1. If a Jewish student is not allowed onto the university premises, then his property rights are violated. According to the libertarian rule, no one has the right to encroach on someone else's property. If I have paid for an academic year at a university, I have the right to receive an education at this university for a year. If I am not allowed onto the university premises, then I am not being allowed to receive the educational service I have paid for. Islamists have the right to protest on their own property, but not on someone else's. University property is not the property of Islamists. 2. By property we mean not only property, but also the physical body of a person. Including the body of a Jewish student. Encroachment on someone else's property is unacceptable. There are several ways to encroach on someone else's property: by causing harm directly, by aiding the direct perpetrator, by inciting the direct perpetrator, and by other means known to criminal law. Supporting Hamas means supporting terrorism and the violation of someone else's property by inciting and aiding violence.
Discussion
That's not what the government is asking. That would be fine, but the letter is asking for much more. It is effectively asking Harvard to thighly control speech of staff and students.
Encroachment of someone's else's property like expansion of israeli occupation of Palestine?
Israel's war in Gaza is not a valid act of self-defence. Hamas is not a terrorist organization but an organization acting according to their right to self-defence. How do you like this approach? If we are painting pictures that befit established agendas, we can easily paint it black or white
My ethics are simple. Taking hostages, killing hostages is not worthy of warriors. A boy does not grow up when his scrotum grows hair. A boy becomes a man when he does not hide behind unarmed people. When he fights armed warriors, not unarmed women and children. When he does not beg for approval, citing the actions of the enemy, as children do. For a man, the task is not to win by any means necessary, but to ensure that his weapons are not stained with the blood of unarmed people.
I wonder how the territorial expansion was done. Must have been some class worriors fighting them. Nothing covert, no shady schemes, just pure chivalrous Jewish soldiers. The last part even reads funny.
A child seeks justification for his meanness in the actions of his opponent. An adult man does not stoop to meanness, even if he is granted an indulgence from Mecca.
A man does not shoot children for fun.
Such an honorable manly thing to do
People are mad trying to defend these atrocities. Please atop your narrative, you ain't changing anyone opinion on this. It's plain to see who's the evil terrorist here.
This.
If universities are going to have federal funding it's pretty obvious that they should allow Jews to attend their classes without violence and harassment from Islamic extremists who hate Jews.
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.
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.
Exactly.