laws passed by Congress. But there is no relevant law that requires "viewpoint diversity" (whatever that means) or most of the other demands in the government letter, this is simply an executive diktat.

Your second link involves a change in IRS policy. But there was no such change, instead again we have an executive diktat, despite the fact that the law explicitly forbids the President or his office from targeting specific institutions for audits or investigations: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7217

Whether Congress does it or the executive does it isn’t relevant to the first amendment question, which is what I’m responding to above.

But it appears that there's a giant loophole - the Attorney General apparently can still do so:

> (2) any individual (other than the Attorney General of the United States) serving in a position specified in section 5312 of title 5, United States Code.

> Harvard had various racially segregated graduation parties last year: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/harvard-university-to-of.... If you can’t have a “White Celebration” then you can’t have a “Black Celebration” either.

The affinity celebrations were open to all graduates according to the article's sources. The segregation claim originated seemingly from 1 student they interviewed whose comments about other aspects seemed speculative.

The celebrations were organized by students and hosted by alumni and community groups according to the university. The article did not contest this. Is there evidence students applied for and were denied recognition of a white celebration?

Doesn’t matter. A “white celebration” would be deemed to create a hostile learning environment. Any other race conscious affinity group is the same thing. Under a fair application of the civil rights laws, it would be improper to have any university sanctioned race consciousness.

> A “white celebration” would be deemed to create a hostile learning environment.

> Under a fair application of the civil rights laws, it would be improper to have any university sanctioned race consciousness.

Who would deem a white celebration would create a hostile learning environment? Harvard? Would courts not require evidence? Or courts? They had a double standard before but would not now?

Would this apply to all protected characteristics? Why not if not? Why did you discuss race only if so?

The history of American white supremacy and these institutions is well-understood. They've had plenty of "white celebrations" in their past. A minority affinity group is not the same as the Klan, as much as being told you can't have your white racial supremacy hurts it is not the same thing as actually existing under structural oppression.

> in their past

But people don't live in the past. "Your grandfather did wrong so now you must suffer" wow so much equality

I am curious how you are suffering from not having a "white celebratation". I understand why there might want to be a protected space for certain groups that, up until recently, were systematically treated harmfully. Whites don't fall into that category. So, I don't understand how it harms you that you cannot have a white party. Can you explain what harms you suffer?

The civil rights act seeks to create a color blind society. If schools or employers racialize people and treat them differently in any way, that’s illegal discrimination. It doesn’t matter if you think that treatment is warranted for certain groups but not other groups. That’s not a proper consideration under the law.

> Whites don't fall into that category.

This is racism. "I know you had it hard, but you're white, so your suffering is less relevant than black person's suffering". You might argue that this is the right thing to do anyway, but it's still racism.

You didn't answer my question. Please outline how being white has lead to your suffering or your ancestors suffering. I am not saying they did not suffer - everyone does - but how did being white cause you or them to suffer?

So far, you haven't given any evidence of that, only called me racist.

> So far, you haven't given any evidence of that, only called me racist.

Because you are racist. You judge people's suffering through the lens of their race. My ancestors were victims of a genocide, but that doesn't count, because it was a white-white genocide. Later my country was occupied with a puppet government but that doesn't count, because it was a white-white problem in a poor country far away. Nowadays neighboring country is literally an active warzone, but again, this doesn't count, because it's white-white war. A coworker coming from said country was telling me how difficult it is for him that he's sitting on his comfy chair in safety while his friends are literally dying, but that doesn't deserve empathy, because it's a white-white problem. The company we work for happens to be American, so instead of discussing the issue, we get "black Polynesian pride month" or whatever, as though I'd ever see such a person in my life.

Average black American earns more money than average white in my country, yet the former ones somehow win The Suffering Olympics with gold medal in being underprivileged. This is ridiculous.

I'll never forget it when I, having grown up gay in some godforsaken conservative village in the middle of nowhere, went to the city to see a pride event for the first time in my life, and some middle-upper-class city woman told me that I'm a white man, so obviously I have no idea what it feels like to be discriminated against. To her, my suffering didn't count, because I'm a white man.

> extensive programs of race consciousness

Programs which were largely created by both academics employed in educational institutions and by the paying students who wanted to learn about more than Western history and culture.

Where's the outrage when history classes center almost entirely on Western, white narratives? Or when English classes focus overwhelmingly on white authors? Why does concern about "race consciousness" only seem to surface in the face of efforts to include perspectives outside of white culture?

All this assumes that “white” is a single “race.” In reality, it is a broad umbrella covering a variety of ethnic groups. What would I — a first-generation Russian immigrant — have to celebrate in common with descendants of Spanish, Belgian, or South African immigrants? Our cultures and histories have little overlap. Frequently, we don’t even have the same skin tone! The only thing we unambiguously share is a racially dominant position in society, which is not something I want to revel in.

An interesting tidbit from Wikipedia:

> Description of populations as "White" in reference to their skin color is occasionally found in Greco-Roman ethnography and other ancient or medieval sources, but these societies did not have any notion of a White race or pan-European identity. The term "White race" or "White people", defined by their light skin among other physical characteristics, entered the major European languages in the later seventeenth century, when the concept of a "unified White" achieved greater acceptance in Europe, in the context of racialized slavery and social status in the European colonies. Scholarship on race distinguishes the modern concept from pre-modern descriptions, which focused on physical complexion rather than the idea of race. Prior to the modern era, no European peoples regarded themselves as "White"; instead they defined their identity in terms of their religion, ancestry, ethnicity, or nationality. Contemporary anthropologists and other scientists, while recognizing the reality of biological variation between different human populations, regard the concept of a unified, distinguishable "White race" as a social construct with no scientific basis.

Yes, but how is this relevant now that Harvard basically said "Screw you, we're going to do what we want even if it means going without your money." ?

How can they prevent students from attending, it's not like they are going to specifically target and refuse or void the visa of anyone known to be an Harvard student ?!? (Or I guess, yeah, this kind of arbitrary rule is the exact thing that can happen under fascism...)

These are conservative values:

  * The rule of law
  * Moral integrity
  * Respect for traditions and institutions

There's a tension between those values and other values such as a sense of fairness. People could overlook a politician who fell short of these conservative values when there was a perception that these values were holding us back from getting to a more just society.

Today we have a president who openly defies the court orders, engages in blatant corruption, and undermines American institutions. The Trump administration's vehement rejection of all of these values highlights just how critical they really are.

It's time for American conservatives to vote Democrat.

It makes you wonder if the "rule of law" and "moral integrity" were ever conservative values at all, or simply an aesthetic they adopted, like "free speech absolutism" or "common sense".

We certainly thought those were conservative values. This were the values conservatives talked about. Either it was all bullshit, or they need to stop calling themselves conservative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com