this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2025
165 points (99.4% liked)

politics

29221 readers
2017 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
165
Why it matters that Harvard said no (www.thedailybeast.com)
submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The question now is what happens next? Will our most thin-skinned political leaders accept opposition from a bunch of snot-nosed nerds?

Harvard said no. No to government minders, no to intellectual dishonesty, no to conservative DEI.

In a forceful letter of rebuke to the Trump administration’s threat to withhold federal money from the university if it does not acquiesce to a series of “ham-handed” demands—including government audits to monitor “ideological capture”—Harvard president Alan M. Garber basically told the government to f--k all the way off. He said it in a more Harvard way, but that was the message.

In response, the government said it would be withholding $2.2 billion in already-appropriated grant money to the school. This is money that Garber said, in the past, “has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields.” Oh well. We probably didn’t need innovations, anyway.

Harvard’s defiance stands in embarrassing contrast to the actions of Columbia University, which, faced with similar demands, folded like a cheap diploma. (I’m exaggerating. In this country, there’s no such thing as a cheap diploma.)

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago (1 children)

First of all, the real question is why Columbia et al said yes.

Second,

The question now is what happens next? Will our most thin-skinned political leaders accept opposition from a bunch of snot-nosed nerds?

Eat shit. Part of the problem.

This from a publication asking for money called The Daily Beast.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Daily Beast has been pretty good in my experience, I think they may be mocking the administration. Pretty sure Harvard folks and all of us get that they are high-status nerds

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 11 months ago

Watching the different institutions take sides shows the political fault lines that have built up for more than a generation. It’s sort of pretty, and educational.

Harvard was always old money, and most the older families of the super rich do not support what is happening. They want the old empire back, among other things.

Columbia is more new money, and the politically connected , one will see the more recently wealthy , as a rule, or the older ones who are more opportunistic.