War on Universities, Lawyers & Expertise

[rodoheel]

Not to mention the obvious: no one can really believe that the reason Trump is going after elite universities is "antisemitism." Just like no one really believes that the reason Trump is going after elite law firms is their "DEI" policies.

 

[dukeman92]

I bet he's not receiving billions in federal funding.

There's also the 1st Amendment.

Nobody is saying Harvard can't allow pro-terrorist/anti-Semitic behavior on their campus. Trump is just saying you can't do that and get federal money. Is he allowed to revoke already approved money? Probably not.

There's also the fact that if the protests were anti-black, the University would be on it like a fat kid on cake because of the liberal heirarchy of victimhood.

Jews rank far too low on the victimhood list these days.

You're pathetic.

I have less respect for you than I do the Trumpanzees who just full on own this bullshit.

 

[Healing]

Antisemitic, Terrorist sympathizers


Not an antisemitic, terrorist sympathizer


Did I do that right?

 

[WaynetheDrain]

I bet he's not receiving billions in federal funding.

There's also the 1st Amendment.

Nobody is saying Harvard can't allow pro-terrorist/anti-Semitic behavior on their campus. Trump is just saying you can't do that and get federal money. Is he allowed to revoke already approved money? Probably not.

There's also the fact that if the protests were anti-black, the University would be on it like a fat kid on cake because of the liberal heirarchy of victimhood.

Jews rank far too low on the victimhood list these days.

Another pointless post by our dumb fuck contrarian douchebag.

 

[superrific]

Public service announcement: the president cannot deny government benefits as retaliation. That's both statutory law, and constitutional command. Even if you don't have a right to some benefit, it can't be denied to you for improper purposes -- such as to coerce an agreement to onerous and illegal government oversight.

This is established law, that basically everyone agrees with -- liberals and conservatives. It's called the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. Of all the people I've talked to about it, the one who felt most strongly was John Manning, current provost of Harvard, former Dean of Harvard Law School, Scalia clerk and Bush v. Gore foot warrior. It is not a liberal thing.

Overview of Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[ZenMode]

Please, tell me more about all the horrible antisemitism Harvard has "allowed" on their campus. Let me guess: it's people saying things like "Free Palestine"? Writing editorials in the school paper critical of Israel? Or have they been throwing rotten vegetables at the Jewish students and I just didn't hear about it?

In any event, the First Amendment limits the extent to which speech (even antisemitic speech) can be expressly proscribed and forbidden. Is Harvard's choice that it has to violate people's First Amendment rights to receive federal funding?

The easy and obvious example is calling for the elimination of Israel and Jews which is what "From the river to the sea" means

Now, you may want to say "Not everyone believes that phase is calling for the elimination of Jews... it just calls for the elimination of Israel". I don't see how you can eliminate Israel without eliminating Jews, but that's a separate topic. When asked, in front of Congress, if calling for an elimination of Jews, which is a completely plausible interpretation, was violated any University rules and policies, they couldn't answer in the affirmative.

So, let's say it was white supremacist/neo-Nazis calling for the elimination of black people. Do you think Harvard would react the same way. Would it be a similar benefit of the doubt?

Now, if you want to go one step further, there's a argument to be made that chanting "free Palestine" is really just another way to call for the elimination of Israel and elimination of Jews because, in their warped minds, the only way Palestine can be "free" is to get out from under the "oppression" of Israel. In this case, oppression really means self preservation on the part Israel who, if they want to survive, can't allow Palestine to be a sovereign entity. They have to monitor what's imported, for example. If they didn't, Hamas would import all the weapons they need to make a run at eliminating Israel.

The only thing preventing Palestine/Gaza from sovereignty is the fact that , because of their religious beliefs, they are incapable of acting like civilized human beings.

 

[farce©]

The easy and obvious example is calling for the elimination of Israel and Jews which is what "From the river to the sea" means

Now, you may want to say "Not everyone believes that phase is calling for the elimination of Jews... it just calls for the elimination of Israel". I don't see how you can eliminate Israel without eliminating Jews, but that's a separate topic. When asked, in front of Congress, if calling for an elimination of Jews, which is a completely plausible interpretation, was violated any University rules and policies, they couldn't answer in the affirmative.

So, let's say it was white supremacist/neo-Nazis calling for the elimination of black people. Do you think Harvard would react the same way. Would it be a similar benefit of the doubt?

Now, if you want to go one step further, there's a argument to be made that chanting "free Palestine" is really just another way to call for the elimination of Israel and elimination of Jews because, in their warped minds, the only way Palestine can be "free" is to get out from under the "oppression" of Israel. In this case, oppression really means self preservation on the part Israel who, if they want to survive, can't allow Palestine to be a sovereign entity. They have to monitor what's imported, for example. If they didn't Hamas would import all the weapons they need to make a run at eliminating Israel.

Yet you were whining about the First Amendment rights of this guy a few pages back.

I bet he's not receiving billions in federal funding.

There's also the 1st Amendment.

 

[superrific]

The easy and obvious example is calling for the elimination of Israel and Jews which is what "From the river to the sea" means

Now, you may want to say "Not everyone believes that phase is calling for the elimination of Jews... it just calls for the elimination of Israel". I don't see how you can eliminate Israel without eliminating Jews, but that's a separate topic. When asked, in front of Congress, if calling for an elimination of Jews, which is a completely plausible interpretation, was violated any University rules and policies, they couldn't answer in the affirmative.

So, let's say it was white supremacist/neo-Nazis calling for the elimination of black people. Do you think Harvard would react the same way. Would it be a similar benefit of the doubt?

Now, if you want to go one step further, there's a argument to be made that chanting "free Palestine" is really just another way to call for the elimination of Israel and elimination of Jews because, in their warped minds, the only way Palestine can be "free" is to get out from under the "oppression" of Israel. In this case, oppression really means self preservation on the part Israel who, if they want to survive, can't allow Palestine to be a sovereign entity. They have to monitor what's imported, for example. If they didn't, Hamas would import all the weapons they need to make a run at eliminating Israel.

The only thing preventing Palestine/Gaza from sovereignty is the fact that , because of their religious beliefs, they are incapable of acting like civilized human beings.

The colloquial term for this is "bullshit." I do not that term does it justice. The last sentence is pure bait. Hopefully you don't believe that, but as it is obviously false, I won't be addressing it and I'm skeptical anyone else will either.

If you truly think that Palestinians are not civilized (in fact, you go further and say they can't even pretend), and that's because of Islam, then somewhere your education went badly astray and that's a shame for you.

 

[ZenMode]

Yet you were whining about the First Amendment rights of this guy a few pages back.

Maybe you want to read/quote the entire post and not cherry pick the part that you believes makes a point about my position on the first amendment.

 

[ZenMode]

The colloquial term for this is "bullshit." I do not that term does it justice. The last sentence is pure bait. Hopefully you don't believe that, but as it is obviously false, I won't be addressing it and I'm skeptical anyone else will either.

If you truly think that Palestinians are not civilized (in fact, you go further and say they can't even pretend), and that's because of Islam, then somewhere your education went badly astray and that's a shame for you.

Since most of your focus is on the last sentence, I'll say that the last sentence is the most accurate but I should have said religious extremism.

 

[rodoheel]

The easy and obvious example is calling for the elimination of Israel and Jews which is what "From the river to the sea" means

Now, you may want to say "Not everyone believes that phase is calling for the elimination of Jews... it just calls for the elimination of Israel". I don't see how you can eliminate Israel without eliminating Jews, but that's a separate topic. When asked, in front of Congress, if calling for an elimination of Jews, which is a completely plausible interpretation, was violated any University rules and policies, they couldn't answer in the affirmative.

So, let's say it was white supremacist/neo-Nazis calling for the elimination of black people. Do you think Harvard would react the same way. Would it be a similar benefit of the doubt?

Now, if you want to go one step further, there's a argument to be made that chanting "free Palestine" is really just another way to call for the elimination of Israel and elimination of Jews because, in their warped minds, the only way Palestine can be "free" is to get out from under the "oppression" of Israel. In this case, oppression really means self preservation on the part Israel who, if they want to survive, can't allow Palestine to be a sovereign entity. They have to monitor what's imported, for example. If they didn't, Hamas would import all the weapons they need to make a run at eliminating Israel.

The only thing preventing Palestine/Gaza from sovereignty is the fact that , because of their religious beliefs, they are incapable of acting like civilized human beings.

So let me just make I sure I have this right: your position is that if Harvard "allows" anyone to say "From the river to the sea" or "Free Palestine" on their campus (meaning what exactly? That Harvard has to expel any student that says that on grounds that it's antisemitism? That Harvard has to remove anyone from campus that says that?) then they are rightly subject to losing all of their federal funding on grounds that they have enabled antisemitism?

What a truly bonkers opinion. So do you also think that if a Harvard Jewish student said that "there is no such thing as Palestine" and endorsed the removal of all Palestinians from the area that Harvard would be subject to losing their federal funding for allowing anti-Muslim rhetoric on campus?

For someone who claims to be a libertarian this is a truly bizarre level of speech policing. Beyond just the absurdity of the idea that saying "Free Palestine" is somehow antisemitic. I have a colleague whose family lives in the West Bank. And you think that if he advocates for Israel leaving the West Bank and allowing it to govern itself that would be antisemitism? You are literally saying that a group of people can't advocate for what they believe are their own rights (and no one else can advocate on their own behalf) because the country that they believe is violating their rights happens to be Israel.

 

[superrific]

Since most of your focus is on the last sentence, I'll say that the last sentence is the most accurate but I should have said religious extremism.

Throw yourself a party then. Who do you think is going to agree with you that Palestinians are uncivilized?

The rest of your post was also bullshit. It's been explained to you why. I'll do it again very briefly. What you are describing is called "a primary effect of speech" -- i.e. the reactions of people who hear the speech, interpret it in a particular way and react accordingly.

The Supreme Court has been unfailingly clear over decades that the primary effect of speech is not an acceptable ground for muzzling it. Read Boos v. Barry (opinion by O'Connor).

Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)

Boos v. Barry: Content-specific regulations on protected free speech must meet strict scrutiny, which means that they must be narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.

supreme.justia.com

"This justification focuses only on the content of the speech and the direct impact that speech has on its listeners. The emotive impact of speech on its audience is not a "secondary effect." Because the display clause regulates speech due to its potential primary impact, we conclude it must be considered content-based."

Another way of putting the point is that you're asking for a heckler's veto. The Heckler’s Veto

But what do I know? I've only read virtually every speech-related Supreme Court case decided post WWII, for a paper I was working on. That's how I know cases like Boos v. Barry, which are otherwise not well known. If you would drop your petulance, you could actually learn a fair amount of law from what I post.

 

[ZenMode]

Throw yourself a party then. Who do you think is going to agree with you that Palestinians are uncivilized?

You're nitpicking the wording. It's the behavior of Gaza, as a country and neighbor of Israel, that prevents Gaza from being a sovereign entity.

The rest of your post was also bullshit. It's been explained to you why. I'll do it again very briefly. What you are describing is called "a primary effect of speech" -- i.e. the reactions of people who hear the speech, interpret it in a particular way and react accordingly.

The Supreme Court has been unfailingly clear over decades that the primary effect of speech is not an acceptable ground for muzzling it. Read Boos v. Barry (opinion by O'Connor).

Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)

Boos v. Barry: Content-specific regulations on protected free speech must meet strict scrutiny, which means that they must be narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.

supreme.justia.com

"This justification focuses only on the content of the speech and the direct impact that speech has on its listeners. The emotive impact of speech on its audience is not a "secondary effect." Because the display clause regulates speech due to its potential primary impact, we conclude it must be considered content-based."

Another way of putting the point is that you're asking for a heckler's veto. The Heckler’s Veto

But what do I know? I've only read virtually every speech-related Supreme Court case decided post WWII, for a paper I was working on. That's how I know cases like Boos v. Barry, which are otherwise not well known. If you would drop your petulance, you could actually learn a fair amount of law from what I post.

To whatever degree the US government is required to fulfill previous financial obligations to Harvard, those should be fulfilled. Beyond that, I would have no issue with the US government stopping funding to Harvard or any other school that permits bigotry on their campus. As we both know, receiving federal funding often has strings attached to it, and the federal government loves to use those strings to get what they want or when they don't get what they want.

There's no obligation to give Harvard billions of dollars in taxpayer money.

 

[superrific]

Beyond that, I would have no issue with the US government stopping funding to Harvard or any other school that permits bigotry on their campus. As we both know, receiving federal funding often has strings attached to it, and the federal government loves to use those strings to get what they want or when they don't get what they want.

There's no obligation to give Harvard billions of dollars in taxpayer money.

You're entitled to that opinion. Maybe that's what should happen -- maybe we should empower the president to unilaterally decide whether a school is complying with the law and hand down harsh, punitive sanctions to force it to submit to all sorts of clearly illegal conditions unrelated to the purported transgression. I don't think so. I think the president should follow the laws and procedures that govern how the money is distributed, especially since the power of the purse goes to Congress. I think that the president should not be attempting to determine what viewpoints should and shouldn't be hired by private universities; I think that's characteristic of totalitarian regimes and anathema to a free society. But hey, who knows, maybe you have some good ideas about what should be done.

You're not entitled to make up your own reality. To be very clear, there is an obligation to continue funding Harvard's research -- not only for past services but on a going forward basis. If the government funds some institutions, it cannot refuse to fund others for reasons related to speech or political viewpoint. The government could cancel all research grants for everyone, but it can't do so just for Harvard and certainly not in retaliation for refusing the letter. Note that the right is not specific to Harvard; it's a right for anyone. Harvard is the one being attacked now, and also we know that Harvard qualifies for a lot of grants so it's unreasonable to deny that the cutoff is viewpoint related.

 

[ZenMode]

You're entitled to that opinion. Maybe that's what should happen -- maybe we should empower the president to unilaterally decide whether a school is complying with the law and hand down harsh, punitive sanctions to force it to submit to all sorts of clearly illegal conditions unrelated to the purported transgression. I don't think so. I think the president should follow the laws and procedures that govern how the money is distributed, especially since the power of the purse goes to Congress. I think that the president should not be attempting to determine what viewpoints should and shouldn't be hired by private universities; I think that's characteristic of totalitarian regimes and anathema to a free society. But hey, who knows, maybe you have some good ideas about what should be done.

You're not entitled to make up your own reality. To be very clear, there is an obligation to continue funding Harvard's research -- not only for past services but on a going forward basis. If the government funds some institutions, it cannot refuse to fund others for reasons related to speech or political viewpoint. The government could cancel all research grants for everyone, but it can't do so just for Harvard and certainly not in retaliation for refusing the letter. Note that the right is not specific to Harvard; it's a right for anyone. Harvard is the one being attacked now, and also we know that Harvard qualifies for a lot of grants so it's unreasonable to deny that the cutoff is viewpoint related.

I bet the government could find some "incitement to violence" in the calls to eliminate Israel, that wouldn't be protected speech, and would justify cutting funding.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

I bet the government could find some "incitement to violence" in the calls to eliminate Israel, that wouldn't be protected speech, and would justify cutting funding.

Try squaring that with Brandenburg.

 

[superrific]

I bet the government could find some "incitement to violence" in the calls to eliminate Israel, that wouldn't be protected speech, and would justify cutting funding.

How much would you bet? I'd be willing to bet thousands on the other side. Speech is only unprotected if it is both intended to and effective in inciting imminent lawless actions. Advocating in the abstract is insufficient. It would have to be, "go kill all the Zionists now!" or something that would produce an immediate response.

The Supreme Court has held that the Nazis have a right to march the streets of Skokie, that the KKK can burn crosses on black people's lawns, and that assholes can picket funerals of fallen soldiers to say that God hates f****.

But saying, "Palestine shall be free, from the river to the sea" is unprotected? To state the question is to answer it.

It boggles the mind that you're trying to argue with me when there's such a discrepancy in our knowledge. The difference couldn't be more stark. You've read zero. I've read all. I mean, wtf dude?

 

[evrheel]

'We will crush you': NYT columnist warns Trump sent these institutions a clear message

President Donald Trump is trying to "crush" colleges and universities around the country, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned Monday on CNN — and the war he's waging against Harvard is about much more than just Harvard."I want to talk about this spat between the university and the...

www.rawstory.com

 

[evrheel]

Not to mention the obvious: no one can really believe that the reason Trump is going after elite universities is "antisemitism." Just like no one really believes that the reason Trump is going after elite law firms is their "DEI" policies.

It's all part of his revenge tour where he uses the power of the federal gov't to get back at those who personally wronged him. Trump was turned down for Harvard undergraduate. Told him they didn't take students with a C average in HS. I'd always assumed it was because he was a draft-dodging POS.

 

[superrific]

Anyone find a link to Harvard's complaint against Trump filed today?

And yes, there's something at least a little bit wrong with me that I'm following the lawsuits like people follow recruiting.