US Presidental Election

[Fenris]

"Jews should sit down and shut up and allow their betters to decide what is or isn't in their best interest". Well done, everyone.

[Oscar_Kipling]

if I were to respond with: I am sorry that the former administration inconvenienced your friend's daughter personally.

See, this is what nobody understands. It was not an "inconvenience". What is at stake is the right of Jews to be in public spaces. I don't think that it should be negotiable. Yet here we are.

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyythrnhj,,yfergrh oops, sorry I dropped my jaw onto the keyboard for a second there and it rolled around a bit before I could pick it up.   

Yes, it is perfectly valid to say that what your daughter's friend experienced was more than an 'inconvenience'. Your concern that your freind's daughter should be able to feel safe and welcome in public spaces and indeed in this country should not be negotiable--I'm not saying throw her a parade or anything, but if she did want to have one, then why the heck not? That's the America I want to live in! You've really turned me around on this issue...honestly when you point out why calling it an inconvenience actually minimizes the valid concerns you have, I start to wonder why I even made such a comment in the first place. I don't know why I'd say such a thing...do you?

But given who the Republicans put up to run against him. The Democrats didn't have to run Joe or Kamala. But they did. And so I voted against.

Another incisive point, you're right the party didn't have to run who they did, but they did. And a person that votes against that candidate because they are concerned for the rights and safety of marginalized grou...uh I mean Jews, we're both exclusively talking about Jews here...Is a choice that people can and have made. 

[Fenris]

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyythrnhj,,yfergrh oops, sorry I dropped my jaw onto the keyboard for a second there and it rolled around a bit before I could pick it up.   

Yes, it is perfectly valid to say that what your daughter's friend experienced was more than an 'inconvenience'. Your concern that your freind's daughter should be able to feel safe and welcome in public spaces and indeed in this country should not be negotiable--I'm not saying throw her a parade or anything, but if she did want to have one, then why the heck not? That's the America I want to live in! You've really turned me around on this issue...honestly when you point out why calling it an inconvenience actually minimizes the valid concerns you have, I start to wonder why I even made such a comment in the first place. I don't know why I'd say such a thing...do you?

I have no idea if this is sarcasm or not.

Another incisive point, you're right the party didn't have to run who they did, but they did. And a person that votes against that candidate because they are concerned for the rights and safety of marginalized grou...uh I mean Jews, we're both exclusively talking about Jews here...Is a choice that people can and have made.

Because Jews aren't a marginalized and historically discriminated against group? Or is it ok to discriminate against Jews, because... reasons?

[IMINXTC]

Nothing the President is doing will address the issue of antisemitism,

Haven't you been paying attention? Trump is addressing antisemitism, by cutting federal funding for universities that don't uphold Title VI by allowing discrimination against Jews on their campus. This is neither "reactionary" nor "unlawful". Apparently you're comfortable with saying "antisemitism can't be fixed so we should ignore it". But I'm not.

The courts need to stop his overreach almost on a daily basis.

It's the courts themselves that are overreaching by blocking perfectly legal actions. What a shame that people right here are more concerned with "foreign students" than Jews on campus.

Familiar with Title 6, yes, which involves "any" race, and is a matter for the courts.

[Fenris]

Familiar with Title 6, yes, which involves "any" race, and is a matter for the courts.

It ultimately falls under the president's purview, which he did exercise. Given how the universities tolerated mistreatment of Jewish students, I support his actions in this matter. A shame nobody else here seems to.

[Oscar_Kipling]

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyythrnhj,,yfergrh oops, sorry I dropped my jaw onto the keyboard for a second there and it rolled around a bit before I could pick it up.   

Yes, it is perfectly valid to say that what your daughter's friend experienced was more than an 'inconvenience'. Your concern that your freind's daughter should be able to feel safe and welcome in public spaces and indeed in this country should not be negotiable--I'm not saying throw her a parade or anything, but if she did want to have one, then why the heck not? That's the America I want to live in! You've really turned me around on this issue...honestly when you point out why calling it an inconvenience actually minimizes the valid concerns you have, I start to wonder why I even made such a comment in the first place. I don't know why I'd say such a thing...do you?

I have no idea if this is sarcasm or not.

Well, my jaw didn't actually fall onto the keyboard. And obviously I do actually know why I made the 'inconvinienced' statement. And of course you didn't change my mind on a position that I never actually held.

Fine, i'll say it plain, what is different about when you said the same thing to Athanasius and when I said it to you. Please break it own for me.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Because Jews aren't a marginalized and historically discriminated against group? Or is it ok to discriminate against Jews, because... reasons?

"Jews should sit down and shut up and allow their betters to decide what is or isn't in their best interest". Well done, everyone.

Your friend's daughter being locked into a building by violent protesters when she was just minding her business being Jewish on campus (if that characterization is accurate] is wrong.

This is the initial letter sent to Harvard https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf

Dear Dr. Garber:
The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the
country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement. It
depends on Harvard upholding federal civil rights laws, and it only makes sense if Harvard fosters
the kind of environment that produces intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor, both of which are
antithetical to ideological capture.
Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that
justify federal investment. But we appreciate your expression of commitment to repairing those
failures and welcome your collaboration in restoring the University to its promise. We therefore
present the below provisions as the basis for an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard’s
financial relationship with the federal government.
If acceptable to Harvard, this document will constitute an agreement in principle, which the parties
will work in good faith to translate into a more thorough, binding settlement agreement. As you will
see, this letter incorporates and supersedes the terms of the federal government’s prior letter of April
3, 2025.
● Governance and leadership reforms. By August 2025, Harvard must make meaningful
governance reform and restructuring to make possible major change consistent with this
letter, including: fostering clear lines of authority and accountability; empowering tenured
professors and senior leadership, and, from among the tenured professoriate and senior
leadership, exclusively those most devoted to the scholarly mission of the University and
committed to the changes indicated in this letter; reducing the power held by students and
untenured faculty; reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and
administrators more committed to activism than scholarship; and reducing forms of
governance bloat, duplication, or decentralization that interfere with the possibility of the
reforms indicated in this letter.
● Merit-Based Hiring Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement
merit-based hiring policies, and cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related practices among
faculty, staff, and leadership. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and
demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All existing and prospective faculty
shall be reviewed for plagiarism and Harvard’s plagiarism policy consistently enforced. All
hiring and related data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a
comprehensive audit by the federal government during the period in which reforms are
being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.
● Merit-Based Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and
implement merit-based admissions policies and cease all preferences based on race, color,
national origin, or proxies thereof, throughout its undergraduate program, each graduate
program individually, each of its professional schools, and other programs. Such adoption
and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel
changes. All admissions data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a
comprehensive audit by the federal government—and non-individualized, statistical
information regarding admissions shall be made available to the public, including
information about rejected and admitted students broken down by race, color, national
origin, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests—during the period in
which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028. During
this same period, the dean of admissions for each program or school must sign a public
statement after each admissions cycle certifying that these rules have been upheld.
● International Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must reform its
recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting
students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution
and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or
anti-Semitism. Harvard will immediately report to federal authorities, including the
Department of Homeland Security and State Department, any foreign student, including
those on visas and with green cards, who commits a conduct violation. As above, these
reforms must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes;
comprehensive throughout all of Harvard’s programs; and, during the reform period, shared
with the federal government for audit, shared on a non-individualized basis with the public,
and certified by deans of admissions.
● Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring. 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 audit shall begin no later than the summer of 2025 and shall proceed
on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching-unit-by-teaching-unit basis as
appropriate. The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and
the federal government no later than the end of 2025. Harvard must abolish all criteria,
preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and
hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests. 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. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant
department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant
teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints,
hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the
closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint
diversity. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to establish viewpoint
diversity every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall
be at least until the end of 2028.
● Reforming Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias. 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 those programs and
departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.
o The programs, schools, and centers of concern include but are not limited to the
Divinity School, Graduate School of Education, School of Public Health, Medical
School, Religion and Public Life Program, FXB Center for Health & Human Rights,
Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard
Kennedy School, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and the
Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic.
o The report of the external party shall include information as to individual faculty
members who discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students or incited students to
violate Harvard’s rules following October 7, and the University and federal
government will cooperate to determine appropriate sanctions for those faculty
members within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment.
o The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and the
federal government no later than the end of 2025 and reforms undertaken to repair
the problems. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to make repairs
every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be
at least until the end of 2028.
● Discontinuation of DEI. The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever
name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control
policies, under whatever name; demonstrate that it has done so to the satisfaction of the
federal government; and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the federal government that these
reforms are durable and effective through structural and personnel changes. By August
2025, the University must submit to the government a report—certified for accuracy—that
confirms these reforms.
● Student Discipline Reform and Accountability. Harvard must immediately reform its
student discipline policies and procedures so as to swiftly and transparently enforce its
existing disciplinary policies with consistency and impartiality, and without double
standards based on identity or ideology. Where those policies are insufficient to prevent the
disruption of scholarship, classroom learning and teaching, or other aspects of normal
campus life, Harvard must develop and implement disciplinary policies sufficient to prevent
those disruptions. This includes but is not limited to the following:
o Discipline at Harvard must include immediate intervention and stoppage of
disruptions or deplatforming, including by the Harvard police when necessary to stop
a disruption or deplatforming; robust enforcement and reinstatement of existing time,
place, and manner rules on campus, including ordering the Harvard police to stop
incidents that violate time, place, and manner rules when necessary; a disciplinary
process housed in one body that is accountable to Harvard’s president or other
capstone official; and removing or reforming institutional bodies and practices that
delay and obstruct enforcement, including the relevant Administrative Boards and
FAS Faculty Council.
o Harvard must adopt a new policy on student groups or clubs that forbids the
recognition and funding of, or provision of accommodations to, any student group or
club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal
harassment; invites non-students onto campus who regularly violate campus rules; or
acts as a front for a student club that has been banned from campus. The leaders or
organizers of recognized and unrecognized student groups that violate these policies
must be held accountable as a matter of student discipline and made ineligible to
serve as officers in other recognized student organizations. In the future, funding
decisions for student groups or clubs must be made exclusively by a body of
University faculty accountable to senior University leadership. In particular, Harvard
must end support and recognition of those student groups or clubs that engaged in
anti-Semitic activity since October 7th, 2023, including the Harvard Palestine
Solidarity Committee, Harvard Graduates Students 4 Palestine, Law Students 4
Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the National Lawyers Guild, and
discipline and render ineligible the officers and active members of those student
organizations.
o Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate
penalties for violation, not less than suspension.
o Harvard must investigate and carry out meaningful discipline for all violations that
occurred during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 academic years, including the
Harvard Business School protest of October 2023, the University Hall sit-in of
November 2023, and the spring encampment of 2024. This must include
permanently expelling the students involved in the October 18 assault of an Israeli
Harvard Business School student, and suspending students involved in occupying
university buildings, as warranted by the facts of individual cases.
o The Harvard president and police chief must publicly clarify that the Harvard
University Police Department will enforce University rules and the law. Harvard
must also commit to cooperating in good faith with law enforcement.
● Whistleblower Reporting and Protections. The University must immediately establish
procedures by which any Harvard affiliate can report noncompliance with the reforms
detailed in this letter to both university leadership and the federal government. Any such
reporter shall be fully protected from any adverse actions for so reporting.
● Transparency and Monitoring. The University shall make organizational changes to
ensure full transparency and cooperation with all federal regulators. No later than June 30,
2025, and every quarter thereafter during the period in which reforms are being
implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028, the University shall submit to the
federal government a report—certified for accuracy—that documents its progress on the
implementation of the reforms detailed in this letter. The University must also, to the
satisfaction of the federal government, disclose the source and purpose of all foreign funds;
cooperate with the federal government in a forensic audit of foreign funding sources and
uses, including how that money was used by Harvard, its agents, and, to the extent available,
third parties acting on Harvard’s campus; report all requested immigration and related
information to the United States Department of Homeland Security; and comply with all
requirements relating to the SEVIS system.
We expect your immediate cooperation in implementing these critical reforms that will enable
Harvard to return to its original mission of innovative research and academic excellence.

If this was about antisemitism then the letter would have been about antisemitism...it isn't. Sure there is an antisemitism section, and the merits of the administrations requests in that section can be debated, but acting as if rejection of this letter that covers far more than protecting students from violent or aggressive antisemtic protesters means that I or Harvard therefore think its cool to discriminate or otherwise harm Jews is a dishonest framing.

Addtionally Harvard claims to have actually taken steps against antisemitism on thier campuses: https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Harvard-Response-2025-04-14.pdf

We represent Harvard University. We are writing in response to your letter dated April 11,
2025, addressed to Dr. Alan Garber, Harvard’s President, and Penny Pritzker, Senior Fellow of the
Harvard Corporation.
Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry in its community.
Antisemitism and discrimination of any kind not only are abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard’s
values but also threaten its academic mission.
To that end, Harvard has made, and will continue to make, lasting and robust structural,
policy, and programmatic changes to ensure that the university is a welcoming and supportive
learning environment for all students and continues to abide in all respects with federal law across
its academic programs and operations, while fostering open inquiry in a pluralistic community free
from intimidation and open to challenging orthodoxies, whatever their source.
Over the past 15 months, Harvard has undertaken substantial policy and programmatic
measures. It has made changes to its campus use policies; adopted new accountability procedures;
imposed meaningful discipline for those who violate university policies; enhanced programs
designed to address bias and promote ideological diversity and civil discourse; hired staff to
support these programs and support students; changed partnerships; dedicated resources to combat
hate and bias; and enhanced safety and security measures. As a result, Harvard is in a very different
place today from where it was a year ago. These efforts, and additional measures the university
will be taking against antisemitism, not only are the right thing to do but also are critical to
strengthening Harvard’s community as a place in which everyone can thrive.
It is unfortunate, then, that your letter disregards Harvard’s efforts and instead presents
demands that, in contravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long
Messrs. Gruenbaum, Keveney, and Wheeler
April 14, 2025
Page 2
recognized by the Supreme Court. The government’s terms also circumvent Harvard’s statutory
rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies for alleged harms that the government has
not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law. No less
objectionable is the condition, first made explicit in the letter of March 31, 2025, that Harvard
accede to these terms or risk the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding critical to vital research
and innovation that has saved and improved lives and allowed Harvard to play a central role in
making our country’s scientific, medical, and other research communities the standard-bearers for
the world. These demands extend not only to Harvard but to separately incorporated and
independently operated medical and research hospitals engaging in life-saving work on behalf of
their patients. The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional
rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the
federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement
in principle.
Harvard remains open to dialogue about what the university has done, and is planning to
do, to improve the experience of every member of its community. But Harvard is not prepared to
agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.

Again I think debating whether or not Harvard did enough or anything meaningful about antisemitism on their campuses in the 15 months is, i'd say--more to the point. Do you know what steps they took? if so what issues do you take with their measures?

[Fenris]

Your friend's daughter being locked into a building by violent protesters when she was just minding her business being Jewish on campus (if that characterization is accurate] is wrong.

Oh. "it's wrong". Thank you so much for admitting the obvious.

No, wait. "if that characterization is accurate". So you're not even sure that it's true, even though the event was caught on film and played in the NYC news.

If this was about antisemitism then the letter would have been about antisemitism...it isn't. Sure there is an antisemitism section, and the merits of the administrations requests in that section can be debated, but acting as if rejection of this letter that covers far more than protecting students from violent or aggressive antisemtic protesters means that I or Harvard therefore think its cool to discriminate or otherwise harm Jews is a dishonest framing.

I don't think it's dishonest framing. It doesn't seem to bother you one bit. It certainly didn't bother Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.

Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry in its community.
Antisemitism and discrimination of any kind not only are abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard’s
values but also threaten its academic mission.
To that end, Harvard has made, and will continue to make, lasting and robust structural,
policy, and programmatic changes to ensure that the university is a welcoming and supportive
learning environment for all students and continues to abide in all respects with federal law across
its academic programs and operations, while fostering open inquiry in a pluralistic community free
from intimidation and open to challenging orthodoxies, whatever their source.
Over the past 15 months, Harvard has undertaken substantial policy and programmatic
measures. It has made changes to its campus use policies; adopted new accountability procedures;
imposed meaningful discipline for those who violate university policies; enhanced programs
designed to address bias and promote ideological diversity and civil discourse; hired staff to
support these programs and support students; changed partnerships; dedicated resources to combat
hate and bias; and enhanced safety and security measures. As a result, Harvard is in a very different
place today from where it was a year ago.

Harvard saying these things doesn't magically make it true. They rejected the government's letter. They have not provided any information on disciplinary procedures for any students here on a student visa. Perhaps none exist; if they don't discipline foreign students, no matter how egregious the violation, then there's nothing to report. Very convenient.

[IMINXTC]

Familiar with Title 6, yes, which involves "any" race, and is a matter for the courts.

It ultimately falls under the president's purview, which he did exercise. Given how the universities tolerated mistreatment of Jewish students, I support his actions in this matter. A shame nobody else here seems to.

The issue is in court, where it belongs. If it rises from there, it will be legally determined if the university is in violation.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Your friend's daughter being locked into a building by violent protesters when she was just minding her business being Jewish on campus (if that characterization is accurate] is wrong.

Oh. "it's wrong". Thank you so much for admitting the obvious.

No, wait. "if that characterization is accurate". So you're not even sure that it's true, even though the event was caught on film and played in the NYC news.

I was talking about how I recounted it, but to your point I actually don't know if you've accurately conveyed it, and I didn't see the video you're talking about--so I don't know if your characterization is accurate either.

If this was about antisemitism then the letter would have been about antisemitism...it isn't. Sure there is an antisemitism section, and the merits of the administrations requests in that section can be debated, but acting as if rejection of this letter that covers far more than protecting students from violent or aggressive antisemtic protesters means that I or Harvard therefore think its cool to discriminate or otherwise harm Jews is a dishonest framing.

I don't think it's dishonest framing. It doesn't seem to bother you one bit. It certainly didn't bother Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.

well, lets leave joe and Kamala out of this for now as I don't speak for them and they do not speak for me.

I take this to mean that you don't believe antisemitism personally bothers me? It does, but I believe that is beside the point. The way I feel about Jewish people does not change the fact that the demands outlined in the letter to Harvard extend well beyond antisemitism. Most blatantly is all of that DEI business. You can't convince me that the requests are restricted to and focused on antisemitism because I read the letter, I posted it and literally anyone that can read can see that that is true. Framing the only motive for rejection of the demands in this letter as antisemitism is dishonest.

Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry in its community.
Antisemitism and discrimination of any kind not only are abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard’s
values but also threaten its academic mission.
To that end, Harvard has made, and will continue to make, lasting and robust structural,
policy, and programmatic changes to ensure that the university is a welcoming and supportive
learning environment for all students and continues to abide in all respects with federal law across
its academic programs and operations, while fostering open inquiry in a pluralistic community free
from intimidation and open to challenging orthodoxies, whatever their source.
Over the past 15 months, Harvard has undertaken substantial policy and programmatic
measures. It has made changes to its campus use policies; adopted new accountability procedures;
imposed meaningful discipline for those who violate university policies; enhanced programs
designed to address bias and promote ideological diversity and civil discourse; hired staff to
support these programs and support students; changed partnerships; dedicated resources to combat
hate and bias; and enhanced safety and security measures. As a result, Harvard is in a very different
place today from where it was a year ago.

Harvard saying these things doesn't magically make it true. They rejected the government's letter.

I agree, Harvard asserting things does not make it true. Also true that they rejected the letter--which I must repeat was not merely about antisemitism.

They have not provided any information on disciplinary procedures for any students here on a student visa.

I don't know whether or not Harvard provided any information on disciplinary procedures specifically for visa students--I'm not actually clear about what you are asking after here. Specifically is it that Harvard should have some specific set of rules for visa students that engage in antisemetic activity that does not actually violate the law (that is excluding threats of violence, assault, damaging property and other things that are illegal]? Can you clarify what activities visa students should be specifically targeted for in regards to antisemitism in Harvard disciplinary policy?

Perhaps none exist; if they don't discipline foreign students, no matter how egregious the violation, then there's nothing to report. Very convenient.

This is just you saying things, perhaps they do exist, what if they do discipline foreign students? Like are you thinking of some specific activity or event that you feel went unpunished or under-punished and that foreign students should face exclusive penalties for this activity? Please clarify and expand on what you are talking about exactly.

[Fenris]

Everyone wants to observe social niceties while Jews are being made victims on college campuses.

Words are not sufficient to express my disappointment here.

I'll direct your attention to a social media post by Shabbos Kestenbaum, who sued Harvard for what they permitted to happen to him while he was a student there. https://x.com/ShabbosK/status/1926784117162545445

There are two Harvard students who physically accosted a Jewish classmate on campus.

The first assailant was rewarded a $65,000 by Harvard Law School fellowship to work at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

As of this week, the second assailant was rewarded the honor of class marshall by Harvard Divinity School at the upcoming graduation ceremony and university-wide commencement.

Although numerous Harvard students filed complaints, noting how inappropriate it is to reward a student who was sentenced to 80 hours of community service and complete an anger management program for a 2023 assault on a Jewish student, Harvard has  defended the decision.

But nobody here cares. How "Christian" of you.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Everyone wants to observe social niceties while Jews are being made victims on college campuses.

Words are not sufficient to express my disappointment here.

I'll direct your attention to a social media post by Shabbos Kestenbaum, who sued Harvard for what they permitted to happen to him while he was a student there. https://x.com/ShabbosK/status/1926784117162545445

There are two Harvard students who physically accosted a Jewish classmate on campus.

The first assailant was rewarded a $65,000 by Harvard Law School fellowship to work at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

As of this week, the second assailant was rewarded the honor of class marshall by Harvard Divinity School at the upcoming graduation ceremony and university-wide commencement.

Although numerous Harvard students filed complaints, noting how inappropriate it is to reward a student who was sentenced to 80 hours of community service and complete an anger management program for a 2023 assault on a Jewish student, Harvard has  defended the decision.

But nobody here cares. How "Christian" of you.

Is this a response to my post asking for specifics?

[Fenris]

Ever wonder what you would have done in the 1930s? You're doing it now.

No urgency. No worries. "Oh, some Jewish students were assaulted on a college campus? Let's talk about Trump instead." And everyone else is a passive bystander.

Two employees of the Israeli embassy were murdered last Wednesday. They were attending a Jewish function at the Jewish museum when a gunman shot and killed them both. The gunman left the scene, only to return yelling "free Palestine". They were a couple, she Jewish, he a devout Christian who tied his fate to the people of Israel.

The shooter was a Latino from Chicago who ascribed to far left causes like BLM. Why would he do such a thing? Because he saw that violence against Jews was not punished, but becoming normalized. Even rewarded. 

To be a Jew in this world is to feel very alone, sometimes. Christians have not been there for Jews in the past, and most aren't with us now either. For shame.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Ever wonder what you would have done in the 1930s? You're doing it now.

No urgency. No worries. "Oh, some Jewish students were assaulted on a college campus? Let's talk about Trump instead." And everyone else is a passive bystander.

Two employees of the Israeli embassy were murdered last Wednesday. They were attending a Jewish function at the Jewish museum when a gunman shot and killed them both. The gunman left the scene, only to return yelling "free Palestine". They were a couple, she Jewish, he a devout Christian who tied his fate to the people of Israel.

The shooter was a Latino from Chicago who ascribed to far left causes like BLM. Why would he do such a thing? Because he saw that violence against Jews was not punished, but becoming normalized. Even rewarded. 

To be a Jew in this world is to feel very alone, sometimes. Christians have not been there for Jews in the past, and most aren't with us now either. For shame.

To be fair...this is a thread about the president.

I've always understood your anger, fear and disappointment, probably far better than you think I do. In the hopes that perhaps you might understand me better ,and understand that while I can't be how you want me to be, and we are misaligned on quite a few things --I do now and have always believed that antisemitism is alive and kicking, it is real, it is dangerous, it is deadly and it is not a scary foreign import, we manufacture plenty right here in the united states alongside our other favorite bigotries. The united states has a love affair with hate, bigotry and racism and it is anything but new. America fights tooth and nail to obfuscate, misdirect and distract from the fact that what underlies many of its policies, views, institutions, traditions and structures is unabashed racism and bigotry.

I don't think we are repeating the 1930's, I think we are living with the revised and evolved legacy of racism that never died, it thrives on the same underlying principles that it did back then with some insidious and sneaky tweaks--all aided by technology and a whittling away of understanding and trust of history that extends much further back than any administration either of us were alive for (unless you are significantly older than I think lol).

Your pain is a lever to pry profit from your misery, and i'm not talking about some secret cabal darkly controlling the levers of power. I'm talking about people that want to erase the truth of slavery and turn around and tell you that they are really serious about eradicating antisemitism. In no way can I trust that. I can't be with you on this administration's war on antisemitism because I don't believe they care any more about you than they do about me. I cant take seriously a group of people that won't even acknowledge that racism and bigotry is alive and well, but yet they must defeat anti-Semitism which conveniently lives only on liberal college campuses (no doubt it does, but not just there). I cant take seriously people that will dismiss structural and institutional racism and then attack those structures and institutions to eradicate the form of bigotry that is useful for them right now--all while simultaneously smuggling in things to strengthen the structural foundations of their means of oppressing and crippling current bigotry targets. I don't believe for a second that the plight of Jewish people provides anything but useful cover that will be disregarded and targeted the second you are no longer useful.

I hate antisemitism as much as I hate other forms of bigotry, but if you are looking for real allies then you should also consider being one.

[IMINXTC]

And with instances of antisemitism in Harvard's past, the stated aim of this administration is to break the school's autonomy and  control every facet of it's existence, including
student body, faculty and teaching, just for starters.

At some point Title 6 is cited as a just cause, but, again, that is not the unilateral perrogitive of the executive branch - it must go through the courts.

Without separation of powers and our constitutional checks and balances we end up as a monarchy.

I'm waiting for the courts and the legal process.

This President can falsely accuse and defame judges all he wants - he is still not a king.

EDIT: Holding to the U.S. constitution is neither a "Right" or "Left" ideology.