Trump administration issues demands on Harvard as conditions for billions in federal money National News Apr 5, 2025 FILE - Students protesting against the war in Gaza, and passersby walking through Harvard Yard, are seen at an encampment at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., April 25, 2024. (AP Photo/Ben Curtis, File) By COLLIN BINKLEY AP Education Writer WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has issued a list of demands Harvard University must meet as a condition for receiving almost $9 billion in grants and contracts, federal money that is being threatened during an investigation into campus antisemitism. In a letter to Harvard’s president on Thursday, three federal agencies outlined demands described as necessary for a “continued financial relationship” with the government. It’s similar to a demand letter that prompted changes at Columbia University under the threat of billions of dollars in cuts. Some alumni and faculty members implored Harvard to push back, decrying the government intervention as an attack on academic freedom. The government’s letter is a “dominance test,” not an effort to fight antisemitism, said Kirsten Weld, a Harvard history professor and president of the campus chapter of the American Association of University Professors. “If Harvard, the wealthiest university on the planet, accedes to these demands, the task force won’t go away — it will simply return with additional demands, just like a schoolyard bully,” Weld said in a statement. “Harvard must contest this patently unlawful attack in the courts.” Harvard is the fifth Ivy League school targeted in a pressure campaign by the administration, which also has paused federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania, Brown, and Princeton to force compliance with its agenda. The letter describes Harvard’s federal money as a taxpayer investment that’s based on performance. Harvard has “fundamentally failed to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment” and must take immediate action to keep its funding, the letter said. Harvard did not comment beyond confirming it got the letter. The letter calls for a ban on face masks, a demand that was also made at Columbia and targets pro-Palestinian protesters who have sometimes worn masks to hide their identities. Harvard also must clarify its campus speech policies that limit the time, place and manner of protests and other activities. Academic departments at Harvard that “fuel antisemitic harassment” must be reviewed and changed to address bias and improve viewpoint diversity, the letter said. It does not single out any campus department or order a change in leadership, as Trump administration officials did for Columbia’s Middle East studies department. The demands are generally less prescriptive than the Columbia ultimatum, mostly calling for broad changes focused on “lasting, structural reforms,” the letter said. It also provides no deadline, while Columbia was given about a week to comply. In a letter to university leaders Thursday, a group of alumni said Harvard should “legally contest and refuse to comply with unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance.” “It’s a time for courage, not capitulation,” said Anurima Bhargava, one of the alumni behind the letter. “This is an unlawful attack and an attempt to coerce Harvard by threatening the very lifeblood of the institution, which is its researchers, innovators, entrepreneurs and scholars.” Some others supported the move. Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School who is suing the university over campus antisemitism, said Trump’s Republican administration is right to threaten the money. “In the same way that the federal government threatened to withhold funds from racist school districts that refused to integrate, the power of the purse is the last tool available to coerce Harvard to treat all its students with equality and justice,” Kestenbaum wrote in an opinion piece for The Crimson student newspaper. In a separate investigation of campus antisemitism, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has subpoenaed the University of California for the employment status and contact information of hundreds of faculty members who signed two open letters. One in October 2023 condemned the Hamas attack on Israel and also expressed sympathy for the people in Gaza, and another in May 2024 expressed concern over the safety of Jewish students during campus protests. Severin Borenstein, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business who signed the first letter, said Friday he believes the Trump administration is looking to interview signatories who experienced antisemitism. “I think this is just part of the Trump administration using antisemitism as a smokescreen to attack higher education,” said Borenstein, who is Jewish, “so it makes me pretty unhappy.” Some demands in the Harvard letter align with Trump’s political agenda but appear less directly connected to the investigation on antisemitism. It includes orders to adopt “merit-based” admissions and hiring policies and to remove any preferences based on race, religion, sex or other characteristics. Harvard also must work to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs that teach students and faculty to “make snap judgments about each other based on crude race and identity stereotypes,” the letter said. The letter separately says Harvard must comply with a federal law requiring the disclosure of foreign gifts and contracts, a priority of some Republicans in Congress who have raised concerns about Chinese influence at U.S. schools. It was sent by officials at the General Services Administration, the Education Department and the Health and Human Services Department. Federal officials notified Harvard on Monday that the university faces a review to determine its eligibility to receive $255 million in contracts and more than $8 billion in grants. Harvard President Alan Garber responded with a campus message saying the school had “devoted considerable effort to addressing antisemitism” and would provide a full accounting to the government. ___ Associated Press reporters Michael Casey in Boston and Janie Har in San Francisco contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
If we go down the road of allowing blame of Israel to serve as excuses for antisemitic violence, then we are saying that some forms of violence and hate, in some political contexts or conflicts, are more justified or understandable than others. Is violence targeting Americans, either abroad or at home, acceptable because the U.S. military is engaged in war in Iran? Is targeting Russian Americans because of the war in Ukraine acceptable? Of course not, and we’re all more vulnerable to such violence if we try to explain away antisemitic violence related to Israel. Many U.S. political figures, Democrats and Republicans alike, condemned the attack on Temple Israel. What now must occur is an unequivocal condemnation of antisemitism in all its forms, including when Israel is used as a justification or excuse for one’s actions or views. Violence is never justified, and we excuse, justify or contextualize it away at our own peril. Jewish Americans today are all as vulnerable as those 140 children at Temple Israel, even more so if we fail to see their attempted murder as anything other than an unconscionable form of hate, irrespective of the political context in which it emerged.
-
No comments:
Post a Comment