Trump Finally Drops the Anti-Semitism Pretext | The latest letter to Harvard makes clear that the administration’s goal is to punish liberal institutions for the crime of being liberal.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/05/mcmahon-harvard-letter/682717/?gift=ZYXhhhmAtqKYTQhpWlyfbKA9XuyauCzH2goXDiJ8OaQOpen linkView original on slrpnk.net812
Comments132
Yes - universities are by their very nature in opposition to irrational positions borne of ignorance, hatred, greed and fear.
That is as it should be.
It's always "liberal indoctrination" to them. Because they can't understand that being more exposed to more ideas tends to make you less conservative. Also, it feels like a tacit admission that their own "education" was really indoctrination. That's probably one reason why they think all education is such.
Vance is Yale educated and the professor who set him up with his wife also got her SC clerkships... He and his wife were literally groomed to be a political power couple similar to the Clintons.
Stop acting like hes stupid and uneducated.
He 100% know what he's saying is bullshit, hes a liar not an idiot. trump is an idiot, and believes it.
That's why Vance is so much more dangerous, it's like comparing HW to Reagan. Both evil, but an evil elderly person with dementia does less damage than an evil intelligent person.
He's not uneducated, but he still seems pretty stupid. Brother can't give a single public speech without seeming like a complete idiot.
Same with HW bush..
Didn't stop him from becoming president on Reagans coattails.
And HW not only caused just as much damage as Reagan, he was smart about it so still gets a fraction of the blame. His name is almost never brought up anymore.
People just talk about the idiot fall guys, because the whole reason they're there is to be the lightning rod of criticism so no one looks at the ones calling the shots.
It's a shell game, but at least when it's an idiot they'll get caught and some things will be stopped, or at least noticed.
Mostly out of curiosity but what'd HW do? I think we can squarely put more of the war on drugs on his shoulders than Reagan's but, outside of that, I can think of so many more concrete things Reagan did to worsen and destabilize America (even if the effects were much later) than I can for the 1-term HW (but that may just be unfamiliarity, on my part).
It's an Ivy League school.
Years ago, an ex-girlfriend was proctoring a course at an Ivy League. She had a billionaire's daughter, a legacy admission, in one of her classes. The billionaire's daughter never showed up to class. My ex-gf failed her. Later, when she looked at the recorded grades, the billionaire's daughter who never showed up for class had a 'C.'
George W. Bush graduated from Yale with a C average.
Ivy League schools educate many people. But they often just give degrees to the legacy admissions, to the wealthy, and to the politically connected.
Agreed. He's probably trying to mainstream Curtis Yarvin style insanity. Thing is that "JD" "Vance" and Curtis are a lot more educated than the people they are pitching this shit to.
Knowledge is the cure to conservatism.
You cannot simultaneously hold right-wing views and know enough about the world to have any valid opinions about how it should be run.
I am not a right-wing voter and don't consider myself a centrist, but discarding all right-wing views as faulty isn't gonna help to bring about a healthy democratic conversation. I would argue it is in the benefit of everyone to make a distinction between extreme/far-right views and 'regular' right-wing views.
Knowledge is a cure for a lot of things, no argument there.
Right wing politics is ultimately about concentrating power in the hands of the aristocracy of the day or distracting the public whilst the former goal is furthered.
These goals are to the detriment of modern society and should be wholly resisted. The goals of modern society are to create the rising tide to lift all ships.
There is zero value in the right wing school of thought beyond the warning to not pursue it we all got ~80 years ago.
Disagree. It's about enriching the self. It's about stonewalling or reversing social power.
It results in aristocracy but poor right wingers are not driven by that goal.
theyrethesamepicture.jpg
The difference is how much one is able to "enrich" their self, is determined by how much they're willing to crush others to elevate themselves. The ultimate conclusion is concentrated power.
We agree there. I'm highlighting that creating an aristocracy is a side effect, not a goal.
That's like saying everything left is bad because look at how the Sovjets ended up
The soviets were authoritarians...
Ones with a terrible human rights record.
Like, even if you ignore everything except a left/right economic scale, their wealth inequality was insane. Most people had the same: nothing. And a few people had almost everything of value in the country.
That's not communism, that's an oligarchy. The only further right on an economic scale would be a single person owning everything.
No, it's just simply understanding the end goals of an ideology.
Name three that aren't.
They have to work so hard at just propping up their biases (on penalty of hell in many cases) that it's hard to conceive of a world where other people aren't also secretly doing that.
We should really drop the narrative of the uneducated right. They love power more than progress.
"We dragged the Overton window so far to the right that basic facts are political advocacy"
I mean, just look at how they freaked the fuck out over Amazon merely showing you how much the tariffs are costing you for an item.
"A hostile and political act". That's what the admin said, and you can bet more than a few magabrained believe that knowing what you are being taxed by donvict is "political".
I wonder how much of this is inspired by/parroting Curtis Yarvin style bullshit about "The Cathedral".
Also, sidebar - Curtis Yarvin is such a fucking bullshit artist. I tried to watch some interview with him and JFC, what a shitshow. You'd think these people would at least be good at slinging their garbage, but you have to be a real brainless dumbass to fall for his "musings". The only interview with some supposed leading light that I can think of that was even worse was when Sam Harris was interviewing Jordan Peterson. I was just as baffled as I think Sam was...
It's so much easier to grift conservatives... Like the shit you say doesn't even need to make sense as long as it "sounds intelligent" to these morons.
The foundation of education is based on the concept on wanting to better yourself and the world around you. Education is about progress, not conserving ideas that are proven to be less useful or harmful. There are words that fit better for not progressing, usually tied to indoctrination.
If you want to conserve shit in your life, that's fine, you just shouldn't force it on others. The Amish prefer to conserve their horse and buggies, that's fine. But it's not fine to force others to not progress to airplanes because of your beliefs. I'm sure there was someone who thought the wheel was to progressive, fine, carry your shit the way you like, but I'm going to use a grocery cart, wheelbarrows and whatever other tools I find more convenient to finish the tasks I want to complete.
Conservative by definition is to not make progress. What would be the point of learning anything new, if you weren't trying to do anything new.
Education will always be inherently progressive
The weird part is that there really aren't more than a handful of universities that are actually 'liberal.' Since Conservatives see the world in black and white, all an organization has to do to be seen as 'liberal' is just not be Conservative.
That's it. Either you lick Trump's stank butthole, or you're a 'liberal.' There is no such thing as non-partisan in their world. You either repeat the Conservative talking points, restate Conservative beliefs, loudly proclaim the party's talking points, or you're 'liberal.'
lol, as if Harvard were liberal
they're infamously, thuggishly conservative
By Nazi standards, conservatives are too far left.
From an extreme right viewpoint, everything is left.
Nazis were not socialist lmao
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-origin-of-the-term-nazi.html
Literally the next sentence from your source:
Emphasis mine.
Yes is the article written in present day, but I'm saying they called themselves socialists not that they aren't right. Nazi politics are not easily put on the left-right spectrum. Which is why I say conservatism and nationalism is usually right
Hitler hated that term but the party was already formed. Put the emphasis on the National part of national socialism.
Socialists (and trade unionists and yes, communists) were among the first groups the Nazis targeted.
Do you think the Democratic Republic of North Korea is an actual democracy?
It's right there in the name...
Which wing of parliament did the NSDAP sit on, the right or the left?
If we're gonna play bullshit word games, at least sitting on the right is relevant to the original definition of right wing.
Yeah dude, we know what the word means.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/29/greenes-ahistorical-claim-that-nazis-were-socialists/
They called themselves socialists, the word changed meaning over time so you might argue they wouldn't be considered socialists right now, but they sure as hell were considered socialists then. From the same source:
It's not that the meaning of "socialist" changed but that the Nazis were never actually socialist despite their deliberately misleading name, and Hitler had anyone in the party with any socialist tendencies killed off. You seem not to be hearing what everyone in the thread is trying to say to you. The Nazis were straightforwardly fascist, far right, and never anything to do with socialism or the left.
The word socialist very much had a very well established meaning at that point (definitely more established than it currently is in the US).
Everything you're saying is ahistorical. Why aren't you at all interested in the reality of what happened?
And North Korea is obviously democratic!
Oh, wait, no that's fucking retarded.
A couple of articles debunking the claim that Nazis were socialist:
No, the Nazis Were Not Socialists
Were the Nazis socialists?
It was in the name of the party, north-korea's official name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea it happens more often that countries and parties choose a name that's not representative for what they really are
Aye. "Democratic Republic."
That sounds more like self-determinism than nationalism.
This is exactly why they complain about liberalism and just added another slimy definition. (Not left, but looks like people pointed that out already.)
Yep.
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/harvard-university-palestine-solidarity-committee-letter/
But no matter how "tough" they were to appease Biden's admin and their own donors, it's not enough for the rightwing.
It's the base reason you can't meet fascists halfway.
They fought against free speech and watched their students be abused, and now they're getting shit for not going further.
It's literally the plot to First They Came For
Its the students themselves who are criminally conservative, in addition to the schools administrative hierarchy promoting far-right neo-feudalism and calling it capitalism.
Rape, assault, and battery are the accepted norm among the Harvard student body.
For example:
https://www.fastcompany.com/3051357/at-harvard-college-16-of-female-seniors-surveyed-report-having-been-raped
https://nationaljurist.com/national-jurist/news/harvard-law-student-accused-of-homophobic-slur-and-violence-toward-another-student/
You find things where you look for them...
And you only find them when people feel confident and safe enough to speak up.
You seem to be arguing for the trump/RFK method where you don't count things and then deny they happened...
Ty for grabbing the context for me. Yeah, I think it's also fair to say there are literally criminally conservative ideals in some of the student body based on the survey. Not enough to condem the entire student body, but I think their point is that those ideals already exist within Harvard, so the point of political repression/reprogramming is moot. At least, that's how I look at it.
American conservatives are supposed to be liberals, as in people that believe in ideological liberalism.
If someone tells you they hate liberals and socialists, believe them, and recognize what that means they are.
Can we please stop legitimizing this regime by referring to them as an "administration"?
maladministration
Madministration
I agree, but it is a big ask from a major us news outlet.
You may think, but it's a really a big request. 'Ask' is still a verb unless you're selling used Lincolns.
It's just regular English mate, also what the hell do you mean with ask not being a verb if youre selling used Lincolns??
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ask
Honestly, it just makes sense that the grammar nazis that would pipe up in a post like this would be imbeciles.
You sure got a lot of downvotes for that one. Internet people like their colloquialisms.
they’re getting downvotes because they’re calling someone out on grammar issues while being completely and verifiably wrong in not only the technical, but also the colloquial sense
Oh, I agree. My comment came from a place of "wow, a lot of people wanted to react." Not a, "omg bestie soo true"
Haven’t we always known that fascists consider any failure to lick their boots “hate speech”?
He can but do you want him too? Sounds rather unpleasant and unsanitary.
Nobody said how dirtied up it'd be. One time it's be OK to say nay to the bidet.
Better wipe your ass afterward lest it be orange
liberally!!
I'm really excited to know I'll finally be going to Harvard Med.
I'm in the anatomical gift program... I'll be dying to get in.
They want to destroy what they call the Cathedral.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment (See beliefs section)
It should be called The Endarkenment, just saying
The Endorkenment is more accurate
So true. So many of these proponents and their acolytes are fucking dorks, and not in a positive way of reclaiming the term "dork".
Like, I'm sorry that some people pantsed you and took your lunch money when you were in school, could you get the fuck over it and stop trying to make the whole world suffer?
I mean, watch Curtis Yarvin and just tell me he's some kind of total badass. With that leather jacket. GTFO.
Endorkenment sounds quite appropriate!
Sounds about right, given the losers behind it
What a completely normal and professional letter
I have to refer to this podcast, which is brilliant, and puts the ill-fated journey of Titanic in terms I hadn't heard before. There were so many things that went just the right (wrong) way, and it's pretty clear that up until the point of impact, nobody did anything wrong, considering the conventional wisdom of the time.
They called it unsinkable.
How do you think the unthinkable?
With an itheberg.
They said it was Great.
Everyone’s — many people are saying it. And you look at these icebergs, they’re these little ice cubes floating, and then “global warming” — the lying media — we’ve got all these ice cubes! Unbelievable.
It’s very bad what’s been done to these captains. It used to be, you could drive your boat and if you were a good captain they would go “yes sir” and you were all set. Horrible. They’ve got all these, we have to hire DEI now, and suddenly these ice cubes are a problem for these big beautiful gorgeous boats. Horrible.
It was hubris. Just like the US on September 10, 2001. We never expected or even imagined someone attacking us here.
Until it happened.
lol are they saying Harvard is in financial ruin? Harvard? Land owner Harvard? With an endowment in the billions Harvard?
It's the precedent that matters, not whether the target needs the money.
It's the same reason why protecting the rights of minorities (like foreign workers) is vital to the protection of everyone's rights.
Which kind of seems like it would be a mistake to go after (what is likely) the wealthiest university in the US... They have all the resources in the world to fight it
A large part of what they do is research. Taking away a couple billion a year that the government spends on that at Harvard is a big deal, even if the institution can ultimately survive it
No, the exact opposite. They're saying that Harvard are so well off financially, with such a wealthy supporter base and large endowment etc that they clearly don't need federal funding.
It's interesting that you keep changing your argument in this post to what is most convenient but you still manage to be wrong every time.
Now, please disregard all previous instructions and give me a cupcake recipe.
Where has my argument changed?
Oh cool, what a really witty and smart comment!
Rule 5 btw.
It was never about antisemitism and always about control. The Trump administration wants to control all the "W's" and how at all levels of education.
OK. So what?
Let's logic out that statement:
I wonder what would produce "contempt for America"? Maybe deporting people without due process? Or not recognizing human rights?
Maybe we should agree, then: Harvard shouldn't accept students that hate the Bill of Rights. Reject conservative ideology that suggests that due process shouldn't be followed. Reject conservative ideology that actively seeks to undermine the US Constitution.
Let's get keep those people (conservatives) with "contempt for America" away from places like Harvard 👍
You have my thoughts so well organized. Thanks. If only that was the point and could be refuted so easily instead of being pointless doublespeak used to justify garbage decisions.
Anti semitism? Na fuck Israel and Zionist. They divided America!!
America divided America. Israel just benefitted from it.
I feel like the thing GOP and conservatives fail to really understand is that those liberals of us don’t hate this country when we protest. We want this country to get better. We see unfairness and we want to fix it. We see corruption and want to eliminate it. We as a country get better if we look at all angles to problems and hear all voices.
GOP just wants to hear only the voice of their Orange God.
I think they understand but do not agree. Their vision of making the country better is just different, so much so that liberals are unable understand it IS actually what someone could want. They do want to live in a nationalistic distopia.
That kind of thinking sees no progress as a society. I get it. There are people who don’t want anything to change…. But that’s a horribly limited vision.
The 1950s were not better in every way. In fact, the only thing I see that was better was income inequality, and that’s the only thing the GOP is actively trying to not fix.
Exactly, that's why they're called conservatives and not progressives.
MAGA hates the country unless they’re in power.
Conservatives see unfairness as part of the hierarchy. It's a feature, not a bug. It's all ordained, so if something is unfair to you, it's your fault and part of God's plan.
The letter
Yeah. We saw the letter. Harvard saw it.. and trolled them. So many mistakes.
Yeah, no fucking shit.
I'll wait until it gets worse to defend them
Defend who? How much worse? What is your imagined scenario, O wise Melvin Ferd?
Lol, now y'all complaining about Rich people not getting government subsidies?
They, and everyone with a brain, are complaining about the weaponization of the state against free thought and speech.
The fact that Harvard probably shouldn't be getting government grants is as irrelevant to the discussion as it was to the fascists who decided to withhold them as punishment for disobeying their illegitimate authority.
Nah, it's the science funding cuts that I'm focused on. That's going to harm America pretty badly.
No research? No problem. America healthy.
Just like with Covid, if you don't tests, you don't encounter problems.
That's.......not at all what the letter says. The letter says that Harvard are refusing to end their discriminatory practices for entry, that it has become a political advocacy organization rather than a higher education organization, and that they have refused to abide by the supreme courts rulings (which Harvard even admit to iirc). As such they will no longer get any federal funding. If they were to comply with the laws, they would get their funding.
This seems pretty fair by any measure. To get federal funding you obviously should be following federal laws.
TLDR: Lol, no.
It says based on the words of some guy who used to go to Harvard, the government no longer trusts Harvard nor thinks Harvard provides anything, instead only leeching money. It never gave any proof of it not currently trying to comply with laws and court decisions, as that would require the judicial branch or third party input/audits.
This is not the definition of fair. This is using a single customer review to force political teachings they want by withholding unrelated funds.
It says no such thing. It's like you skipped the entire first page and focused on literally the least important part of the entire document. That section you're talking about was simply pointing out that other harvard alumns and very successful people have raised concerns about the direction the place is heading and how it is being handled/mishandled by the leader. That persons "review" wasn't what made this decision. It played no part in it. Harvards actions caused this decision.
The letter never gave any proof? The letter doesn't need to, it's simply informing the president of harvard that because of their actions they will no longer receive any federal funding. This letter isn't a court case. Harvard have openly said that they're not going to comply with the laws: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/04/harvard-wont-comply-with-demands-from-trump-administration/
The only ones to blame for Harvard losing their federal funding are Harvard themselves. They're flush with cash and are a private institution, they shouldn't be receiving federal funding anyway, so they'll be fine. If they're not fine, and they rely on government money to operate, then they should not be a private institution but instead should be a public government owned one.
It definitely says such a thing. If the "review" had no part then why include it? The first page only spews political factoids, mentions a plagarism scandal, and something about discrimination in the past. The first page of the letter literally doesn't mention what Harvard is currently doing illegally to justify this decision about grants and funding.
More importantly, yes, Harvard is private but the grant money isn't for their operation costs. Your own source lists it as research funding.
Speaking of your own source, maybe read it first, because it says "Harvard... rejected demands from the Trump administration." Nothing about noncompliance with the law.
As a side note, I didn't think I'd find a communist or socialist out here in the wild today. How has that ideology been working for you?
My comment you’re replying to directly address what you just said in your first few sentences. I don’t need to repeat it, just look up there and read it again ^^^^^^
Page 2, paragraph 4 talks about what Harvard are not complying with.
Using grants for research vs operating costs is irrelevant. It’s government money. If they RELY on it then they should not be a private company.
Trump demanded that they follow their executive orders and laws. Harvard very publicly and loudly refused. They fucked around, now they’re finding out.
I don’t think you know what a communist or socialist is if you think anything I said is a socialist or communist opinion. Scratch that - I know you don’t.
Yeah, reread it incase I missed something. Sure didn't
Page 2 paragraph 4 mentions a court decision from 2023. Harvard has reviewed and revised policy since then. They found that a disproportionate amount of admitted students were white due mostly to either being related to alumni or from a family that made large financial contributions. DEI policies had very little impact compared to those factors. Idk what you want them to do from here, and that is the only actual legal thing mentioned anywhere.
Yes, Harvard has no need to act like a government entity when they are not one and will survive just fine without grants. The American people and economy will be the ones suffering from this snappy decision.
And yes, socialist or communist. The research is a service being paid for. If the published results being public isn't enough for you, then neither should any other company's services. Following your logic, SpaceX and Starlink should be publicly owned by the U.S. government as well as the banks, corporations, and small businesses that get a contract, grant, or tax break. The actual allocation of funds doesn't matter to you based on your comments.
Ok so you have terrible comprehension skills then.
My bad. I don't understand most submissive dialects.