Related ongoing thread: Federal Government's letter to Harvard demanding changes [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43684386

The aggregate demands of the administration are confusing and contradictory. They seem to be simultaneously asking for:

- an end to diversity initiatives

- a new diversity initiative for diverse points of view

- a new policy of not admitting international students with certain points of view

- ending speech-control policies

- auditing the speech of certain departments and programs

- ending discipline of students who violate policies related to inclusion

- disciplining particular students who violated policies related to inclusion

With their endowment above $50 billion, combined with Federal plus Non-Federal sponsored revenue at 16% of operating budget, it makes sense to me they just forgo Federal funds and operate independently.

If all 16% is canceled, then they'd need to draw an additional $1 billion per year from endowment at current budget levels.

That would put them above 7% draw so potentially unsustainable for perpetuity, historically they've averaged 11% returns though, so if past performance is a predictor of future, they can cover 100% of Federal gap and still grow the endowment annually with no new donations.

From the United States government letter to Harvard: "Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension."

So if a student has, say, an immunodeficiency syndrome and wears a mask to protect their health during the riskier seasons of the year, they would face dismissal from the university? (Or worse - whatever that is - according to the letter.)

This is how we know that the Republican party has no interest in freedom as the word is conventionally defined.

It's just words, obviously contradicted by many of Harvard's recent actions, but all I can think is what a fucking lay-up. If only Columbia's administration had half a spine they would have responded similarly.