this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
451 points (99.8% liked)

politics

31022 readers
3740 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 86 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Their pressure seems to have helped Harvard President Alan Garber stand up to Trump

No: what helps Harvard stand up to Trump is that Harvard is loaded. The University of Bumfuck Nowhere will immediately cave in to Trump's authoritarian nonsense to maintain their federal funding and their tax-exempt status. Harvard can afford to do without them.

In other words, I'm glad Harvard is resisting. But this is yet another example of rich-man-can-do.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Is the better option that rich man do nothing?

You’re not wrong that the money helps but someone also has to do the convincing part. They both help.

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree. It's just that resistance should be uplifting, and seeing that, once again, only the rich have the means to resist is depressing AF.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe those with more resources have more options to resist; this has always been the case. However, they don’t have all of the means.

I don’t think doomerism like this does anything but demoralize. It’s better than them going along with the bullshit. It’s gotta start somewhere, and it’s going to start with those who have the resources to resist.

[–] courageousstep@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

I think that it’s similar to the idea that anti-racism needs to start with white people.

White people have the social capital to stay safe while protesting—thus able to further the cause for longer—and the subjugation starts with white people so they have a responsibility to start the movement.

Rich people have the economic capital to stay safe while protesting—thus able to further the cause for longer—and the subjugation originates with rich people so they have a responsibility to start the movement.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think the statement you are responding to is not prescriptive, but that the situation needs to be described accurately.

Edit: your edit is an improvement, thanks.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I don’t believe “he helped Harvard stand up to Trump” is inaccurate. Yes, those with more resources can do more. Has this ever not been the case?

[–] ifGoingToCrashDont@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Dude Harvard didn't even stand up to defend their own president Claudine Gay when she needed their backing. They were dead silent during trumps first term when this same shit was going on. It's not just the money. They will literally sit on their asses and say nothing unless they are pushed.

[–] TheDuffmaster@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Weren't other also billion dollar endowment colleges caving? Like Columbia University. I would think that would make Harvard an outlier here, unless we consider Harvard to have fuck you endowment money vs the others.

[–] ArmyTiger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Wasn't Eastern Michigan one of the first universities to tell the DOJ to fuck off?

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

When the far right came knocking, Harvard made Columbia look pretty cowardly and unworthy of any prestige. Columbia should lose its "ivy league" title for good.

Good for Harvard leadership.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

archive link just in case it's needed
https://archive.is/j2A1N