The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
I Don't Mean to Brag, but I Didn't Go to Harvard
Harvard continues to beclown itself.
Recent news from Harvard:
(1) Harvard, under a lot pressure from both the government and internal constituencies, released a lengthy report about antisemitism at the university since October 7. It's pretty devastating, and pretty much should shame all those who have been claiming that complaints about antisemitism there have been exaggerated "Zionist" propaganda.
(2) There's a lot of crazy stuff in the Harvard report, but I can't stop thinking about this chart used in a *required* Education School class.
It's antisemitic, yes, in suggesting that the ADL, which has been fighting white supremacy for over 100 years, is one of the worst examples of white supremacism in the United States. But it's just batshit crazy more generally, and shows the connection between nutty woke ideologies and antisemitism. The report assures us that the instructor is no longer using this chart. IMHO, anyone who thought using this chart as a serious learning tool can and likely should be fired for cause.
(3) After the Washington Free Beacon revealed blatantly illegal racial preferences at the Harvard Law Review, law review editors took action--they began to try to find and punish the leaker, while defiantly proclaiming that they don't plan to charge their day-to-day policies. Out of curiosity, I dug up Harvard's anti-retaliation policy for whistleblowers, or at least what was the policy as late as this past March. (I had to retrieve it from Archive.org). Going after the student leaker is a blatant violation of that policy. I think we're getting to the point where there is good reason to question the top HLR's editors ability to meet the character and fitness requirements of state bars, given their blatant disregard for any laws or rules that apply to them.
(4) Not being satisfied with blatantly defying both federal law and Harvard policy, the Law Review decided to award a $65,000 fellowship to a rather, umm, interesting recipient. Law review editor Ibrahim Bharmal was caught on video assaulting a Jewish Harvard student. He was prosecuted, without Harvard's cooperation, by the local DA, and a few days ago was sent to a diversion program for first-time offenders in which he will have to pick up trash and do other public service and attend an anger management class. So he wasn't convicted, but the assault is, as noted, on video. Not only did that not stop the Law Review from rewarding him with a fellowship, but he will use the fellowship to work at the antisemitic Council on Islamic Relations' especially antisemitic Los Angeles office.
(5) And speaking of Bharmal, someone at Harvard Law School decided he would make a good poster boy for its clinical programs, and last month gave him a whole page to praise both himself and the clinic he worked for on the law school website. It's almost like certain Harvard affiliates want to give the Trump administration ammunition in its war against the university.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is a delicate moment. It’s a new day and yet so many are on edge. Our politics are inflamed, and social media only adds to the anxiety.
It seems that @Harvard used an awkward graphic in a moment of enthusiasm, not an example of antisemitism, but again, we appreciate that people are on edge.
In this moment, all sides should give one another a bit of grace, perhaps even the benefit of the doubt, and take a breath. This is a new beginning. Let’s hope for healing and work toward unity in the months and years ahead.
"No. You can't say that! The government must prevent people from saying those kinds of things."--David Bernstein.
No. The government can't do that.
But the government can certainly say that it will not pay for or subsidize such speech. The government has no need to pay for students to attend a KKK university and it has not need to pay for students to attend a school that teaches stuff like this.
Case law does not support that claim. The government does not have to give out money, but if they do, they cannot condition it on the recipient's political views. If you want to learn, you could read up on the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. Prof. Volokh has explained these rules on various occasions.
In this case the government is paying for the speech. It can certainly refuse to pay for students to be taught that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of cheese and it can refuse to pay for this garbage.
The government paid for the Ed. School course Prof. Bernstein is complaining about? What specific grant are you referring to?
This 'awkward' stuff is happening all the time but is swept under the rug and the media focuses exclusively on the reaction to make it seem excessive when John Q public assumes students are simply learning their ABCs and 1+2s and have no idea what it is actually in response to.
It's happening all the time! But we never see it!
But Amos knows.
You remind me of those "journalists" who called for dropping a veil over COVID rhetoric, moving on.
Which was their bid for absolution on vilifying those who diverged from the preferred narratives, deplarforming and demonetizing them, slandering and libeling them, so they could continue to demonize the same people, on any ground they choose.
Those who refused the jabs were called "Grandma killers," despite fact that those shots were never so much as tested for transmission prevention, and, in fact, did not do so.
So, let's give them all pats on the head and hefty bonuses, yes?
Would it be possible for a higher resolution version of the image to be embedded in the article? It is impossible to read what's in the pyramid on the included version.
Also, I have heard that the Harvard Law Review is legally a separate entity from Harvard proper. Does this impact how Harvard's policies or anti-discrimination laws apply to the law review?
Thanks for the new image!
Harvard will lose its tax exempt status. I hope it was worth it to them.
And the war in Ukraine will be ended in 24 hours. I mean, 30 days. I mean, 90 days. I mean . . . .
Leftoids: more angry that Trump said it would be over in 24 hours than at Biden for keeping it going for 3 years. Fascinating.
Just to be clear, I voted for Trump. But I don't take his utterances very seriously. Neither should you, or you will either (i) be perpetually disappointed or (ii) more likely, retreat into a fantasy world where he has done all sorts of things that actually never happened, like building a wall.
Bob Jones University lost its tax exemption and the Supreme Court agreed. Harvard has not addressed it racially discriminatory policies and campus antisemitism. Its on quicksand.
You have to come up with offenses that are not speech, which Bernstein has not done. Bob Jones was enforcing racially biased rules of conduct.
These are not intellectually difficult distinctions, at least for T14 graduates, of which there are precious few in the Trump Justice Department.
Harvard is also enforcing racially based admissions and hiring, and is more racist than Bob Jones U ever was.
Really? There has been an administrative or judicial determination, after notice, hearing, and evaluation of competent evidence, that Harvard violated the law as declared by the Supreme Court (formerly Grutter, for the past year SFFA)? No, of course not. That would be a lot of work, and the Trump Administration doesn't do that. They don't need to, because Trump worshippers like dwb68 and kleppe insist that they are "winning" regardless of what actually happens in the real world.
Theyll use Harvards own report against them. Creating "jew free zones" on campus and religious discrimination is illegal.
They are also still enforcing racially based admissions, despite last years Supreme Court decison (we know this thanks to leaks).
That report is hearsay. It could be used to discover admissible evidence, but that would be a bunch of work, which, as Bernstein himself admits, Pam Bondi doesn't do.
No private college should have a tax exempt status at any level.
No private college should have a tax exempt status at any level.
Why? And what other private non-profits do you think should lose their tax-exempt status?
Colleges are actually for-profit organizations. They are less about education and more about acquiring and maintaining the influx of dollars. A university president is mostly picked due to their ability to get more money for the institute. They function more as CEOs than educational leaders.
This is true of all non-profits, dum dum. Or do you think that the CEO of the March of Dimes was selected for her impressive dime collection and marching proficiency?
Yes on the dime collection and marching.
This is not the definition of profit, at all. Profit is the excess of revenue over the costs and expenditures of a business, that can be distributed to the business owners. Now, a for-profit business can always reinvest its net profit through expansion, capital purchases, or so on, or keep some of the profit in reserve as cash or through investment in assets that can be converted to cash if needed. And, some will even have "profit sharing" with employees in addition to disbursing profits to the owners.
In a way, an endowment seems like a business holding cash or assets in reserve for possible future needs. And non-profit foundations keep assets and investments in the same way. Sometimes, it is the return on those investments that is used for ongoing expenditures along with new donations. The difference, though, is that there are no owners to ever disburse profits to. Non-profits are supposed to be governed in a way that prevents the top executives from using any revenue, excess or otherwise, to enrich themselves, family, or cronies. When those rules are broken, or if the rules are too loose with too many loopholes, then it is a matter of enforcement or legislation to correct that problem.
That last part is what you seem to be concerned about, which is totally fair. But that doesn't change the definition of what it means to be a for-profit or non-profit enterprise.
Maybe. I forget where I read this, but it has been observed that universities actually disguise their stakeholders as expenses. The main stakeholders are faculty and administrators, and it is for their benefit that the university is run. They have continuity of presence and interest, policymaking authority, authority over succession (i.e. who will be the next generation) and admission (i.e. who the customers are), and so forth. The only difference is that these stakeholders can't physically take university assets home with them legally the way owners can. But that's true of shareholders of public corporations as well, even if those shareholders are also officers or directors. As for profits, well -- the benefits of being in control of an enterprise aren't limited to monetary benefits. I am not sure why we should regard monetary benefits as somehow grubbier than non-monetary ones; at least the monetary ones are transparent.
So Jason, I think your argument elevates form over substance.
They have continuity of presence and interest, policymaking authority, authority over succession (i.e. who will be the next generation) and admission (i.e. who the customers are), and so forth.
Is that really significantly different than other non-profits, though?
The only difference is that these stakeholders can't physically take university assets home with them legally the way owners can. But that's true of shareholders of public corporations as well, even if those shareholders are also officers or directors.
So? I don't think an owner can just take their business's assets "home" if it is on record as being the property of the business. I can only assume that there would be tax laws to worry about, as well as accounting for the assets in case the business went bankrupt and creditors came looking for whatever assets could be sold to cover their losses. I can only think that just being able to take home the business's property would be without any of those kinds of complications is if the owner was not legally separate from his business in any way at all. Meaning, that the business's debts are fully his debts as well.
So Jason, I think your argument elevates form over substance.
The substance that is being argued here is that private colleges and universities should not be exempt from taxes. That argument requires showing how they are much more like a for-profit business than they are like other non-profits.
The only difference is that these stakeholders can't physically take university assets home with them legally the way owners can. But that's true of shareholders of public corporations as well, even if those shareholders are also officers or directors.
Chesterton Orwell — A conspicuous exception to that is power for officers and directors (but not shareholders) of per-share voting corporations to appropriate for their own political interests the revenues of the corporation. When they do that—and use corporate funds to pay for public political advocacy, and for lobbying—it is generally impossible for mere shareholders even to discover which specific instances of advocacy have happened, let alone what political interests that advocacy promotes.
And public colleges should not exist at all. Get the tax[-sucking drones like Bernstein off the dole.
The graphic of the chart is too low resolution to be able to actually read anything in the pyramid. I agree that it would be very weird (and obviously incorrect) to use the ADL as an example of white supremacy, though.
Having said that, I don't think the characterization of the messages to the Law Review staffers is fair, either. It says (1) the information shouldn't have been shared, (2) they are looking into it (not clear whether this means looking into the contents of the report or how the information was shared; motivated readers can surely find whichever interpretation they prefer) and (3) they are open to getting more information on the topic.
There's absolutely no indication that they're looking to punish anyone. This is typical Bernstein where he assumes good faith by people he agrees with and bad faith by those that don't. How about just an honest recap of the situation instead? As he points out, there's plenty of actual bad stuff in the report without needing to try to constantly spin the situation.
Nice try. The editors preface their request for information about the leaker by noting that the documents were confidential, that each editor is bound by this confidentiality, and that the information in question shouldn't have been shared. If you don't understand that combined with an announcement requesting information about the leak as a threat to find and punish the leaker for violating law review policies, I can't help you.
We appreciate you posting the article. It was brilliant of you posting the article to help readers identify the Act Blue funded bomb throwers in the comments section, since only George Soros paid anti-semitic trolls would defend the indefensible
Well done!
Like I said about assuming bad faith from people you disagree with...
Meanwhile, now that we can actually read the image: it was also inaccurate to claim that the ADL is represented as "one of the worst examples of white supremacism" since it's clearly in the middle tier. I still think that is dumb/incorrect and agree that it is antisemitic to include it with the other examples in that tier, but once again you could make your point while remaining honest. Just say "It's antisemitic, yes, in suggesting that the ADL, which has been fighting white supremacy for over 100 years, is an example of 'coded' white supremacism in the United States."
The ADL hasn't been fighting "White supremacy" for over 100 years. They've been fighting "White".
That's what makes this so delicious. The Left is turning on the Jews. Just like in the 1920s and 1930s. Historically speaking, something most societies and cultures do.
That's what makes this so delicious. The Left is turning on the Jews. Just like in the 1920s and 1930s.
It is not a matter of dispute.
In 2020 Bari Weiss wrote to NYT Publisher, JD Sulzberger, in her letter of resignation from the NYT, about the deep anti-semitism that pervades the staff and their vilifying her as a Nazi. Democrats today outwardly hold Hitler in contempt but inwardly resent him for not finishing off the job in killing the Jews
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.
It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.
https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
"It is not a matter of dispute." says the guy disputing it.
Democrats today outwardly hold Hitler in contempt but inwardly resent him for not finishing off the job in killing the Jews.
That makes total sense. Why didn't I think of that!
The list is not alphabetical, and the ADL is at the very top of the second tier, which in turn is smaller than the bottom tier, putting the ADL near the top of white supremacists according to the chart.
"The start of the list of the second tier" doesn't have quite the same ring as "one of the worst" I guess, so why bother with accuracy?
Perhaps you have a different definition of "worst". Generally it means worse than the best, or worse than average, not "in the lowest of some arbitrary categorization split".
My definition of "worst" is definitely not "worse than the best", unless we're playing by "second place is first loser" rules, in which case everyone other than the least anti-semitic person in American would be "one of the worst". The relevant definition from Merriam Webster is "most unfavorable, difficult, unpleasant, or painful" with "most" being an important part of the definition.
"Most" implies majority, 50%+1. Being top of the middle tier qualifies.
Sigh. Really leaning into the first word in your name, I guess.
Going back to the dictionary, and the first definition of the word: "greatest in quantity, extent, or degree".
There's also a second definition that means "majority of", but that definition doesn't make any sense when "most" is being used to modify "unfavorable, difficult, unpleasant, or painful".
You must be one of those government hacks my handle honors.
Define "greatest". It can't mean only the single absolute top entry, it must be more than one in context, and there again, what does that mean?
Changing your cherry-picked definition when it's shown to be useless sounds like something a lawyer would do.
Huh? "greatest" absolutely does mean one singular top entry. If you say something like "Most Outstanding Actor" you don't mean "kind of a good actor" you mean the #1 best one.
Bernstein did originally qualify his statement as "one of the most" so in this case it is admittedly subjective where to draw the line, but not because you are bad at using a dictionary. Having said that I still maintain that, as usual, he is being hyperbolic here. And unnecessarily so since the point would be the same just by noting the ADL's inclusion at all.
Then why is GOAT even a concept? Greatest Of All Time, as opposed to just Greatest.
Besides, you changed definitions midstream, so you have no argument at all.
Whoa! When Muhammad Ali said "I am the greatest," he just meant, "I'm better than average"? Is English your native language?
You've never listened to a "Greatest Hits" compilation, I see. What is your native country?
"Greatest hits" is plural.
Yep, plural, as in not one. Is English not your native language?
The "list" isn't even tiered really. The pyramid shows white supremacy as a spectrum, from overt-genocidal (as in the KKK), to covert-normalizing. ADL is being shown as being a "coded-genocidal" white supremacist organization. That's not merely "in the middle tier". That's directly suggesting that the ADL is almost on par with the KKK. And that's just plain stupid.
Most of the stuff on the list is plain ol' bullshit. "White supremacist" is just coded language for the Left to hate white people, that turn out to often be other people on the Left.
I know a good therapist that might be able to help you out.
Your religion is Progressivism, and you preach its gospel like a true evangelical believer. How easy it was to indoctrinate you.
When you don't have any critical thinking skills, you cling to the hallowed words of your preachers and rally to assist in pontificating their delusions.
Is this the letter you're referring to?
I'm not seeing a threat to punish the leaker in this. Unless you're saying that "looking into the matter" inherently implies a threat to punish whoever they identify as being the leaker.
The rest of your characterization seems fair, as this letter only addresses their problem with the fact that the information was leaked, and it does not address the allegations of discrimination based on the leaked information. "Our inboxes and offices are open to anyone with information about these recent events." That is vague, but it is a stretch to think that they mean the broader topic and not just the leak.
I'm saying that reminding people that (a) documents were confidential; (b) each individual agreed to the confidentiality policy; and (c) just after that, announcing that you are looking into the matter and inviting recipients of the message to provide information is of course a threat to locate and punish the leaker. You'd have to have just fallen off a turnip tree to think otherwise.
Yeah, because you invariably assume bad faith in the people you disagree with and good faith in the people you agree with.
It's a common affliction, but a pathetic one for somebody who claims to be smart.
So when Trump asked for a list of all FBI personnel involved in the Jan 6 investigation, you figured he was probably just exercising his intellectual curiosity, or maybe wanted to send them all thank you notes?
I was correct then, when I thought that you might believe that it is inherently a threat to punish a leaker when an organization tries to find out who leaked the confidential information.
So, maybe you don't think that the Harvard Law Review should try and find out who leaked those documents? Maybe the Supreme Court shouldn't have tried to find out who leaked the Dobbs draft, then.
Organizations that want to keep some information about how they operate confidential are always going to try and do that, and they always have a valid interest in finding out who violates that confidentiality and how. If the person that violates that confidentiality was justified and deserves protection as a matter of law or by the written policies of that organization or its parent, then I would think that ensuring that the HLR does not retaliate in violation of its own rules or the law, if they do identify the leaker, is the correct way to handle it. I am not following what you think the general principle is or should be in this kind of situation, though.
Given the blatantly illegal nature of the actions revealed, the only response they should have if they can't stay silent is to thank the whistleblower for bringing the illegality to light.
Turnips don't grow on trees. They're root vegetables. The cliche you were looking for is, "Just fallen off the turnip truck."
I must say your tone all over this post and in the comments is unbecoming of a law professor. It’s been years since I came here but is this what this place is now? Prof. Volokh would never speak this way. Regardless of if you’re right on the merits, you’re not doing yourself any favors and you’re beyond up in your feelings. Do better
There's absolutely no indication that they're looking to punish anyone. This is typical Bernstein where he assumes good faith by people he agrees with and bad faith by those that don't. How about just an honest recap of the situation instead? As he points out, there's plenty of actual bad stuff in the report without needing to try to constantly spin the situation.
You and Glaucomatose seem to be new to the internet. Or, maybe you are new to polemics in general. Assuming bad faith by your opponents and good faith by your allies (and naturally, yourself) is SOP when the goal is to 'win' a political argument and increase loyalty and enthusiasm within one's group, rather than to actually engage in rational debate or to try and persuade the persuadable.
These are cognitive traps that anyone can fall victim to, and I certainly have around here often enough. I am not putting this out there as a 'holier than thou' claim, nor is my goal to pile on Bernstein even more. This atheist will borrow from the Gospels to suggest that we all should check our own eyes for planks before we look for specks in the eyes of others.
Ultimately, we can only control our own behavior. If we want more evidence-based reasoning in politics, more civility, more self-reflection, and more honesty, then we have to start with ourselves, one thread and one post at a time. Calling out others for their failings on these comes after that.
Some have said they cannot read the image.
I was able to copy the text , using Brave browser. There are some mistakes in the translation process, but still gives the flavor accurately. It's a comprehensive list of leftist seal-clapping tropes:
Pyramid of White Supremacy
This irnage illustrates the historical foundation Of day-to-day racist norms that work together
to produce "extreme" Or spectacular acts of white supremacy. It shows that individualized
white supremacy stems from centuries of structural racism in the US.
A
Kkk [at the very apex of the pyramid]
LynchiÅg
Burning Crosses
Racial Slurs/ Jokes
Hate'Crimes I Antiserßitism
Bombing Black Chur es
apanese Incarceratio
O ration Wetback I Muslim an
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
Lives Matter"l *MAGA I "Illegal Ali
hugs" I Redlining I "Hussein Obama"
Confederate Symbols I Life After Hate
CVE I "Welfare Queens" I War on Drugs
erse Racism" I Anti-Affirmative Action I anti-B
Black Identity Extremists I Community Policing
Colorblindness I Police Brutality as "Exceptional"
acial Profiling I Mass Incarceration I TSA "Random" Searche
olice Apologists I U.S. Military "Rescue" Operations I Stop & Fri
nying Racism I Myth of Meritocracy I English Only I Racist Masco
Bootstrap Economics I "Cood Intentions" I Hiring Discrimination
izing POC I Whitewashing in Hollywood I Calling the Police on Black P
School-to-Prison Pipeline I Victim Blaming I Driving While Black
olerance I Deportations I Gentrification I "White Saviors" I Fraudulent Lending
Tokenism I Housing Discrimination I Anti-Kaepernick I Classism I Columbus Day
Racial Capitalism = Foundation (Encouraged)
Settler Colonialism I Slavery I Wall Street I Great Recession I Corporate Interest
Indentured Servitude I War Economy I Stock Market I Sweat Shops I Neo-Liberalism
I Extractive Economies I NAFTA I CAFTA I APEC I Labor Exploitation
Trail of Tears I Outsourcing Labor I Oil Pipelines I Free Trade I Manifest Destiny
Migrant Workers I McCarthyism Military Industrial Complex Land Exploitation
Corporate Media I War on Terror I Greed
>Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
The ADL is the nearly the point of the spear for White Supremacy?
The same group that's intentionally "browning America" to serve their elder protocols?
lmao that's how retarded the Democrats have become.
The Great Recession was white supremacy.
You're capable of employing niche browsers to capture illegible text, but not of editing the raw output so it is coherent? Er, thanks.
https://x.com/TheKevinDalton/status/1918049380332126346
"The moment 55 Democrats in California voted to exclude purchasing 16 and 17-year-olds for sex from being a felony.
Yes, you read that right."
This is where the pro-gay lobby is taking society.
This is why I don't go to social media for news.
https://davisvanguard.org/2025/04/smart-justice-california-oppose-ab-379/
Your goal was to find partisans saying, "The other side voted against this bill that would outlaw kicking puppies! They are evil and support puppy killers!" When, there were entirely different and valid reasons to oppose that bill. There is no shortage of people online that will do that kind of thing, so congratulations on finding a needle in a box of needles.
I've seen 6 or 7 versions of bills, most get voted against, with the final form getting the relavent people to vote for it, relevant being defined here as their opponent screetched in ads they voted against it. Over and over!
While Bernstein is complaining about assault perpetrators getting off lightly, he might consider this case. But he won't. https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/12/22/protester-who-was-struck-by-driver-at-cuad-picket-responds-to-dismissal-of-charges-against-perpetrator/
Completely unsurprising that the Spectator story doesn't mention the fact that at the time of the incident, two protestors were banging on the alleged perp's car, both were arrested and the DA charged neither of them. I assume the defendant's defense was that he was getting away from people attacking his car, not intentionally running people over, and I have no idea if that was true or not. But I suspect that the prosecutors didn't pursue the case because given the arrest of the two, it would be quite hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defense was untrue.
The driver's prosecution was dismissed because of Speedy Trial concerns. Now, it's possible, as some protesters claim, that this was a deliberate tactic to avoid prosecuting him. But there's no actual evidence of that.
It would be nice if the ADL weren't at all white supremacist.
I just read an astoundingly refreshing column in the Crimson by an ex-president of Hillel. It admits what we all know, that the pro-Palestine movement isn't antisemitic on the whole, and that the debate over what is or isn't "antisemitism" is a hugely distracting talking point. (He doesn't go so far as to say what I've been saying, that it's actually backfiring on Jews, but the implication is there.)
It ends with this:
Finally. This is the Jewish equivalent of someone in the '60s saying:
Yes, please do that. At least it's honest.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/4/30/miller-harvard-antisemitism-task-force/
What he actually writes is that regardless of the extent to which the "Pro-Palestine" movement is antisemitic, that's not really important, because it supports genocidal antisemitic groups like Hamas regardless of why, and being pro-genocide is worse than merely being antisemitic. Which is a point I've made numerous times. He does not "admit" anything along the lines you say, and if we are using him as an authority (which is silly, just one random dude), he says pretty much the opposite of what you would like him to say.
No, as I explained to Drewski below, he "admits" that the anti-Israel movement is mostly not antisemitic.
Then he goes on to give a big defense of Israel, which is fine as far as it goes, and ends with a lament about the potential for a Jewish travesty.
To say all that while blind to the existing Palestinian travesty looks from the outside like someone holding their own "tribe" out as the only one that really matters. It's the same defense that white supremacists make for themselves -- "I'm just looking out for me and mine!" -- no matter what other groups they're stepping on in the process.
Well, not only did the Cherokee’s desire to have their own nation look a lot like stepping on white people’s toes from white people’s point of view, newly freed slaves’ desire to live free on land of their own, which led a lot of them to accept the federal government’s offer of free land in Oklahoma newly confiscated from the Cherokee to settle and colonize after the Civil War, looked an awful lot like stepping on the Cherokee’s toes from the Cherokee point of view. The City of Tulsa was built on that land, and all its inhabitants were, from the Cherokee point of view, settler-colonialists.
We refer to the killing of black people occupying that land as the Tulsa Race Massacre, not the Tulsa Native American Resistance. On the other hand, when southern states disenfranchised their newly freed slaves, they were called racists. But when the Cherokee, the Confederates’ and the KKK’s consistent allies, kicked the descendents of the Cherokee Freedmen out of the tribe and disenfranchised them shortly after the federal government gave them autonomy to manage their affairs in the 1970s, in the 1980s and disenfranchised them, we referred to it as a simple matter of tribal sovereignty.
When complex multiracial conflicts are reduced to simple black and white, somebody whose toes actually got stepped on often gets unfairly blamed as the aggressor. This has meant that various types of toe-stepping in our history have gotten swept completely under the rug because done by a group considered sympathetic. It’s often been the case that only one tribe really matters, another is portrayed as evil, and the role of a third is simply ignored, as if it didn’t exist. Thus the enmity between Oklahama Cherokee and colonizing African-Americans, bitter enemies for well over a hundred years after the Civil War, gets completely ignored. They’re all not white, so they must all either not be actors or be intersectional allies.
Remember, folks, Randal is a lying sack of shit who frequently says antisemitic stuff, and made pro-Hamas comments immediately following their attack. Unsurprisingly, he is lying about the article he links to. Take this excerpt and ask if this matches Randal' characterization:
"In reality, opposition to pro-Palestine organizing at Harvard should be based on more than its antisemitism. Our excoriation of the movement should be based on protesters’ simplistic thinking, extremist rhetoric, implicit justification and support of violence, and denial of Jewish religious teaching and history."
I never made pro-Hamas or antisemitic comments or lied about anything. Which is clearly more than you can say.
I don't see how your quote contradicts my characterization. He also says, for example:
That's what I mean by "not antisemitic on the whole." I think that's a pretty fair restatement.
You accused me of the same shit, Drewski. Also no links or evidence.
What the fuck, man?
I'm pretty sure Randal is the one who has called Israel the third most evil country on the planet. (If I'm confusing him with someone else, I will withdraw this.) Not sure whether that qualifies more as pro-Hamas/antisemitic or as cuckoo.
That's me! But that's a primarily a comment on the Netanyahu administration, secondarily on Israel's behavior over time, and not at all on Judaism or Jews generally.
I do think ranking countries based on amount evil is a pretty pointless and fruitless exercise.
So're the Oscars. But for whatever reason, they resonate with people.
I despise Bibi, and believe the Ben-Gvir/Smotrich faction is indeed evil. Still, if you think there are only two countries on Earth more evil, then I have to cosign DMN: that's either pro-Hamas/antisemitic and/or cuckoo.
Ok go! What are they.
I'm curious what you think would be the most anti-Israel comment someone can make without being considered antisemitic?
Where do you draw the line? (Or are you more of a "I'll know it when I see it" kinda guy?)
Just as you said, the cat is really out of the bag.
Here is Randal, saying that the Cherokee(etc. etc. etc.) are racist for advocating/defending the existence of a Cherokee (etc. etc. etc.) Nation.
He will probably tell you that all Indians should go back ro India where they belong, and those who think themselves “native” Americans racist for saying so?
After all Randal thinks only white people, not indigenous people, have the right to have nations. Those who think indigenous peoples are entitled to their own nations (like white people have) are racist.
He says so. Directly.
There you have it. The cat is out of the bag
Your colonialist view on indigenous people’s rights
I don't think anyone has the right to a nation.
Hahvud? they don't even have a Poultry Science curriculum.
Not saying their curriculum sucks, they just don't have one at all, and I know most of you Conspirators have enjoyed a delicious meal at Chick Fil-A, KFC, Bojangles, Popeyes, Hooters, Buffalo Wild Wings, or "You know you're in the bad part of town when you see one" Church's.
Behind every Thigh, Leg, Breast, Wing there's a team of Poultry Scientists, making sure you don't get the E. Coli, the Campylobacter, the Salmonella (From the Chicken, whatever's colonized Twanecia's acrylics when she doesn't wear gloves is Church's problem)
We Poultry Scientists are a competitive flock, each wanting to be the Top Rooster in the yard, current rankings are 1: Texas A&M, 2: NC State, 3: University of Georgia, 4: University of Arkansas, 5: Auburn, yeah, we're down, but we've got some top 5 star recruits in the Pipeline, wait till fall!!!!!
Frank
No pyramids that Harvard might publish can change the reality that the 14th amendment and civil rights law prohibit racial discrimination. That includes favoring minorities in hiring and other benefits, except in narrowly tailored cases of specific past discrimination.
Historical lynching of blacks does not allow Harvard to pursue DEI policies to exclude now disfavored (white/Asian) students for admission or academic hiring to make up for that past. That is what DEI does in practice. It's schizophrenic, as on the one hand DEI proponents deny its discriminatory practice, yet on the other hand demand and celebrate just that.
Please look up "discrimination."
The 14th amendment does not, in fact, prohibit racial discrimination, except by state actors. Which Harvard is not.
I don't think he was only referring to the black letters of the law, was he?
"14th amendment and civil rights law prohibit racial discrimination"
I guess it's a good thing I said AND. The end of my sentence was making a broader claim, not that it exclusively applied only to just Harvard. I guess this extreme nitpicking is an implicit acknowledgment that I'm correct. Or are we pretending that SFFA v Harvard wasn't recently decided?
As you're finding out, if you think making the argument the federal government should be allowed to discriminate, I'd like to introduce you to Donald Trump, who I did not vote for.
Trump is moving to financially burn down Harvard, and Bernstein is posting anecdotes.
Some idiots on here don't know better. Bernstein does. Or should.
I would also note his sources are not...known for being big on digging up context if they have a hot story. The Free Beacon, a blog by a NewsMax writer. The thoroughly Trumpified Boston Herald.
Maybe it's a coverup. Maybe you could wait a day or so before you post sources solely designed to polish your priors.
I learned to do that 'if it's too good to be true, wait a tick' thing here.
Oh my, the Copium. The diversion program reported in the Herald is all over the news, just for example.
I mean, I'm not forcing the Harvard Law Review editors to self-immolate and help take Harvard down with them. I'm just reporting it.
They aren’t the ones taking Harvard down.
Is that really where you are placing the blame?
There's an old saying about what to do when you find yourself in a hole, and various groups at Harvard have been doing the opposite.
Again, your focus seems off.
Do you think that if none of the things in your OP were taking place, that the administration would be acting any differently?
Mr. Bernstein: A couple points about the senior people in the Harvard Law Review, and their character and fitness problems.
1. The lawyers who become aware of what might be considered ethical, character or fitness issues about a prospective lawyer are arguably required to report it to the relevant licensing board. Consider the ethical rules which require reporting unethical conduct (honored more in the breach than in reality) and treating non-reporting as a separate ethical violation. Consider also that self-reporting is arguably required, too. (Again, honored more in the breach.)
2. The law firms that hired these HLR discriminators now have little excuse for not investigating. Their own licenses are on the line for sweeping it under the rug. To the extent their employers do not have actual notice already, courteous letters informing them about the potential ethical violations by their employees is probably the best way to go. Remember, too, in many states reporting an alleged ethical violation, even when it turns out to be unfounded, is privileged and immunized against defamation liability.
3. Likewise, the judges for whom these HLR discriminators are clerking, or recently have clerked, have their own exposures. If the now or former clerk was hired after disclosing the racial discrimination to the judge, then the judge should both be investigated for their own ethical issue - hiring someone who participated in acts which could be considered criminal (in some contexts) and definitely showed a lack of respect for the law. Moreover the judge would be rightly the subject of recusal motions for every case involving race that hit their docket. And, as to criminal defendants, they could have a colorable argument that racial bias infected their trial. If the judge didn't know, then it was a lousy interview.
4. And if the HLR discriminators lied, misspoke, misstated, dissembled, prevaricated or otherwise danced around their participation in explicit racial discrimination, they just double down on their unethical conduct. And they can't get away with claiming ignorance of the law. These are the smartest, bestest law students and lawyers in the land. Harvard said so.
I strongly approve the notion that tax-exempt private universities are civil institutions of great national value, and worth preserving.
I strongly disapprove tax-exempt non-profits empowered to channel into political influence money raised by per-share-voting commercial corporations.
It occurs to me that I have not given much thought to whether the nation would be better served if both those kinds of non-profits lost their tax-exempt status.
Would the gain of political power for ordinary citizens offset the diminution of private civic power, and the other public benefits which tax exemptions for universities deliver? Is the present structure to empower both kinds of non-profits with privileges against taxation clearly better, or even ideal?
It would be totally fine and probably preferable to end non-profits entirely.
Of course, it's not good for non-profit status to be a political weapon of the President. The name for that is "right-wing corruption."