Let’s talk about it because Harvard’s rejection of$ 2 billion in federal grant funds appears to be right next to Cory Booker’s trivial Senate talk in terms of strong Trump opposition.
Alan Garber, president of the university, announced in an open letter on Monday that the institution would not accept the funds under the terms set forth in the government’s individual letter last week. The University won’t give up its right to self-determination or abandon its constitutional rights, Garber wrote in the statement, which received a slap in the face from blogger Michelle Obama’s husband.
On X, original President Obama wrote,” Harvard has set an example for another higher-ed institutions… rejecting an unconstitutional and ham-handed try to stifle educational freedom.”
Get your victories where you can, I suppose, but it’s not clear what Democrats, Harvard, or anyone else gained from this. By Garber’s own admission, the school has today forfeited billions of dollars that would have enabled it to” contribute to the wellbeing and well-being of millions of people as well as to our nation’s economic security and power.” And why?
The list of requirements that the state sent to Harvard last week was certainly stacked, but the demands were almost within the limits of what Harvard would undoubtedly claim is already in place.
The university’s administration demanded that it stop all race-based “diversity, collateral, and addition” programs in administration and admissions, pass policies encouraging intellectual “viewpoint diversity,” and establish discipline procedures to deal with students and faculty who violate the requirements, as well as any other college regulations and standards.
There were some other requirements, such as the requirement that administrators reaffirm their authority over school protests, which shouldn’t even be required, but much of academia has since become less about learning and more about political agitation.
However, it is argued that the administration’s simply added stress on the school was the government’s grant of the government’s authority to audit the college and its affiliates to check conformity with the agreement. By then, it is well known that anti-democratic liberals ‘ institutions have a problem with transparency, but hey, that’s the deal. This one, unlike previous presidents, doesn’t just spend money on paying tuition to now well-known universities just to follow the “norms” of Washington.
However, as we’ve already seen, choosing a losing battle is frequently more important for Democrats and institutions like Harvard as long as it puts them in conflict with the chairman. They make a clamorous opposition to federal waste, and they use every effort to prevent one dollar from being spent on government waste. Democrats applaud it as a valiant defiance of their adversaries when they pretend to support rational immigration protection and then spend what has been a fortnight demanding that foreign nationals with deportation orders been brought back to the United States. Harvard claims it will abandon funding that is supposedly essential to its scientific study and global advancement, and Democrats applaud it for it.
Whatever you say, you’re hot!
How’s to more wins all round, if it’s a win for Harvard to accept billion in taxpayer money.
