Tag Archives: Harvard

Will Trump punish Iran as much as he’s punishing Harvard?

Posted on by
3

Harvard deserves punishment. For years, they boasted in their published materials that they had a policy to favor certain ethnic groups.

Accordingly, they favored a Native American with the improbable name of Elizabeth Warren to fill a law professor position. When called out for their discrimination, they said that – in violation of their stated policy – they had not favored her.

Comically, it turned out Warren wasn’t Native American anyway. And so, in her case, Harvard failed at racial discrimination despite their best efforts. Usually, however, they’ve succeeded.  

One egregious area where they’ve succeeded is in discriminating against Jews and Asians. For Asians, their SAT scores had to be substantially higher than for whites and about 400 points higher than for Blacks.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court outlawed this discrimination against Asians in a decision two years ago. The suspicion is that Harvard has not stopped doing it, however, but has merely stopped advertising it.

Harvard’s discrimination against Jews is worse, if that’s possible. Harvard encourages Jew-hate. It’s probably not a coincidence that many of these antisemites are foreign students that pay full tuition.

But that’s not the only reason. The Jew-haters are egged on by many faculty members.

But at least Harvard has not promised to nuke the Jews. They may chant for the eradication of Israel (as in “From the River to the Sea”) but at least they are not advocating the eradication of Judaism, for the most part.

President Trump has rightly declared war on Harvard. He has cut off federal money until they comply with the Supreme Court rulings on racial discrimination, and protect Jewish students and other racial and ethnic groups.

Harvard has vowed to fight for their “right” to discriminate, and their “right” not to protect Jewish students, and their “right” to hate or love in admissions and hiring on the basis of skin color.

Naturally, they express this neo-Nazi skinhead language in more flowery terms – it’s all about academic freedom, they preen. To preserve their academic freedom to hate, they’ve filed lawsuits in their backyard of Boston in front of Democrat-appointed judges who are predictably disposed favorably to their position.

But it will go to the Supreme Court, and there will be supreme judgments, and Harvard will lose supremely.

Then there’s Iran.

Iran’s formal policy is not to fail to protect the Jews. It’s to kill them. For many years, they’ve armed proxies in the Middle East to do precisely that. Hezbollah, ISIS, Hamas . . . you name it. The Iranians see no group as too violent, too cruel, or too barbaric. The more violent, the more cruel, and the more barbaric, the better.

And so, on that horrific October 7, there were babies beheaded, grandmothers burned alive, young women raped in front of their husbands, and hostages taken, tortured and killed.

At Harvard, they cheered, and that was very bad. But in Gaza, it was even worse.

So, President Trump, will your punishment of the Iranians be at least as severe as your punishment of Harvard? Will you impose sanctions to cut off their funding, as you have with Harvard?

Moreover, will you put an end to Iran’s decades-long quest for a nuclear weapon to carry out their promise to destroy Israel?

Or is all your talk just . . .  big talk? Is it something like the tariff talk – a negotiation posture that you’ll climb down from and compromise on when the going gets rough?

It’s one thing to declare war on Harvard, but it takes some guts to declare war on Iran. The world is watching.

The Harvard president’s plagiarism may also constitute copyright infringement

Posted on by
4

Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, has been in the news for her reprehensible testimony to Congress declaring that chanting for the genocide of the Jews might or might not violate Harvard’s speech policies “depending on the context.” That testimony has been rightly condemned by all decent people.

Her atrocious testimony and the condemnation it deserved has, however, distracted from a separate academic scandal. She’s a plagiarist and perhaps a copyright infringer.

In her Ph.D. thesis (in political “science” naturally) Gay copied multiple times from other sources, often verbatim, without using quotation marks or attribution. In short, she presented the work and words of others as her own.

Continue reading →

Will Justice Jackson be woman enough to admit and correct her arithmetic mistake?

Posted on by
11

Pornography used to make its way to the Supreme Court regularly.

In a 1964 case, Justice Potter Stewart had one of the most colorful lines ever in a Supreme Court opinion, despite or perhaps because his line was not particularly scholarly. It was a case where the Court struggled to define “hard-core” pornography that was not protected by the First Amendment versus soft core stuff that was.

The Justices were reluctant to admit to any expertise in the subject. Stewart, however, declared in his concurring opinion “I know it when I see it.”

In that particular case, Stewart didn’t see it; he said the movie at issue was not pornographic. He later expressed regret for “I know [pornography] when I see it” being his most famous line. But he could have done worse in the annals of history. Justice Roger Taney is remembered for stupidly saying in the 1857 Dred Scott decision that Blacks were “altogether unfit to associate with the white race.”

Which brings us to Justice Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson, the Court’s newest member who is an accomplished woman that happens to be Black. (These days you’re supposed to notice and applaud that, unless they’re politically conservative, and she’s not.)

Continue reading →

Fewer racial minorities in college will help racial minorities

Posted on by
9

In a methodical and scholarly decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court this week did what I predicted last fall they would do. They said racial discrimination in college admissions is unconstitutional.

Several other Justices joined Roberts’ decision while also writing their own concurrences, including Justice Clarence Thomas in an emotion-packed opinion of Constitutional originalism that would do proud his old mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia.

It’s a landmark decision that is far more important than last year’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade (unless you happen to be a fetus). I take personal delight that the named defendant that history will saddle with the loss is Harvard, a place that once rejected my application to law school and, more importantly, is the vanguard of the liberal intelligentsia.

Continue reading →

Democrats will defy the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision outlawing racial discrimination in schools, just as they did in Brown v. Board of Education

Posted on by
8

The Supreme Court in 1954 unanimously declared in Brown v. Board of Education that racial discrimination in schools is unconstitutional.

The reaction of Democrats was indignation and defiance. Democrat Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out the state National Guard to prevent Blacks from entering white schools.

Democrat Virginia Senator Harry Byrd organized the “Southern Manifesto” calling for Brown to be reversed and vowing never to implement it. It was signed by 99 Democrats but only two Republicans, including all but two of the Democrat senators from states in the former Confederacy. Democrats in Virginia passed the Stanley Plan, named after Democrat Virginia Governor Thomas Stanley, barring any state school receiving state funds from following the Brown ruling.

Democrat-controlled legislatures across the South closed many schools to avoid having to integrate them. The Democrat legislature of Florida passed a resolution declaring Brown “null and void.” A Democrat member of the Ku Klux Klan murdered a Black civil rights activist for daring to file a lawsuit to enforce Brown in Mississippi.

Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace personally stood in the doorway to block Black enrollment at the University of Alabama.

Continue reading →

Supreme Court poised to outlaw racial discrimination, again

Posted on by
23

The Supreme Court on Monday considered the arguments of Harvard and the University of North Carolina justifying their racial discrimination in admissions. The schools will probably lose.

The schools argue their racial discrimination (they refuse to call it that, of course) is just one of many factors they consider in admissions. But the data show it’s by far the most important one. For example, at UNC a white person with a given set of test scores, grade point average and other factors, with 10% chance of getting admitted, would have a 98% chance with the same qualifications if he were black.

At Harvard, the case was brought by an Asian student group. The data show that at Harvard an Asian needs an SAT score about 400 points higher than a black person with comparable other qualifications. That 400-point difference is huge. It’s the difference between an excellent student with a score of 1500 and an average one with a score of 1100, or a good student with a score of 1200 and a poor student with a score of 800.

Continue reading →

Two conservatives will join the three Supreme Court liberals in upholding discrimination against Asians

Posted on by
23

Harvard actively and obviously discriminates against Asians. To get admitted, Asians need an SAT score 140 points higher than whites and 450 points higher than blacks.

Harvard’s justification for this discrimination is almost as painful as the discrimination itself. Harvard says that the Asian applicants have poor personalities.

The way Harvard evaluates an applicant’s personality is not with any standardized test, but with an in-person interview by a bureaucrat – where it just so happens that the bureaucrat can take note of the applicant’s skin color

Asian applicants sued. The suit was in Boston before a federal judge appointed by President Obama. The judge sided with Harvard.

Continue reading →