That's fine, but that is not what the gov is asking. One of the mandates is a ban on ALL masks on campus. Which means nostr:nprofile1qqs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qgkwaehxw309a5xjum59ehx7um5wghxcctwvshszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qrxnfk will never be able to attend Harvard.
Discussion
Is that your main issue with what the letter is requesting?
If they changed it to say that N95 masks should be the only permitted type of mask, would you then have any issue with the letter?
No, that's just the most ridiculous line. The letter asks for a bunch of restrictions of movement, policy and speech. It's never a good idea to allow governments to require positions in those things in order to receive money.
Specifically, what?
Aside from the mask one which is overly specific, I see one other that I’d change.
This is about federal funding to a university that is there to provide a top class education to the country’s best. They are objectively failing in that regard and should be responsible for some level of qualification for that federal funding, right?
The letter has nothing about providing better education. Just restrictions and man hunts against speech.
Nobody is demanding them to improve that, though adhering to the requests for more balanced hiring practices will no doubt improve the quality of their humanities courses.
Again, the letter is about their objective failure to provide a top-class education to America’s best and brightest, irrespective of their race, religious beliefs or background.
So what specifically is the issue beyond masks?
That's what you said. So, you either didn't read the letter or is just lying here as well.
Merit-based hiring for instance. Executive Governments shouldn't decide how anyone hires (within the legal limits that are already there). If they want to hire the worst people, they should be allowed to.
Same for students. Same for DEI. If they want to offer those, they should be free to offer.
They *are* free to do so.
The government is saying if they want to get tax payer money, they need to do a better job of providing access to jobs and education for tax payers of all colors and creeds.
The money goes to specific research labs. Those have nothing to do with new hires, students, teaching etc. If you want to put restrictions on those labs, sure, but this request a university-wise thing.
If your contention is that because the bulk of this money goes to specific areas of the university, the letter should say it’s only those labs that should adopt the specified policies (and fix the overly broad mask thing), then I can only conclude you’re not debating in good faith and we’re done here.
No, what I said is that if government wants to make sure the money is used efficiently, which seems to be your point, it should do so by restricting how the money should be used, not how the organization, students and staff should behave.
The mask issue needs to be addressed. Any owner has the right to set any rules within their property. If you don't agree with the owner's rules, don't use that property. If you don't like the government's rules, refuse their money and move on. I used to think that bitcoiners should follow this simple libertarian rule. But now I see that not everyone does.
That's what they did. They rejected the money.
But I don't think tax money should have limitations beyond how to spend the money.
Especially not on how staff, students and the population in general should behave and what policies can be made to enforce those behaviors.