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.
They are literally just fighting for basic academic freedoms.
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.
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.
That Harvard still has work to do is basically an entirely irrelevant point.