Hacker News Reader

Comment by neilv | Hacker News Reader

Can someone ELI5 the power networks involved here?

I didn't expect to see Harvard getting smacked around or humiliated like this.

Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government. And that key figures in government were interested in maintaining and benefiting from that influence.

And a lot of that influence seemed aligned with national interests. (For example, getting things done with prestige connections, domestically and internationally. And the international diplomatic goodwill, when children of the world's wealthy and powerful go to prestigious schools in the US.)

Is some other faction at work now, or is it the same people as before? Are the power networks changing? If the distribution of power is changing, is it partly due to someone willing to sacrifice national power from which all parties benefited (and everyone else wasn't expecting that, or wasn't ready to defend against that from within)? Better questions?

View on HN

> For example, getting things done with prestige connections, domestically and internationally. And the international diplomatic goodwill

What you describe is relatively recent development of US foreign policy. In 1959, John F. Kennedy purchased a copy of The Ugly American for all of his fellow US Senators. After Kennedy was elected, many foreign service programs were initiated to leverage soft power. That was JFK's legacy.

Prior to that, the US acted much in the same way as it is today. It came up with Bretton Woods, along with the UK. The people that ran the world were the Averill Harrimans and Prescott Bushes.

In 1956, the US basically told the UK it wasn't going to back the Prime Minister (Anthony Eden) with regards to the Suez Canal. That was probably a sobering indication that the UK was going to be a supplicant in the relationship. The US also returned Vietnam to France (as was policy after WW2), which of course precipitated 20 years of war in southeast asia.

The end of the WW2, and the discovery of the infiltration of Russian agents in the dead Roosevelt administration put Truman in panic mode. The iron curtain and cold war basically turned foreign policy into a huge power grab after the war to position against a perceived threat.

https://www.thehistoryreader.com/us-history/ugly-american-jf...

Much thanks for the jfk link. New info. Interesting info to me at least.

I will add a little nuance or my take. Balance as always is key. Toxic feminity or hopes/prayers/empathy holism alone is hardly an answer. Would it kill the dems to get some street smarts? No!

I know what toxic masculinity is, but what is toxic femininity?

> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government.

The simple answer is that they don't. Alumni are often in powerful positions, but even they are, that is very different from the school itself exerting influence.

I mean that alumni are invested in the prestige of the alma mater, and in the network they have through that. Also, that some people at the universities are very connected, and can get a lot of people on the phone.

But why stick your head out? The people you’re referring to got where they are now by being ruthless, egocentric, power-hungry opportunists; these kinds of people don’t risk their careers over some vague sense of gratitude for their Alma mater.

Some might feel like challenging the silverback because, well, they're ruthless, egocentric, power-hungry opportunists.

On the other hand this could just be seen as aristocracy battling it out over who's more aristocratic while the rest of us trudge on, so...

> Some might feel like challenging the silverback

That would be about as smart as challenging an actual silverback. Trump, and his administration by extension, are just past their power zenith right now. They ignore the judicial branch, send people to gulags without fair trial, accept 400 million dollar bribes on live TV, fuck over allies, suppress the press, force universities and schools to align with propaganda, lie openly about about government affairs, prioritise personal acclaim over national security, trash the global economy due to an elementary school level understanding of trade relations… This list could go on for quite a while and would still miss critically dangerous and unprecedented acts.

The democrats can't find a coherent voice; the republicans have been dismantled and are firmly in MAGA control; the people trust random TikTok influencers more than reputable journalists; judges must fear being imprisoned over doing their job; scientists and activists could get detained, deported, or imprisoned at any time and are fleeing the country.

That is the setting. That is what is happening right now. Even on the highest echelons of power, rebelling against this tsunami of corruption, delusion, and destruction is futile. All you get is a demotion, a muzzle, or a sentence. Just look at Marco Rubio; I seriously doubt he believes even a shred of all the bullshit he has to proclaim with a straight face, but he's as trapped in this as the rest of us, whether he's behind his administration or not.

Any alumni in a position of power to do something isn't interested in the prestige anymore, they already got their use out it.

A friend is a big Harvard alum. He says that most of his classmates are very unhappy with the direction of the university. So in his circle the alumni may be cheering this on. Maybe not the extremism but the general idea of telling Harvard that it needs to get back to truth-seeking.

[flagged]

Those of you who took the time to flag this completely innocuous comment should take a moment to review the site guidelines as you are abusing the mechanism.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You and others in this thread are using HN for political or ideological battle, which is against the guidelines. It's inevitable in a thread of this nature that people are going to do this, but if you want to herald the guidelines, which we appreciate, we need you to also make a sincere effort to observe them.

> You and others in this thread are using HN for political or ideological battle

You look to be an admin so you can do whatever you want, but I would point out that the only post I made that expressed an opinion is still up [0]. I don’t really have a strong opinion about the issue. I find that I only ever get flagged on HN when I ask clarifying questions on threads like these, presumably because people simply don’t like to be questioned about the claims they are making.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44068235

Yes I'm a moderator here. These politics-based threads are the most difficult for us to manage, because, whilst mainstream politics stories are generally considered to be off topic here, if a story contains "significant new information" and the weight of community sentiment supports having a thread about it, we'll yield - which means turning off the flags and flamewar penalties and spending much of the day moderating it. But then too many people treat the presence of a political topic on the front page as an open door to post whatever they want, without any regard for the guidelines at all. Then we have to spend time adjudicating between different people making accusations against other community members about breaking the guidelines, when, really, the entire thread is against the guidelines, so the whole matter is kind of moot.

> I only ever get flagged on HN when I ask clarifying questions on threads like these

We can't know exactly why people flag things, but it may be because it comes across as stirring up controversy with plausible deniability. It looks like you're trying to bait another user into making a comment that is controversial and could be attacked (or considered to be breaking the guidelines), whilst being seen as being a neutral participant yourself.

Of course we can't know your true intention, all we can know is the consequences of this kind of conduct when we see it.

So, given that you seem to care about the guidelines, which we appreciate, we ask you to demonstrate a sincere intent to observe them yourself and also to avoid baiting others into breaking them.

Bill Ackman may be the most visible. Billionaire hedge fund manager. He's a Jew who is horrified by the school's tolerance for pro Hamas protests. He was a big Democrat supporter before that, including for Obama, Booker, and Cuomo.

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

It is just crazy to me…..fuck Hamas but Israel committing genocide should be condemn by our govt, not openly supported.

it seems what all of these powerful, big thinkers are actually mad about is a school's tolerance for <anything>, the very thing that graduates of prestigious institutions don't need to like but should understand.

Bill Ackman made his bed with Trump and will now have to deal with the fact that his fate is tied to whatever random whims Trump has over the next 1,340 days.

I suppose there is a possibility that on January 21, 2029 this country won't be viciously angry about the past four years, and everyone associated with it. But I wouldn't want to bet on that.

It boggles my mind that anyone with, apparently and allegedly, such a high tier education, would be against the actions Harvard has been taking this year.

They are literally just fighting for basic academic freedoms.

Allowing students to (allegedly) be harassed on the basis of their race is what is under contention, not the broader notion of academic freedom.

That's the excuse being used, sure.

Harvard really tarnished it's reputation when the president, under oath, said that calls for the genocide of Jews would comply with their code of conduct "depending on the context". The president did end up resigning a year ago, though they have a lot of work to do to come back from that.

While what the Trump admin is doing is wrong, Harvard has given them ample cover for their actions. It would be intellectually lazy to assert, even implicitly, that Harvard has no responsibility over the current state of affairs.

They don't, because the Trump admins actions are completely unwarranted, and completely overkill, and in no way can be defended or supported.

That Harvard still has work to do is basically an entirely irrelevant point.

As a person of Jewish descent I am sickened by the way this administration is twisting the definition of antisemitism to mean things that have nothing to do with antisemitism. Antisemitism is real: devaluing it into bullshit is going to lead to the deaths of millions.

People go to Harvard because they want a prestigious career, not because they have an insatiable palate for knowledge that somehow in 2025 they can't satisfy in any other way.

"Harvard's not a real school, therefore these actions are justified"

Even if you were right about Harvard not being a real school (which is a strange thing to claim), your conclusion still doesn't follow.

Separately, is there a name for this debating technique? I would like to call it "baiting the assertion".

You claim A => B where, in fact, A does not imply B. To distract attention from the faulty logic, however, you pick a highly divisive assertion A. That makes people argue about whether A is correct, instead on focusing on the faulty implication.

Here's an example: "Ukraine provoked Russia therefore we should send 0 aid to Ukraine"

(I have seen this argument both in the US and non-US discourses.)

When this argument is presented, people feel compelled to argue whether Ukraine did or did not provoke Russia. However, this hides the fact that _even if Ukraine did provoke Russia_, if might still make sense to provide aid: - due to humanitarian concerns - because you think the Russian response (even if provoked) is not commensurate - because you think the EU should present a united front - etc

However, saying things like "even if you are right <rest of argument>" is a difficult thing to do when A is a very divisive (or glaringly incorrect) statement, which is why this is a common troll argument.

Thank you for this comment. It got me into researching more about the rhetoric types and think about all the people I've come across who make similar arguments.

Yeah this is also my read, people are horrified by the university behavior and generally supportive of the administration on this stuff. The 'elite' schools are becoming a counter signal it'll be embarrassing to have attended.

and that last phrase is worthy of chairman mao. anti elitism rapidly turns into anti competence.

in which circles would one be embarrassed to have attended Harvard?

the notion of foisting your narrow-minded vision of reality on 300 million people is sickening.

that is the totalitarianism our forebears fought 2 world wars and a cold war over.

your thinking is worthy of stalin ot mao.

shame be upon such a sorry excuse for thought

The circle embarrassed by ignorant students screaming for intifada.

Mao is a good example because it was similarly ignorant students that drove the cultural revolution and ended up killing millions. There's a line from these Harvard students to the two Jews a "Free Palestine" communist executed this week.

You're right that communism is a threat - you're wrong about where the threat lies.

The fund-raising email the President of Harvard sent us after the gov pulled federal funding begins: "Dear Alumni and Friends,

In recent weeks, thousands of you have sent encouraging messages, asked thoughtful questions, provided candid feedback, and made generous new gifts to the University. Many of you also shared deeply moving stories of how Harvard changed and shaped your lives. Your outpouring of appreciation and support reinforces the importance of our institution and what it represents. Thank you for your commitment to the University and its ideals." It goes in at length, and as the international recipient of a full-ride scholarship you can bet I was happy join in and double my annual gift. Just as trump was able to raise money from his various trials, so to Harvard draws sympathy from this: and while trumps's supporters are many, Harvard's supporters are rich, so it comes out in a wash and is effectively just melodrama to wind us all up with. The Harvard network is wide and varied so while I am sure there are some like your "big Harvard alum" who are cheering attacks on a major source of their own and their country's prestige, but in my circle of conservative alumni friends I have heard exactly the opposite reaction: even those who were still card-carrying Republicans were already apoplectic about the tariff debacle's impact on their net worth so all this petty virtue-signaling against the alma-mater that launched them on their successful careers hasn't done anything to heal the growing rift...

Not a single alum I've talked to is happy about what Trump is doing.

That said, it's not only the Harvard issue that is giving everyone pause, it's the direction of the Administration in general. In fact, for a lot of them, Harvard is the least of the problems the US will be facing the next 20 years due to this Administration. Europe is moving. China is moving. And neither are moving in the direction we thought they were moving prior to Trump coming into office.

My general feel on conservative Harvard/MIT alums is "Buyer's Remorse". A fair sentiment likely shared by most of the nation at this point. I keep hoping that maybe it gets better? At some point, someone, somewhere has to realize the economy, at minimum, has to be brought back in hand. When that happens, maybe we see more movement on these other issues. If it doesn't happen, we'll see movement on new political leadership over the next few election cycles.

I didn't want to measure relative genitalia size with "friend of Big Harvard", but as it happens I was on the Executive Board of an Asian country's Harvard Club during a trump election campaign, and, duty-bound to attend multiple in-person events a month for the year, I accumulated plenty of anecdotes that confirm your experience. Instead of doxing myself with them, I crunched some central bank numbers from this unaligned Asian country for us instead: before trump (2016) the ratio of Western-sphere FDI to Chinese FDI was ~5:1 in favor of the West, but as of 2024 it had reached ~5:1 in favor of China. (Subjectively, the loss of soft-power has been order of magnitude more gradual than the abrupt swing in business influence here.) Regardless, the local Harvard Club has in fact already sent out a subsequent "support" email specific to this international issue, and I'm sure local elites are circling wagons full of generational wealth to defend their offspring's future Ivy credentials regardless of who they're going to end up in business with once they get back.

if there are harvard alum are cheering this on they are morons without a doubt. Trump couldnt care less about truth seeking in the slightest he just wants complete and full control with his delusional backwards thought process. you can want change on something but that doesnt mean that when another individual/goverment comes along theyre going to change something for the better.

people were unhappy with bidens handling of israel so they voted for trump and where did that get them?

A big wakeup call for me is I believed the idea that there was a small group of people in the US that had the "real power". The billionaires, the corporations, the elite whoevers. And on a certain level that was comforting, because their self-interest to keep the United States as the best place for capitalism meant that certain political excesses would be limited.

But with the Trump admin, I've realized that just isn't the case. There's nobody who has the ability to rein this in.

A big problem with other spheres like education is that they do not react immediately in the sense that the effects of a change in policy won't be realized for decades. The economy on the other hand basically has an instant reaction to policy changes. When Trump put out tariffs and saw the instant economic reaction, he somewhat walked it back.

But the reaction to changes in areas like research and education isn't realized for years if not decades. So Trump doesn't feel the consequences. For non-economic spheres, the only real immediate reaction to these changes is the social reaction, which comes from people Trump is actively aligned against and entrenches his position.

In my opinion the reason why they are getting smacked is because they are powerful. This is textbook 101 dictatorship power grab in action. Harvard in the US is law. If they can't fight this, probably nobody else can or will.

One explanation might be that the objects of their influence are nested within agencies.

Most presidents let the agencies run mostly unsupervised, it seems like. With the agencies now under heavy fire structurally, they may not be able to do what they would normally do to prevent this kind of thing.

I think the whole agency model gives the president way more power than they are meant to have. I guess this exists to serve as a form of blame laundering from the people without term limits to the guy with term limits? But if the president does not play ball, suddenly they have power over things congress would otherwise have power over. Oops.

The intent of agencies was three-fold:

1. As the US grew and the workload required to govern it grew, Congress' ability to directly and quickly manage the country was outpaced. Consequently, agencies served as the grease between Congress' high-level actions/funding and the low-level implementation.

2. Due to the ever-adversarial nature of Congress, it was recognized that most Congresses operated slowly, and consequently didn't have the capacity to micromanage at the level required for direct control.

3. Circa 1900, civil service reform by the then-progressive wing of the Republican party pushed for greater isolation of the expertise that drove good government outcomes (in civil service employees) from politicians (administrators).

The flaw Trump revealed was that the President has too much direct power over the civil service, if he chooses to ignore tradition.

This wasn't always the case, and laws that previously restrained the President's ability to fuck with the civil service were substantially relaxed in the 60s - 80s (?).

Conversely, the flaw of the civil servant plan during Trump 1 was that stonewalling the top of your org chart can really bite you if he sticks around too long or, maybe worse, comes back.

In any case, the President will keep having too much power until Congress starts taking theirs back.

> I thought they had influence throughout government.

That's "institutional talk", which is not relevant when you have a "mad king".

It's hard for me to see this as anything more than "they resisted Trump, that pissed him off and now he's further retaliating."

Side question I've been wrestling with to whoever feels like commenting: At what point would you look at our current US situation and say "yep, we're now in a dictatorship"

Dictatorships require at least some sort of state monopoly on violence. That's how power ultimately works.

As of now there's no way for the state to enact such a monopoly in the US.

Agreed, dictatorship is a gross exaggeration. Sliding toward fascism? Sure. Would Tump like to do away with election? He’s said he does, that they won’t be necessary.

In the bill that has recently been passed, the republicans have inserted a clause that means no administration official can be found guilty of criminal contempt by the federal courts.

This will mean that the courts are literally powerless against the administration's malfeasance. The executive will be able to do what they like, and even if this bill doesn't pass the senate, SCOTUS will likely strike down as unconstitutional any appointment by the courts of a private attorney to prosecute criminal contempt because it has been stuffed with useful idiots.

This isn't sliding towards fascism, this is speed running 30's Germany.

SCOTUS was packed even before Trump's first term. This is speed-running the cherry on top of a sundae that was already made.

the usa is seeing the state employ that monopoly right now:

- against opposing members of the legislative branch (lamonica mciver)

- against opposing members of the judicial branch (hannah dugan)

- against opposing members of the executive branch (ras baraka, andrew cuomo)

- against opposing private organizations (harvard, institute for peace)

- against opposing private individuals (chris krebs)

- against defenders of opponents (multiple lawfirms)

- not to mention rewarding private individuals who employed private violence against political enemies -- we saw this during duterte (ashli babbitt, the rest of the insurrectionists)

if there is no monopoly on violence in the usa, who else exactly is the monopolist permitting to use it?

The proletariat has the capacity to violently resist (See: Butler,PA), but the Venn overlap among those with the most firepower and those who actually support the oppressors is two concentric circles.

At least a couple of months ago.

The day Kilmar Abrego Garcia was supposed to be brought back, but defiantly wasn’t.

You know, usually I'd assume this was a misspelling of "definitely" but this time, I'm really not sure.

It was definitely a deliberate choice. :)

I would read the constitution and come to terms with the fact that the executive authority is vested in a president. It’s not quite a king, because it’s not passed down by inheritance and they can’t enact laws by fiat… but the president is supremely powerful during their term.

And that’s good. There’s no denying that the executive branch (its agencies, officers, regulators, etc) is supremely powerful. The only question is whether the public have any democratic control over the exercise of that authority.

If you've been aware of Trump at all since the 1970's he's always been vastly inferior to anyone who takes academic effort seriously. And he knows it, his whole life, a lot better than anyone else, that's way longer than the general public who didn't really become aware of it until the '70's.

Even though he went to a prestigious school himself he's not the kind to make an academic pursuit resembling anything like truly sensible Presidents. The complete opposite of the league of actual accomplished Harvard men like Bush and Obama. What a weenie, Trump is probably just jealous and hates himself and everyone else because he'll never measure up to people having average-to-above-average intellect & integrity. Completely on brand to whine like a child with the most amplified voice he's ever had. So that's what he's going to do instead of something worthwhile for the citizens.

This is an explanation from my department chair which I've expanded. In the context of a university, there are four main power groups - the alumni, the faculty, the students, and the board of trustees. (Within each group of course are subfactions.) The actual power balance between these groups is never precisely certain (it's an unobservable "latent variable"). Whenever large events happen that involve the university, we get observations that allow us to estimate the latent variable better.

In the case of Harvard, I think the current observations are most consistent with the following: the Board of Trustees, faculty, and students have currently aligned in their goals - which we might summarize as (1) maintaining independence from the government and (2) the ability to hold/teach specific "controversial" viewpoints (benefits of diversity, anti-colonialism, potentially other "progressive" concepts). I suspect that within the factions the relative importance of these two goals is not balanced. The fact that the coalition has survived much longer than, e.g., Columbia, is somewhat surprising.

My suspicion is that the answer to your question is that the persistent "smacking around" is only in part due to the external factors other replies have mentioned. I think a major piece of the situation can be explained by a change in the power dynamic with the alumni. Under normal circumstances, the faculty presumably hope to maintain long lasting influence over their alumni, which the board of trustees leverage to bring in more money and influence to the university. The current situation suggests that the high-power/high-$$$ portion of the alumni who are in a position to leverage the public conversation about what's going on are not doing it. This implies that the strength of that edge of the power graph is much weaker than it was expected to be. I think it remains to be seen whether this is true. Further observations that would support that would be reduced donations, public complaints, etc. Conversely, increased fundraising and more public support would suggest the opposite.

The key point about the university power network is that USUALLY, the best situation is to avoid situations that actually reveal too much information. Everyone would prefer to believe they have more power than they do. Obviously the alumni are composed of factions, and presumably a large fraction of the potential participants are also members of other organizations with latent power networks and participating in this particular situation would involve expending capital in these other networks with potential reduction in power. Some alumni that have spoken up (i.e., Ackman) are clearly unaligned with the current coalition, and this MAY reflect the fact that the wealthy/powerful group of alumni that have sustained Harvard are really unhappy with the current stances of the university and would like it to shift (return?) to a different set of ideologies. But it's also possible that he represents a minority, and the rest are just nervous about getting involved.

My conclusion from this analysis is that things will persist as they have, with everyone who might be involved hoping that lawsuits will be successful in resolving the situation with the minimum of their involvement. If this approach is unsuccessful, I think we'll end up in a situation where we get a much better observation of the power balance between alumni, faculty, and board (I think the students rarely have as much power as they think they do!).

It feels like a situation where alumni are holding their breath. It reminds me of that moment in basketball games where the ball bounces around the rim - will it go in or will it bounce out? If I'm on the sidelines of that game, then I'm not going to vocalize until the ball settles.

> This implies that the strength of that edge of the power graph is much weaker than it was expected to be

Funnily, 2 Harvard profs have written the easiest way for me to point out that the media / Information economy in America is broken. (Network Propaganda)

Which would explain why Alumni dont have power, or for that matter any experts. This is fundamentally why Trump is in power, and why decisions that have zero connection to scientific fact or even reality.

Either everyone starts talking in terms of the reality being litigated on Fox and other related networks on the Right, or people find a way to actually engage in a fair debate. Democracy is fundamentally conversation.

Many people associated with the University are pretty happy about it getting smacked down.

Shameless, wrong, and overtly illegal discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and creed, suppression of free speech, even the compelling of speech have all been de rigeur for Harvard for the past decade.

I just wish they would use a scalpel rather than a sledge hammer.

[flagged]

On HN they eschew talking about downvotes, friend.

I know ... but I was so curious!

It’s a short but sweeping claim without a citation in sight. That’s a recipe for a flame war but it probably won’t lead to a useful discussion since anyone who would respond is simply guessing at what you’re even talking about or whether you actually arrived at that position through research rather than simple partisan loyalty.

Nice. But none of the anti - trump comments bother with evidence. I hate what aboutism but this is too blatant. Everyone who follows the media even a little bit is fully aware of what OP is talking about. Very ugly things are taking place under the guise of DEI and other such dishonest terms.

This is a great example of the problem. You clearly think there’s some “ugly things” which are widespread in your media diet, but nobody else can read your mind to know what those things are or how honest the people who told you about them were, and we don’t even know if they’re the same things the original poster had in mind.

Now, based on your characterization of even questioning a bold assertion of illegality as anti-Trump we can make some assumptions about your position and media diet, but those aren’t likely to be completely accurate and it’s unlikely that a thread started on a poor footing will result in a good conversation.

Ah. I worked there for years, still spend a lot of time there, and therefore know a lot of people who either are or were there. I should have said that.

It’d be especially useful to have more specifics about what you’re talking about. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of university administrators, politics, etc. but without even knowing what you’re talking about a lot of people, especially those who’ve been here for a while, are going to see that, decide it won’t have a positive outcome, and downvote.

Thanks for explaining. More specifics:

The University (and many other universities) has been engaging in overtly illegal discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and creed in hiring, grants, and I'm sure many other areas. There were many job postings where the CVs of white men were never looked at, because of their skin color and sex. There were many grant-funded opportunities (often federally-funded) where a white man, or a man, or a straight person would not have a chance because of those characteristics. Oh, and I should mention "diversity statements", now called "belonging statements". These are political tests: regardless of your skin color and genitals, if you don't sing the right political song you have no chance. This was a first line assessment at many places (e.g., UC Berkeley). This was all overt in that it was openly talked about, people would send emails to the effect "this job opening must go to a brown woman", etc. People generally, somehow, even Americans, didn't understand it was illegal. I would be greeted with quizzical looks if I enlightened them! (in casual conversation, of course, never officially!). This is all for hiring and similar. Students are different, and since the end of affirmative action Harvard has been still doing everything it can to continue discriminating against e.g. East Asians and Whites, which is of course illegal.

You risked losing your job for expressing an uncool belief (e.g., Carole Hooven: https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/02/15/carole-hooven-wh...). Of course, they will try to force you to resign before actually firing you, which would leave open the possibility of legal problems. This may be a sort of "why not, it's a small thing, just say it" to a chemist, but to an endocrinologist or social scientist it can be intolerable.

Compelled speech was on the table, too, which is a bright line we have so far, as a society, have managed not to cross. Harvard and other elite universities were crossing it, and the Biden admin's Title IX rules overtly crossed it (by forcing you to use someone's preferred pronouns). A bad look, to put it mildly.

When former soviets are speaking out about compelled speach:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38985343

^speech

For every person that went through these elite schools, they must have rejected five or more other people. These schools pride themselves on turning people away. Perhaps, they have far more enemies than friends, explaining their seeming lack of influence in this situation

They absolutely prize having large pools of applicants to reject. Admission percentage is a prestigious statistic.

Harvard (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the Ivy League) collects a lot of federal money, this comes with certain conditions around treating people fairly without respect to skin color, ethnicity, or religion.

A regular corporation with the same fact pattern of discrimination would be looking at a billion+ dollar fine.

this is just Harvard losing some special privilges and being expected to act reasonably fairly like any other publicly funded institution.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-163976813

They're not actually so scientifically productive that we should tolerate discrimination in order to get the fruits of their research.

It’s less a shift in power networks and more about Trump using existing presidency tools more aggressively. Harvard didn’t lose influence, it’s being targeted because it's outspoken and symbolic. The immigration authority falls under the executive branch, so the president can act unilaterally, without needing broader support.

> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government.

Harvard and Yale didn't hire the right lobbyists [0][1][2]

The other universities like Dartmouth, MIT, and public university systems did.

One of the side effect of being large endowment private universities meant Harvard and Yale remained extremely insular and concentrated on donor relations over government relations.

For example, MIT across town remained much more integrated with public-private projects compared to Harvard, and ime Harvard would try to leverage their alumni network where possible, but the Harvard alumni network just isn't as strong as it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Also, don't underestimate the Israel-Palestine culture war's impact on campus alumni relationships. Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli campus orgs have continued to bombard me and other alumni to fight political battles against Harvard leadership for their side. Benefits of signing up to both Islamic orgs and Chabad to broaden my horizons back in the day I guess. Alumni from orgs on both sides are fine targeting the entire university, because fundamentally, Harvard is a very isolated experience where loyalty is to your house, a couple clubs, or your grad program - not Harvard as a whole.

And because Harvard has a lot of HNW alumni, they always try to meddle in some shape or form - Wen Jiabao's best friend funds the Fairbank Center, Kraft funds and hosts events at Chabad, some al Saud branches fund a couple Islamic clubs, a bunch of alt-right leaning Catholic traditionalists fund the Abigail Adams Institute, etc. It's just inter-elite fratricide at this point because no one truly gives a poo about Harvard.

Honestly, Harvard should prevent alumni from funding campus orgs, but they won't do so because donor relations.

[0] - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/19/trump-is-bombarding...

[1] - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/09/small-colleges-trum...

[2] - https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2024...

Edit: I am extremely pro-academic freedom. This move is a HORRIBLE affront to free speech and campus autonomy. My cynicism and disillusionment may sound like I support the move by the administration, but it is the complete opposite.

Dartmouth is a smaller target without the name recognition of Harvard, and MIT has stronger ties to the MIC without the strong public image of a liberal institution. Harvard is a test case (what can this admin do) and a symbol almost in its own category for Trump's followers.

Harvard (the University, not it's alums) has had a near nil presence on K-Street for a looooong time - and their primary lobbyist with the GOP has been on Trump's bad side for sometime after he pissed off David Sacks.

I'm also an (severely disillusioned) alumni of some of the student orgs that are mutually using Harvard the institution as a punching bag to fight their culture wars.

A lot of this is honestly very childish BS done by some petulant alums who were already dicks on campus.

There is very little campus loyalty at Harvard which makes it easier to use it as a punching bag for your culture war (whichever way you lean).

Sorry to ask, who is "their primary lobbyist with the GOP"?

https://ballardpartners.com/team-member/brian-d-ballard/

To talk with this admin, you need a person who's part of the Florida GOP milleu in the 90s. Susie Wiles is the one who's managing/operating the show. Almost everyone who matters in Florida republican politics since the 90s owes favors to her.

Similar to how if you had an in into Chicago or IL Dem politics in the 90s or 2000s, you had an in with the Obama admin becuase of Axelrod, Rahm, and Jack Daley.

That is just shockingly cynical. We're facing a situation where a sitting government feels empowered to go to war against an elite university solely over the speech it doesn't like to hear on its campus.

And your response is to dismiss it all as a kerfuffle over "bad lobbying" and "inter-elite fratricide"? Really?

Surely there are existing institutions of some form or another you'd like to see not made enemies of the state. You don't maybe see a principle at work here beyond your personal dislike of academia?

I'm a severely disillusioned alum of a couple of the campus orgs really driving some of this.

> Surely there are existing institutions of some form or another you'd like to see not made enemies of the state. You don't maybe see a principle at work here beyond your personal dislike of academia

Hold up - I'm massively pro-academic freedom and autonomy. I'm just pointing out that there's a fight happening behind this fight that has been going on in a subset of the Harvard alum community that has snowballed into this fiasco.

> That is just shockingly cynical

You don't understand unless you actually attended Harvard. It's a very isolating and cliquish experience which incentivizes you to exist within your echo chamber.

Even joining god damn clubs on campus required "Comping" (basically the same as rushing in frats)

Major reason I spent most of my time at MIT and BU or the grad schools like HKS and HBS instead - middle class schools tend to have less of a stick up their butt.

Edit: can't reply to you below, but tl;dr I agree with your callout. I edited my initial comment because as you pointed out it did come off as if I had schachenfreude.

> I can say with 100% sincerity that'd I'd feel the same horror if a White House was similarly going after TCU, or Liberty University, or even Yale

I agree. I'm just exasperated by this whole fiasco and that's why my post is so angry in tone

> Hold up - I'm massively pro-academic freedom and autonomy.

Then maybe you'd like to rephrase your upthread comment which seems very comfortable with a clear and obvious attack on academic freedom and autonomy?

> You don't understand unless you actually attended Harvard.

Class of '96. But really I don't see how that's relevant in the face of the current crisis. I can say with 100% sincerity that'd I'd feel the same horror if a White House was similarly going after TCU, or Liberty University, or even Yale.

It's. Awful. And it's not made less so because some of the students are Zionists, or Palestinian Sympathizers, or Vegan, or whatever it is you're upset about.

> Then maybe you'd like to rephrase your upthread comment which seems very comfortable with a clear and obvious attack on academic freedom and autonomy?

On it! I agree with you 100% - it's horrid.

> But really I don't see how that's relevant in the face of the current crisis

There are some interpersonal relations and egos that got mixed into this, along with a very cynical anti-establishment play. It takes a couple bad apples to spoil the batch, and that's what it feels like has happened. I was a Gov secondary during the Obama years so I bumped into a lot of the people who ended up on either side of the political and cultural divide. I feel digging into that helps explain how this has really snowballed. It's been a rolling crisis for a couple years now.

> It's. Awful. And it's not made less so because some of the students are Zionists, or Palestinian Sympathizers, or Vegan, or whatever it is you're upset about

I agree, but ignoring some of the ego and personal clashes that has caused this crisis means you lose the bigger picture.

Fighting antisemitism is clearly not the true motive behind this ideological "war", just as denazification was clearly not the motive for Russia's invasion of Ukraine; it's just a convenient excuse to target institutions such as Harvard that are unwilling to distance themselves from the progressive left.

Exactly this. It's nothing but an attempt to punish them for not kissing the ring. If only we had another arm of government able to hold this clearly corrupt behavior to account....

There would have been a stronger one if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired at a time that supported a 5/4 ideological balance on the Supreme Court.

Instead of the hubris to hold onto the job until death and thereby subsequently undo many of the things she spent her life fighting for.

Finding a successor and handing over your power is one of the most important responsibilities of the powerful, when they have a say.

Yeah, that was a pretty bad decision, but the bigger issue is still a population that votes based on misinformation and 'alternative facts'. Until that is resolved, if it even can be at this point, then this tribal and sometimes cultish behavior is only going to become more prevalent, in turn doing more damage to the country.

Personally, I think we've started on a path to self-destruction that can't be reversed.

> Personally, I think we've started on a path to self-destruction that can't be reversed.

Do you mean, 'we' as in the US, or 'we,' as in humanity?

[either way, I'm not saying you're wrong :( ]

Oh, I mean the US specifically. I'm optimistic the other western powers won't go down the same self-destructive path the US has chosen, largely because they have much better public education pre-college, and much more accessible higher education.

I expect even China and India to start improving drastically in all the ways that matter as the US continues to downlside.

Pretty bold to blame RBG without spending a breath on Mitch McConnell, who stole an appointment from Obama because he said it was too close to the election to fill the seat; and then rushed to fill the seat vacated by RBG even though it was so close to the election. Treating the court with that kind of partisan contempt is the reason why the court is as partisan as it is.

Yeah, McConnell really acted like scum by doing that. But it's fair to say RBG didn't help things.

There is different blame.

I expect McConnell to be an advocate for harm. But RBG could have made a decision that made it impossible for the GOP to flip her seat in the way that she did. I expect people that are ostensibly fighting for the same things as me to act in ways that help achieve that.

Indeed. It's pretty stupid in game theory to make a move that's beneficial only if your opponent also then makes a choice against their self interest.

Instead of the hubris to hold onto the job until death and thereby subsequently undo many of the things she spent her life fighting for.

A bit off-topic, but this seems to be an ongoing problem for the Democratic party. They just lost an important vote on a budget bill in the House by a single vote, because Gerry Connolly wasn't willing to give up his House seat and instead clung on until he (very predictably) died of cancer a few days ago.

This is drama, a republican congressperson was asleep for the bill. This is producing storylines to sell during the mid terms.

Dont believe it for a second. The Republican Party moves in lockstep.

But if the Democratic guy had stepped down and they had a non sick person then the story would have been much better: Republican bill fails because one of their members was asleep and missed the vote.

He would be awake for the vote.

They would go to his location and shake him awake if they had to.

>Harvard and Yale didn't hire the right lobbyists.

I don't think it's as simple as this. To my knowledge, Dr. Sian Leah Beilock handled the protests of the past 2 years much better than their counterparts.

Oh easily! But the issue is Brian Ballard (their GOP lobbyist) stepped on a lot of feet and pissed people (primarily David Sacks) off, leading him to get metaphorically slapped by the Trump admin.

So they're frozen out from K-Street in the medium term.

On top of that, a couple extremely active and very wealthy alumni have continued to maintain a grudge and have an ear in the admin

And finally, it's an easy anti-establishment win.

Finally, this is specifically a Harvard College thing - the alumni of other schools at Harvard are much less... let's say idealistic.

>And because Harvard has a lot of HNW alumni, they always try to meddle in some shape or form - Wen Jiabao's best friend funds the Fairbank Center, Kraft funds and hosts events at Chabad, some al Saud branches fund a couple Islamic clubs, a bunch of alt-right leaning Catholic traditionalists fund the Abigail Adams Institute, etc. It's just inter-elite fratricide at this point because no one truly gives a poo about Harvard.

When you put it like that... should I make some popcorn?

When elephants fight, it's the grass that gets trampled.

Harvard plays a significant role multiple fields of study (from social science to humanities to hard sciences), and a significant portion of their grad students are affected by the SEVP revocation.

Furthermore, a number of fields just don't have that many domestic graduate students because the domestic pipeline for a number of fields such as Distributed Systems is almost non-existent, and students often get poached with just a bachelors for industry. Not bad for students, but applied research or part-time industrial PhDs don't exist in the US.

The Project 2025 people and the Yarvinists agree that elite universities like Harvard are spreading the “woke mind virus” and must be destroyed. They consider their movements a revolution, not an iteration on the status quo.

Project 2025 is about uneducated people now having power and trying to stop other people from becoming educated

I downloaded the file (must still be somewhere in my "Downloads" folder with many other forever-unread PDFs). I would suggest for anyone living in the US, to find and read that because this is (more or less) what will happen in the/your country in the next 3.5 years.

(if I remember well it's 150-170 pages - and since I don't live in the US the meme "Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" is spot on).

This is another good resource: https://www.project2025.observer/

Skip the reading (it's too hard) - watch the documentary version instead, Idiocracy (2006)

Totally different situation. President Camacho found the smartest man in the world to fix his problems.

Good point. In our timeline America found the dumbest man in the world to fix its problems.

To be fair, they took the two most average Americans and sent them to the future in the movie. We skipped steps and chose someone the most average person could completely understand today. Apparently, the future is now.

The movie also sent Upgrayedd but left that story arc for a sequel.

Project 2025 is only the “part 1” doc, and they’re tracking to wrap most of it up this year.

You don't need to read the file. It's history repeating itself. Just read about China during the cultural revolution or Cambodia during the 70s.

It's around 900 pages. In NYC we have a study group to go over it -- we've covered just a handful of chapters. But most people can get a lot out of just reading the opening section.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-202...

You can understand, for example, most of their tactics about immigration by reading the section on Homeland Security, tariffs by reading the Economy section (by Peter Navarro), and so on. They are in fact hewing pretty closely to the plan.

I think the people who work at the Heritage foundation are very well educated, they're just also very cynical.

> Between Harvard, Yale, and possibly a few other schools, I thought they had influence throughout government.

Turns out the "deep state" is just some made up bullshit to make people distrustful, angry, and easier to manipulate.

> Is some other faction at work now, or is it the same people as before? Are the power networks changing?

Nope, it's always been this dynamic. It's made of people after all. But that doesn't work as well to get people lapping up Trumpty Dumpty propaganda.

> Can someone elucidate the power networks involved here?

Major players, regarding the Gaza/Hamas issue:

- Harvard itself. The administration, not the faculty or students.

- The US Eastern Establishment, the Ivy League and its graduates. They once ran the US, and still run finance, but are less influential politically than a few decades ago.

- The Netanyahu faction in Israel. Understanding this requires more info about Israeli politics than is worth posting here. Wikipedia has a summary.[1] There are a huge number of factions. Netanyahu leads a coalition. The coalition seems to need an enemy to hold it together.

- MAGA. "Project 2025" is the MAGA playbook. Despite some denials, the Trump administration has mostly been following that playbook.

- Israel's lobby in the US, starting with AIPAC. American Jews as a group average left of center, but the Israel lobby is hard-right.

- Major donors to Harvard. Some are closely associated with the Israel lobby and vocal about it. Others aren't.

- The US courts. Anyone can bring a case to court, and courts have to do something about it.

- Trump.

Minor players:

- Fox News. 23 of Trump's appointees came from Fox News. The MAGA base listens to Fox News.

- The United Nations. Provides some aid, but hasn't been able to do more than that.

- US Congress. Has the real power, but is too divided to do anything with it.

- Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. They're the ones most affected, but lack any real power at this point. It's not even suggested that they be represented in international meetings.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel

Fox and the rest of the media network is the main player. They spend the energy required to present an alternative reality for their base, and have insulated their viewers from any discussion on a shared common reality.

Furthermore, they are effectively part of the Republican Party. So they create and maintain a political reality which is purpose built to achieve political goals.

The underlying assumption of western liberal democracies is that participants can figure things out together. You cannot figure things out when you have one side intentionally creating alternate narratives to stymie conversation and debate, to shore up negotiating power for the leaders of their bloc.

The government controls the migration system independent of Harvard.

The prestige networks people perceive as existing are actually just plot devices for Hollywood.

Obvious answer is obvious.

I am not entirely sure what you mean but I will disagree with other commenters that there are no factions at war with each other. If you look at the prosecutors who went after Trump in the past few years, they were disproportionately Harvard Law grads. So that is Merrick Garland, Matthew Colangelo, Alvin Bragg, and Jack Smith. I do think that law schools in particular have cultivated a particular political view and are not independent or nonpartisan but I very much disagree with what Trump is doing.

I think there are almost certainly factions here. I personally think Trump is targeting Harvard because of the above reason. Overall I think the situation is quite bad but that isn't what you asked.

You're overthinking this. The university is vocal about keeping its independence. That's enough to warrant retaliation from this president.

Or, perhaps more simply, the days of the "Good Ol' Boys" who all went to the same power school and use that as a way to influence politics are over?

I'm reminded of the infamous George Carlin bit "It's a big club, and you ain’t in it"[1]. Maybe not anymore... and that's a most likely a good thing.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/964648-but-there-s-a-reason...

Going by Occam's razor, grandparent's hypothesis is more likely to be correct than yours.

It's also the pinnacle university, at least in optics.

It is like getting Zuck to kneel and donate $1M. Once he did that, everyone else donated a $1M and peaced out.

Isn't a lot of the appeal of Trump that he does not owe anything to these power networks? Others in the Republican party may do so, but Trump has the Republican party well under control, and so doesn't have to listen to anyone. Trump has drained the previous swamp and erected a new one, and Harvard never got an invitation.

The previous swamp hasn’t gone anywhere, your just not noticing it due to the enormous size of the new one.

I think its a few reasons/things here...(some already noted in some way by others)

* Trump does not care or maybe lacks the understanding of the concept of a network and influence with entities outside the U.s.

* Trump probably figures that he can use this as sort of leverage against negotiations with non-U.s. entities...but using a blunt instrument instead of nuance, or backchannels.

* Trump is foolishly following the guidelines from the architects of project 2025...whether those folks are educated enough to understand value of schools of higher educatioin, or worse, these architects fear having an educated population - regardless if that population are U.S. citizens or folks outside of U.S.

* Trump is behaving like a child having a tantrum, and is demolishing the "swamp" of current political arenas, and re-building it for himself/his party...and Harvard and other entities (that typically might be invited) are not invited in the upcoming new world order.

* Trump has little desire in any/all of this, and this is simply another stab at pushing the envelope of what the U.s. Executive branch can/can not do...much like a child who pushes boundaries to see how far they can get...and if no one pushes back/challenges (at least in meaningful ways), then they will keep pushing until greater power has been obtained.

...of course, it could be a combination of many of the above at the same time as well...and could be other stuff that i didn't note above too. In other words, welcome to the modern U.S. tyranny. ;-)

Most of Trump's behavior makes sense when you realize his dealmaking strategy is bullying:

1. Exert maximun possible pressure

2. Strike the best deal possible

Reasons only matter in the sense of selecting initial targets. Once into dealmaking, it's anything and everything thrown at an opponent.

You can see this in terms of what stops him: equal counterpressure (China) or consequences (US stocks and treasuries being dumped)

Similarly, once a deal is struck, reasons again don't matter.

The problem is that deals made under duress have little lasting value. The bullied party feels little moral compunction to uphold the terms a moment longer than necessary, plus they will naturally be skeptical of the bullying party's commitment to do so in the future.

Oh, it's absolutely asinine. Which is why international geopolitics and real estate differ.

> project 2025...whether those folks are educated enough to understand value of schools of higher educatioin, or worse, these architects fear having an educated population

They may or may not be educated, but they're openly and actively against an educated populace for a multitude of reasons, from resistance to their ideas, to "get to work and start having babies for Christ". They will openly say that the first preference for a male school leaver/graduate should be to find a job, not further education.

>> Are the power networks changing?

Yes and this can't be overstated. Interests that were previously aligned are now going to fracture. Everything is up for grabs now.

I'm going to guess there may be a great deal many people who are Harvard Alumni who agree with the Trump Administration on this.

Disregarding whatever surface-level motivations Trump might have, let's look at some things attacking Harvard accomplishes.

1. Maybe most importantly, attacking academic institutions is part of the fascist coup playbook. [1] That could really be enough motivation on its own - these steps have lead to the desired outcome before, if you follow them closely enough they will probably work again. Just like the seemingly out-of-the-left-field framing of DEI, of all things, as the big Enemy that is corrupting art, science and the American people itself. It seems crazy, but notice how well it's working.

2. It's another vase to throw in the air, forcing you to catch it, cartoon-style. People who care and believe in process will spend time and energy going through the court system to limit the damage done, but the defenders will lag behind, their focus divided, while the attackers can just keep breaking bigger and bigger things, since they not care much what damage they do to people or their country.

3. It lets them target pro-Palestine protesters gradually starting from the most extreme. The genocide in Gaza can go a lot further. It is mutually beneficial for Trump, Netanyahu and Putin to divide both domestic and international outrage between them (see point 2.) By the time the full scale of the atrocities are clear, arresting and prosecuting protesters for "antisemitism" will be routine. And if you're not willing to stand up and protest, and therefore be removed, chances are you won't stick your neck out when they instate "temporary" changes to federal elections - only out of some extreme necessity, of course.

[1] https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/higher-education-i...

The best source I've seen for understanding the underlying power dynamics at play is the DHS's Press Release: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses...

Here's the beginning:

WASHINGTON – Today, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered DHS to terminate the Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification.

This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.

Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment. Many of these agitators are foreign students. Harvard’s leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide.

“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” said Secretary Noem. “It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”

On April 16, 2025, Secretary Noem demanded Harvard provide information about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus. Secretary Noem warned refusal to comply with this lawful order would result in SEVP termination.

This action comes after DHS terminated $2.7 million in DHS grants for Harvard last month.

Harvard University brazenly refused to provide the required information requested and ignored a follow up request from the Department’s Office of General Council. Secretary Noem is following through on her promise to protect students and prohibit terrorist sympathizers from receiving benefits from the U.S. government.

I think a fair answer might be that this immediate action is primarily about Israel, and Harvard's toleration and apparent support of organizations that the US government considers to be terrorists. Harvard has quite consciously taken an antagonistic approach here, and the government feels it is responding in kind.

Secondarily, it's about the way that elite schools have aligned themselves with the progressive politics associated with the Democratic party. Harvard is the target here because they are strongest, not necessarily because they are the most liberal. If the government can humble Harvard, they expect that all the weaker institutions will fold without a fight.

> Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.

Remember when people were really mad about weaponizing the government? I guess that's okay now. Good to know.

I'll take this opportunity to mention that I don't think the DHS press release should be taken as "authoritative" on anything other than the government's intentions. As you point out, the administration is being wonderfully clear that they intend to make an example of Harvard and punish those who would side with them.

I'm glad that despite being immediately being voted to a negative score and pushed to the bottom, some people like you are reading the link. If the goal is to understand what Harvard is up against, I think it's really useful to read what the government is actually claiming. I wasn't expecting that many people here would be persuaded by it!

Bill Ackman is mad at Harvard for allowing the Palestine protests. He switched his support to Trump for that one reason. This is the payoff.

> Bill Ackman is mad at Harvard for allowing the Palestine protests. He switched his support to Trump for that one reason

Ackman voted for Trump in 2016.

A lot of people don't want to hear it but Trump isn't really a part of the Washington elite and is bringing in his own circle of people from his first pass at being President. Along the way he has picked up various sycophants and of course likes to hob knob with other billionaires. That is the clique you are dealing with, not the traditional washington crowd from Ivy Leagues. Harvard has a history of standing up to Trrump and he doesn't like that and is a very veangeful person, whether he was in the wrong or not. Unless you bend the knee (he can be very "forgiving" then if it benefits him or his ego) you are going to be a target. Mix that with his sociopathy and zero concern over rule of law and it doesn't look good for Harvard or Columbia for the next few years, unless courts move quickly

If you speak out against the government, the government will retaliate. Simple as that.

You are describing the inability for dissent as normal. In fact, it's considered an international human right. Despite it also being in our constitution, the Trump Administration's actions resemble your comment closely.

I don't disagree. It's where we've ended up, and I don't see any viable solutions to the problem.

Arguably, this is part of the intent. It’s important to see through/past it even if for nothing else than your own personal sanity. Personally, I have found a lot of comfort in local protests; There are a lot of people who really don’t want this regime to stick around.

That is not how it is supposed to work in the US.

There are historical precedents though:

>1798

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

>1918

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

>>notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds

@neliv I’d like to encourage you to do a few searches and maybe ask an LLM for that ELI5 - and include what you learned!

I think it's fine to ask these kinds of questions, in the hope that the HN audience may include individuals with particular insights. A response like this has the same ring to it as posting a link to LMGTFY, which is disallowed here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com