Obviously I’m not a lawyer, but it’s impossible for me to believe that under the US constitutional system the president can legally issue an order to remove funding from an institution either because he thinks (see point 67 in the complaint) “Wouldn’t that be cool?” or because he wishes to take control of an institution he doesn’t like and remake it to his liking. ...No, it is not a dictatorship. Pres. Trump was popularly elected, and he is doing what he promised the voters.Since the beginning of this I’ve been highly frustrated by the difficulty of getting people (from the Columbia trustees on down…) to focus on what seems to me the simple and obvious issue: it’s a complete collapse of the US constitutional system to allow the executive to just defund an institution that displeases him, with the excuse for this defunding not relevant. If you accept that this is OK, you are accepting that dictatorship is OK.
Columbia and Harvard are anti-American. They break laws against racial discrimination. They are controlled by extreme leftists. They deny free speech to conservatives, while they coddle Gaza advocates who celebrate killing Jews. They get billions in government contracts, and overcharge for administrative overhead.
The colleges have an obligation to obey the law with the federal tax money they get. Every previous President threatened to withhold money if colleges do not comply. The only thing different today is that the colleges are dominated by Trump-haters.
Columbia and Harvard do a lot of good research, but most of it has no public value. The government is running big deficits, and a lot of things need to be cut.
Physicists have talked for decades on the benefits of string theory, anti-deSitter space, black hole interiors, supersymmetry, multiverse, and many other ideas of no practical value. It is all dishonest.
Scott Aaronson posted similar rants, but now announces
It’s crucial for people to understand that, in its total war against universities, MAGA has now lost, not merely the anti-Israel leftists, but also most conservatives, classical liberals, Zionists, etc. with any intellectual scruples whatsoever.No. Harvard is suing Trump, but will likely lose on the main issues. Harvard will surely compromise, make some changes, and continue to be left-wing propaganda.
From a comment on Aaronson's blog:
I think it would be very beneficial to analyze the demands that Harvard fights so fiercely; perhaps some of them actually make sense. Would you mind if we take a look?A lot of this has to do with Jewish issues, but my guess is that most Americans do not care about those issues, one way or the other.1. A non-specific preamble about leadership.
2. Merit-based hiring; no more racist preferences; screen for plagiarism. What’s wrong with any of that? Do you want less qualified professors with the politically preferential background? Do you want plagiarism?
3. Merit-based admission. What’s wrong with that? Do you want legacy and politically motivated student accepted and the most qualified rejected?
4. Pretty much “don’t admit Hamas operatives who misinform and inflame students.” What’s wrong with that? Do you want the horrible antisemitism of Harvard, Yale, Columbia to persist?
5. Viewpoint diversity. Indeed, social sciences and humanities department turned into echo chambers where academic discourse is effectively suppress. Would it be wrong to stop screening against conservatives and to allow faculty and students express a variety of opinions?
6. Stop antisemitism; report incidents of antisemitism. What’s wrong with that? Do you want the hatred to continue?
7. Get rid of DEI. DEI is one of major reasons for much of the above trouble. DEI is openly racist and contrary to merit-based hiring and admissions.
8. Accountability for misdeeds. Is anybody offended by the proposition that Harvard “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”?
9. Whistleblower protection.
10. Transparency.
What’s so awful in any of these demands that Harvard should “fight fiercely”?
Jews are going nuts with Hitler comparisons. Others wonder: was Hitler really trying to do the above ten items?
Woit refuses to admit that the colleges have a problem. Aaronson admits that the colleges have a problem, and agrees with Trump telling them to improve, but does not agree with Trump threatening to cut off money:
To win scientists’ everlasting love and support, all a more conservative political movement would need to offer is:All Trump can do is to threaten to cut off money, if he wants them to change. Columbia and Harvard have still refused to obey Trump's interpretation of the law.(2) We’ll fund and appreciate you, minus that other stuff.