Donald Trump

primed to hear the left but but i would almost say that he's making harvard look like a a virtuous david standing up against the big mean the live government because he is the a lot of these executive orders have ignored written you know legal procedures for how you go about stripping funding and he's just done it and i think that's what's

I'm sorry, like this is, I really, I should just be on our team completely and not have any, well, on the other hand, because it is sickening to hear these universities, Garber, when as soon as Trump started in this, he sent around all these emails to the Harvard community about how Trump is threatening us. We free beacons of free speech and free inquiry.

I'm sorry, like this is, I really, I should just be on our team completely and not have any, well, on the other hand, because it is sickening to hear these universities, Garber, when as soon as Trump started in this, he sent around all these emails to the Harvard community about how Trump is threatening us. We free beacons of free speech and free inquiry.

I'm sorry, like this is, I really, I should just be on our team completely and not have any, well, on the other hand, because it is sickening to hear these universities, Garber, when as soon as Trump started in this, he sent around all these emails to the Harvard community about how Trump is threatening us. We free beacons of free speech and free inquiry.

And we're the source of enlightenment and openness in society. It makes me throw up. This is ridiculous. These are sources of censorship. It is not just a hypothesis. It is true.

And we're the source of enlightenment and openness in society. It makes me throw up. This is ridiculous. These are sources of censorship. It is not just a hypothesis. It is true.

And we're the source of enlightenment and openness in society. It makes me throw up. This is ridiculous. These are sources of censorship. It is not just a hypothesis. It is true.

Harvard, it wasn't a university-wide mandate, but many divisions, many departments required any applying faculty member or faculty members that wanted to get promoted to sign loyalty oaths to diversity, equity, and inclusion, which basically means, I agree that systemic racism is the problem. If we don't have enough Blacks at Harvard, it's because we're just

Harvard, it wasn't a university-wide mandate, but many divisions, many departments required any applying faculty member or faculty members that wanted to get promoted to sign loyalty oaths to diversity, equity, and inclusion, which basically means, I agree that systemic racism is the problem. If we don't have enough Blacks at Harvard, it's because we're just

Harvard, it wasn't a university-wide mandate, but many divisions, many departments required any applying faculty member or faculty members that wanted to get promoted to sign loyalty oaths to diversity, equity, and inclusion, which basically means, I agree that systemic racism is the problem. If we don't have enough Blacks at Harvard, it's because we're just

discriminating against them in our admissions office, which is absurd. It's just the opposite. You're discriminating in favor of Blacks. Students do not feel like they can express in classrooms or in social settings, dissenting views on race, on gender, on family structure, you name it. The disparities in political affiliation.

discriminating against them in our admissions office, which is absurd. It's just the opposite. You're discriminating in favor of Blacks. Students do not feel like they can express in classrooms or in social settings, dissenting views on race, on gender, on family structure, you name it. The disparities in political affiliation.

discriminating against them in our admissions office, which is absurd. It's just the opposite. You're discriminating in favor of Blacks. Students do not feel like they can express in classrooms or in social settings, dissenting views on race, on gender, on family structure, you name it. The disparities in political affiliation.

Now, I think that's less of a metric that we should look at, but it is useful, I guess, to see because I can imagine a school that is 100% Democrat, where those professors are so committed to open discourse and so committed to not just institutional neutrality, but faculty neutrality, that they assiduously keep their point of view out of the classroom. In that case, it wouldn't matter.

Now, I think that's less of a metric that we should look at, but it is useful, I guess, to see because I can imagine a school that is 100% Democrat, where those professors are so committed to open discourse and so committed to not just institutional neutrality, but faculty neutrality, that they assiduously keep their point of view out of the classroom. In that case, it wouldn't matter.

Now, I think that's less of a metric that we should look at, but it is useful, I guess, to see because I can imagine a school that is 100% Democrat, where those professors are so committed to open discourse and so committed to not just institutional neutrality, but faculty neutrality, that they assiduously keep their point of view out of the classroom. In that case, it wouldn't matter.

But nevertheless, these schools are not in any shape or form supportive of free speech. And yes, they are complete ideological monocultures. But the difficulty is, again, I keep having to look at the other side. It is not a good precedent for the Trump administration to say to Harvard, you are going to engineer viewpoint diversity or you lose your funding.

But nevertheless, these schools are not in any shape or form supportive of free speech. And yes, they are complete ideological monocultures. But the difficulty is, again, I keep having to look at the other side. It is not a good precedent for the Trump administration to say to Harvard, you are going to engineer viewpoint diversity or you lose your funding.

But nevertheless, these schools are not in any shape or form supportive of free speech. And yes, they are complete ideological monocultures. But the difficulty is, again, I keep having to look at the other side. It is not a good precedent for the Trump administration to say to Harvard, you are going to engineer viewpoint diversity or you lose your funding.

Because what if the Kamala Harris administration said to a university, you are going to engineer understanding of systemic racism or you'll lose your funding. All of these will be used by the other side. Now, the response to that is they're already doing it. You know, They're already using power illegitimately. So it's our turn now. And I get that argument, too. It's a very difficult question.