Why are progressives not bothered more by this?
I can provide links if you'd like to learn. I'm just on mobile right now and it's a pain.
It would help, though, if you could describe in what way people should be bothered.
In the case of Harvard and many other institutions, it's a tax-dodge, and nothing more. Same thing with non-profit hospitals whose administrators pay themselves seven-figure salaries.
What does this article have to do with nonprofits in general?
Also the board of the nonprofit sets salaries for admin
> ... the National Association of College and University Business Officers issues a report on ... where the money [endowments] generate ends up. ... About 48 percent of investment income went to student aid ... about a quarter of the money ... went to academic programs and maintaining facilities.
To claim it's a "tax dodge, and nothing more" without elaborating is absurd.
I won't argue further with someone more interested in inflammatory statements than actually discussing.
How much of that "student aid" just covers some of the astronomical tuition Harvard charges?
What do you mean by tax dodge, in this context?
How familiar are you with taxes? Off the top of my head, people who work for non-profits have to pay withholdings and income taxes, just like the rest of us. Generally, 'business' expenses for both non-profit and for-profit organizations (whether a McDonalds, university, church) are tax-deductible. Tax rules differ between states, but being a non-profit doesn't automatically exempt you from collecting and forwarding other forms of tax, such as sales tax.
Is the issue that you don't think that any university - or perhaps specifically Harvard? - should be granted non-profit status? If that’s the case, then I'm curious what you think about the same question for religion-affiliated universities and non-profit organizations whose missions you agree with?
No, some of them operate like genuine non-profits by promoting some public good and compensate their executives only modestly. For example, the Salvation Army.
People have screamed that Universities tuition fees are too expensive for the RoI. It’s a separate bipartisan issue.
You know what doesn't fall within the rubric of existing laws (or things that anyone who respect the rule of law and controlled government should be comfortable with)? Trump unilaterally using the federal agencies under his control to vengefully, punitively attack a major public institution just because he wants it to do whatever his latest personal tantrum has dictated.
His whimsical funding cuts are indeed illegal (1) and even if you agree with the government not funding certain institutions in certain ways, i'd call it a bad fucking idea to claim that the president should break his government's own federal laws to do so.
1 https://www.thefire.org/news/faq-responding-common-questions...
Every leftist I know believes that education should be free and universally accessible. That holding capital (especially with the intent to make more capital, which is what an endowment is) is morally wrong. And that we should tax wealthy people and corporations to fund things like healthcare and education.
Constructing a strawman like this (inventing a position that progressives do not hold) and then trying to point out the hippocracy in that position is classic logical fallacy territory.
Better question is why aren't conservatives bothered by any of this?
Federal funds comes with strings attached and administrations change. If the usefulness of the work has proven itself now, then other sources can fund it. This won't really be controversial or require grandstanding or debate soon, because it will be the status quo.
Yes, its also disruptive to many programs to cut off funding in this way. I think decoupling is for the better. This university daytraded tax free up to a $50bn endowment, for a rainy day. They just need to get liquid and plug the budget gap, which they are starting to do. Donors and other sources can be leveraged too.
For example I don’t remember the detail exactly but this professors insistence to study extremophiles has directly translated to many improvements in medicine.
Companies, large ones, settle all the time even if not at fault to avoid a lengthy trial which damages their reputation. It can have nothing to do with culpability.
3% of civil cases reach a verdict.
https://arizonabusinesslawyeraz.com/when-to-litigate-and-whe...
Settlements are also a known fixed cost controlled by the business instead of a jury. Considering how Republicans are attacking Harvard I would say the desire to get this out the public spotlight as fast as possible is important
“ Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences will stop requiring a diversity, inclusion, and belonging statement as part of its faculty hiring process”
Professor Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School described these statements as "ideological pledges of allegiance" that pressure candidates to conform to specific viewpoints, potentially discouraging those with differing perspectives
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Too,_Am_Harvard
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Harvard
[4] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/11/1/pro-palestine-l...
[5] https://www.jdjournal.com/2024/07/05/critics-blast-harvard-t...
[6] https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2025/04/harvard-renames-dive...
[7] https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/05/28/harvard-university-neut...
For instance, computer science professor Harry Lewis observed that the course catalog contains over 100 classes referencing "social justice" and around 80 each mentioning "oppression" or "liberation,"
[8] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/18/harvar...
[9] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/1/8/lewis-reaping-wh...
Those are some examples but clearly they have failed to address anti semitism on their campus. Harvard also appears to be an enabler of social activism
The CS professor just running a word search is a poor experiment but this doesn't negate your point.
[1] The DEI intitive is social activism [2] True but not an official school policy but a professor
[3] Independent organization [4] Article on protests and mentions faculty support them [5-6] Accusations [7] True
These are good examples. What about indoctrination though and is it wrong for Harvard to be social activists?
In the case of the curriculum, it suggests an institutional preference for particular ideological narratives
Harvard selectively aligned with or tolerated specific activist ideologies while suppressing or distancing themselves from others
For DEI (which is just rebranded now honestly), it suggests that Harvard pushes only progressive policies and indoctrinated their students in this ideology.
They shouldn’t indoctrinate any students whatsoever
Are there?
>suggests that Harvard pushes only progressive policies
How does Harvard's DEI program suggest they ONLY push progressive policies?
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ip031k/commen...
It can also create a circle where people who are more conservative are less likely to view universites favorably, and therefore attend less and in different departments, thus creating an even more overwhelming majority.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/07/10/sharp-partis...
This shows the difference in thinking between left and right on higher education. In general the longer you are at college, the more likely you are to be liberal. Is that 'indoctrination'? No, but I think it's a bit silly to not see a stray thumb on the scale”
That's nice
"Although acknowledging his experiment’s limitations – “word frequency is an imperfect measure”
The classes exist and he could have confirmed by attending them or checking course material. I was complaining about his lazy method
It doesn't matter I said you proved that point
markoman•6h ago
jmclnx•6h ago
I know you know. Harvard has the gall to give scholarships to people who are not Male and White. Plus Harvard is not kissing the demented orange clown's a**.
uhhhd•6h ago
uhhhd•6h ago
Key Allegations: 1. Hostile Environment: The complaint describes a campus atmosphere where pro-Hamas students and faculty have organized demonstrations featuring antisemitic slogans and calls for violence against Jews and Israel. These protests have reportedly disrupted classes and occupied campus spaces, creating an environment of fear and intimidation for Jewish students. 2. Administrative Inaction: Despite numerous complaints and reports of antisemitic incidents, the university administration is accused of failing to take appropriate disciplinary actions against perpetrators. The plaintiffs argue that this inaction amounts to deliberate indifference, exacerbating the hostile environment. 3. Double Standards: The lawsuit claims that Harvard enforces its anti-discrimination policies selectively, protecting other minority groups while neglecting the safety and rights of Jewish students. This alleged inconsistency is presented as evidence of institutional bias. 4. Faculty Conduct: Certain faculty members are accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric in their teachings and public statements, further contributing to the hostile climate on campus. 5. Failure to Uphold Policies: The plaintiffs contend that Harvard has not adhered to its own stated policies on discrimination and harassment, thereby breaching contractual obligations to its students.
Legal Claims: • Violation of Title VI: The university is accused of failing to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, as mandated by federal law. • Breach of Contract: By not enforcing its anti-discrimination policies, Harvard is alleged to have breached its contractual commitments to provide a safe educational environment. • Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The plaintiffs argue that the university’s actions, or lack thereof, violate the fundamental expectations of fairness and protection owed to students.
Braxton1980•6h ago
-----
My concern is that Anti-Zionism is being conflated with Anti-Semitism by the complainants in order to
1. Bolster their case wrongfully by increasing the number of incidents
2. Defend the Israeli government
3. Expand Anti-Semitism to include Anti-Zionism in court decisions making future criticism of Israel dangerous
For example the complaint you linked to opens with
".. Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and slaughtered, tortured, raped, burned, and mutilated 1,200 people—including infants, children, and the elderly"
Unnecessary details to the situation because if their claims against Harvard are valid the source of the anti-Semitism is irrelevant (edit: meaning anger at Israel's response to the attack)
This means it was placed at the beginning of the complaint to illicit an emotional reaction/reminder of the horrific event.
Edit: Just to add that if a person is criticizing Israel and a Jewish person feels threatened or avoids campus because of it that's not anti-Semitism.
uhhhd•5h ago
Braxton1980•4h ago
"I'd like to open my case against John Smith for murder your honor. My only piece of evidence that he committed this horrific crime is that he was accused of it. I rest my case"
>And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.
By all who were there or just some? Being the protest was open to all how can you lump all protestors together because of the views of some.
>intentionally obtuse
Because I avoided generalizations?
const_cast•43m ago
No actually I think it's right on the money.
Some vaguely brown people being very mad at Israel does not antisemitism make.
Are they denying the Holocaust? Are they saying Jews should die? Or... are they saying Israel is committing a genocide? Are they blaming those particular jews running Israel?
I think we all know it's almost entirely the latter, and almost none of the former.
uhhhd•5h ago
Braxton1980•4h ago
"opposition to the establishment or support of the state of Israel"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Zionism
>Its eliminationist rhetoric and plainly bigoted.
There are some who think Israel shouldn't exist others who think their government is wrong.
If a person thinks all Israelis should be murdered then that's wrong. This is not the whole representation of Anti-Zionism but you are trying to make it
You can only be bigoted against a person or group of people, not a country or government.
pasttense01•5h ago
uhhhd•5h ago