War on Universities, Lawyers & Expertise

[4thgenheel]

I don't think it's the land, trees or animals that Muslims/terrorists hate.

i certainly can't speak for palestinians but i've heard that they mostly hate the israeli/zionist land/resource theft and terrorism and ethnic cleansing. the nakbah displaced nearly 800k palestinians, which was 2/3 of all palestinians at the time, from approximately 80% of the land in palestine. the current conflagration has killed 50k+ palestinians and displaced 2 million of them. an estimated 9 million palestinians are currently misplaced worldwide.

pointing out all of the awful shit that israel and zionists definitely did and are doing isn't antisemitic in the same way that pointing out that hamas or hezbollah or al-Qaida are awful isn't anti-muslim.

 

[altmin]

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[heelinhell]

First they came for the international students
And I did not speak out because I was not an international student

 

[thebruinbleedstarheelblue]

My best friend of 30 years is genetically Jewish. He's also atheist. I consider him to be less Jewish than someone like Ben Shapiro.

Ben is incredibly passionate about the war in Gaza and what happened on October 7th. My friend is not.

lol sometimes you just let people talk.

 

[LeoBloom]

But it's all about antisemitism.

 

[LeoBloom]

lol sometimes you just let people talk.

Some of the stuff on this thread. Wow.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

He is mad at Harvard for not kneeling before Zod.

So Harvard should lose it’s exempt status for going political, but it’s totally fine for Evangelical churches to publicly embrace right-wing politics and for red state politicians to force their Christian ideology into public schools?

Cool, cool.

 

[4thgenheel]

So Harvard should lose it’s exempt status for going political, but it’s totally fine for Evangelical churches to publicly embrace right-wing politics and for red state politicians to force their Christian ideology into public schools?

Cool, cool.

rules for thee, not for me.

modern conservatism in a nutshell.

 

[nycfan]

 

[TangledUpInBlue06]

I kind of hope the administration does revoke Harvard's exemption because I'm fascinated to see how a high-profile and political case would play out here. I think Harvard would prevail easily, and I think it would put a hard stop to the administration floating revocation of tax exemption as a weapon.

Without getting too nerdy, organizations that have their exemption denied or revoked have the right to seek a declaratory judgment in certain courts that the IRS got it wrong. In the case of a revocation, a full trial is available, not just a review of the administrative record. The choice of venues would generally be pretty favorable for Harvard. I think it goes without saying that there's no precedent for a President threatening to revoke tax exemption. It wouldn't play well. The whole point of the declaratory judgment remedy is to make sure the IRS isn't acting arbitrarily and Trump's public comments scream arbitrary.

 

[mpaer]

I kind of hope the administration does revoke Harvard's exemption because I'm fascinated to see how a high-profile and political case would play out here. I think Harvard would prevail easily, and I think it would put a hard stop to the administration floating revocation of tax exemption as a weapon.

Without getting too nerdy, organizations that have their exemption denied or revoked have the right to seek a declaratory judgment in certain courts that the IRS got it wrong. In the case of a revocation, a full trial is available, not just a review of the administrative record. The choice of venues would generally be pretty favorable for Harvard. I think it goes without saying that there's no precedent for a President threatening to revoke tax exemption. It wouldn't play well. The whole point of the declaratory judgment remedy is to make sure the IRS isn't acting arbitrarily and Trump's public comments scream arbitrary.

Thank you
Certainly Harvard is a perfect big dog with deep pockets that can fight this fight

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I kind of hope the administration does revoke Harvard's exemption because I'm fascinated to see how a high-profile and political case would play out here. I think Harvard would prevail easily, and I think it would put a hard stop to the administration floating revocation of tax exemption as a weapon.

Without getting too nerdy, organizations that have their exemption denied or revoked have the right to seek a declaratory judgment in certain courts that the IRS got it wrong. In the case of a revocation, a full trial is available, not just a review of the administrative record. The choice of venues would generally be pretty favorable for Harvard. I think it goes without saying that there's no precedent for a President threatening to revoke tax exemption. It wouldn't play well. The whole point of the declaratory judgment remedy is to make sure the IRS isn't acting arbitrarily and Trump's public comments scream arbitrary.

I think it's a bit of a loser politically for Trump although it would certainly be an open question. I'm sure plenty of his more hardcore supporters wouldn't mind seeing Harvard getting smacked around a bit as a representative of the political elite but his more moderate supporters would disapprove. And there are plenty of personal rights Republicans that would push back pretty hard on using the IRS to go after a political enemy just because of the fear that the Democrats would do the same.

 

[superrific]

I think it goes without saying that there's no precedent for a President threatening to revoke tax exemption.

I thought Nixon did, but to be honest I've never paid a lot of attention to the particulars of Nixon's abuses.

 

[TangledUpInBlue06]

I thought Nixon did, but to be honest I've never paid a lot of attention to the particulars of Nixon's abuses.

I think he did, though not as directly and not as publicly. Also, the declaratory judgment remedy came in post-Nixon, so at a minimum no direct precedent under that provision of the Code.

 

[superrific]

I think he did, though not as directly and not as publicly. Also, the declaratory judgment remedy came in post-Nixon, so at a minimum no direct precedent under that provision of the Code.

Definitely not as publicly. I see your point re: decl judgment.

 

[donbosco]

I think it's a bit of a loser politically for Trump although it would certainly be an open question. I'm sure plenty of his more hardcore supporters wouldn't mind seeing Harvard getting smacked around a bit as a representative of the political elite but his more moderate supporters would disapprove. And there are plenty of personal rights Republicans that would push back pretty hard on using the IRS to go after a political enemy just because of the fear that the Democrats would do the same.

Ain't no republicans pushing back who haven't already abandoned that party.

 

[Geisterfahrer]

Just a big oopsy?

Trump Officials Blame Mistake for Setting Off Confrontation With Harvard

 

[EyeballKid]

Not sure whether this is better served on this thread or in the daily current events thread—but apparently the Trump admin is backing off their demands from Harvard.

Claiming that the letter from last Friday laying out the administration’s demands was sent in error, without proper authorization.

It’s nice that Harvard has finally exposed this bullshit Trumpian posturing for what it is, but Columbia and other universities should’ve stood up to this over the last couple months.

Fucking Keystone Kops administration, I swear.

Trump Officials Blame Mistake for Setting Off Confrontation With Harvard

An official on the administration’s antisemitism task force told the university that a letter of demands had been sent without authorization.

www.nytimes.com