Category: Harvard

Harvard University is in the news right now for its showdown with the Trump Administration. Remember that inequality is bad and also that the federal government should spend taxpayer dollars at the nation’s richest institutions in the richest states rather than at, for example, University of Mississippi, Ohio University, or University of Michigan (the 13th poorest state).

My question for today is how did Harvard keep the river of taxpayer cash going for so long given its explicit race discrimination polices, most famously in admissions and hiring, but also in selling theater tickets. From a 2021 post:

We have designated this performance to be an exclusive space for Black-identifying audience members. For our non-Black allies, we appreciate your support in making this a completely Black-identifying evening. We invite you to join us at another performance during the run.

Proof of vaccination or negative test results required to attend.

Maybe a privately-financed and privately-run theater could refuse to sell tickets to those with the wrong skin color (though it would seem to be contrary to the Maskachusetts state law), but how can a federally-funded enterprise do it?

Here’s Harvard, the operator of a one-race-only theater, claiming the moral high ground as a recipient of federal dollars:

There have been plenty of racists in the history of the United States, but right now I can’t think of any recent racists held up as morally superior to the average person, business, or institution.

Related:

• Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, in which Harvard was found to be violating the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment requiring equal protection (but the Feds said “Hey, let’s just keep sending them money because they surely wouldn’t violate the Constitution ever again”?)

Today is the one-year anniversary of Claudine Gay purportedly “resigning” from Harvard. NYT:

Babylon Bee had a different angle:

Less than a month earlier:

Being a supporter of the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”), UNRWA, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in their struggle against the Zionist entity wasn’t a presidency-ending problem, but all of the examples of plagiarism were. The Crimson:

See also CNN.

What’s Claudine Gay, plagiarist, doing after “resigning” from Harvard due to plagiarism? Working at Harvard:

“Home Unaffordable Home” (Harvard Magazine, Nov-Dec 2024, remarkably un-paywalled) is an interesting window into the minds of the elite.

If present trends continue, nearly every American will become eligible for taxpayer-subsidized housing (not “welfare”, certainly!):

In many metropolitan areas, the annual income required to afford the median-priced home exceeds $150,000, about double the national median income of $75,000. Among renters, the number of cost-burdened households—those spending more than 30 percent of income on housing and utilities—in 2022 hit a record high of about 22 million, of which middle-income households represent an increasing share. Rental assistance, reserved for the lowest-income households, cannot keep up with demand: between 2001 and 2021, the number of assisted households increased by 0.9 million, while the number of income-eligible renter households rose by more than 4 million.

The “housing crisis” was intensified by Coronapanic:

The current housing crisis is broader than prior episodes, according to JCHS managing director Chris Herbert, Ph.D. ’97, who says, “For many years, housing affordability was really a problem of the poor.” Even when home mortgages became unaffordable for moderate-income earners—for example, as interest rates rose into the double digits in the early 1980s—rents did not rise in lockstep. The same was true during the housing bubble of 2006 and 2007: rents remained affordable, and home purchases by would-be first-time buyers could be deferred until the cost of borrowing moderated.

But after the Great Recession that began in 2008, he says, “Rents started to grow astronomically, faster than incomes, and we went from about 39 percent of renters cost-burdened in 2000 to 50 percent in the early 2020s.” In high-cost cities such as Boston, Washington, and San Francisco, people working year-round at decent jobs—making perhaps $50,000 a year—could no longer find a place to live that fit within their budget. Initially, says Herbert, this broadening of unaffordability into the ranks of the middle class was confined to rental properties. Homeownership remained within reach thanks to historically low mortgage interest rates.

During the pandemic, though, both housing prices and rents spiked. “We had an enormous demand for housing,” he notes, “and people weren’t spending money on anything else. Home became all-important.” Interest rates were low, and twenty-somethings who had been renting with roommates suddenly realized “they needed their own place to work from home.” They flooded into the market, pushing up prices of houses and apartments alike to new multiples of median income.

Could the problem be that U.S. population was 226 million in 1980 and it is now 338 million? (the growth is almost entirely because of low-skill immigration; native-born Americans can’t have big families because they can’t afford housing (see above) and they aren’t willing to pack 6 people into a 2BR apartment; see “Recent Immigration Surge Has Been Largest in U.S. History” (NYT), for example, regarding the Biden-Harris years) Harvard doesn’t consider this possibility. The words/phrases “immigration” and “population growth” don’t appear in the article.

Despite the fact that population growth isn’t mention, Harvard says that we need to learn to live like the Shanghainese and Israelis:

Adjusting for inflation, the cost to build a house today is about the same as it was 40 years ago. But inflation-adjusted prices have nearly doubled because there is not enough buildable land to satisfy demand. “We can’t make more land,” Herbert points out, “but we can make better use of it by increasing the density of housing…putting four units on a lot instead of one. So zoning reform gets a lot of attention as a means of increasing housing production.”

Can Harvard’s statement that housing isn’t more expensive to build be correct? My parents bought a brand-new three-bedroom house with central AC in the D.C. suburbs in June 1962 for about $15,990 (previous post). Adjusted to Bidies at official CPI, that’s about $167,000 today. If we assume that the land underneath the house was worth 15 percent of the total, the cost of building the house was no more than about $125,000 in 2024 Bidies (that would give the developer roughly 10 percent profit). I would love to see someone build a normal-sized house today, even to the lower 1962 standards, for $125,000, the price of a high-end car. (My parents could have bought a 4BR house for about the same size; see below.)

The same people who tell us that we need high minimum wages to keep the low-skilled peasants out of places such as Maskachusetts and California also say that we need cheap housing to bring them in:

“People used to move to higher-income states,” Glaeser continues. But middle-class migration stalls when housing becomes unaffordable. “The tragic part,” he says, “is that we’re both making America less productive—by not enabling people to move to places like Boston or Silicon Valley, which are among the most productive places in America—and ensuring that lower-skilled people, people who are less fortunate, can’t afford those places.” Denying them the economic opportunity afforded by mobility “just feels profoundly wrong,” he adds, “as well as being probably inefficient” (see “Immobile Labor,” January-February 2013). By excluding lower-paid workers from high-wage cities, the downstream effect of high housing costs is greater inequality.

Here’s a fascinating example of counterintuitive reasoning… a higher-density lifestyle has “downsides” for anyone living in a higher-density environment, but when every person’s local lifestyle is degraded by congestion the overall effect is everyone becoming better off.

Although additional restrictions render that [2021 California law trying to force cities to permit additional building on single-family lots] largely “toothless,” says economist Rebecca Diamond, Ph.D. ’13, state or regional legislation is probably the most effective means of addressing the housing crisis.

That, she explains, is because “the downsides of building more housing—in terms of congestion, too many kids in your schools, too many cars on your streets, and expanded infrastructure—are borne at the local level. But the benefits are diffuse. If you build more housing in Palo Alto,” continues Diamond, the Class of 1988 professor of economics at Stanford Business School, “it’s probably going to make housing prices a little bit cheaper in many parts of the Bay Area, not just in Palo Alto. So, Palo Alto gets all of the negatives, and only a tiny share of the benefits. Palo Alto has no incentive to build more housing.”

My personal opinion is that housing will continue to get more expensive relative to incomes as long as U.S. borders remain open. U.S. population is growing via the addition of people who don’t earn enough to fund the construction of new houses or apartments at present prices with present technology. The only thing that would bring down the cost of housing is, I think, a method of factory-producing houses that is dramatically cheaper than on-site construction (this has been the Holy Grail for a lot of developers for at least 75 years and it never seems to work on a large scale). A recent WSJ article says that the savings are only 5-10 percent, however, which isn’t enough to enable low-skill Americans to live in as-seen-on-TV homes.

“Pro-Palestinian protesters reach agreement with Harvard University to end encampment” (CNN):

A group of pro-Palestinian protesters maintaining an encampment at Harvard University have reached an agreement with the university and will end their encampment, the group said in a news release Tuesday.

For 60 students and student workers facing disciplinary procedures, the university has agreed to expedite their cases “in line with precedents of leniency for similar actions in the past,” according to Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine (HOOP), the organization behind the encampment.

Alan Garber, Harvard’s interim president, in a message to the university community, said he has asked schools to “promptly initiate applicable reinstatement proceedings for all individuals who have been placed on involuntary leaves of absence.” Garber did not say how many students were involved.

HOOP said the university will meet with the protesters “to begin discussions on disclosure, divestment, and reinvestment.” Harvard will also engage in conversations about creating a “Center for Palestine Studies at Harvard,” the group said.

I’m wondering what other groups could camp out in Harvard Yard to get publicity, suspensions, and then reinstatements after negotiations with university bureaucrats.

Progressives used to be passionate about Free Tibet (or at least say that they were). Could a Free Tibet group camp out in Harvard Yard to demand that Harvard divest from companies that do business in China? (Before the Israelis became the gold standard for committing “genocide”, the Chinese were accused of having killed Uyghurs via a “genocide”. Searching CNN and NYT one must conclude that either the Uyghurs are dead or American progressives stopped caring. But I guess we could ask whether progressives who remember the Uyghurs could set up a pro-Uyghur encampment.)

Harvard informs us that climate change is an existential threat (then appoints a president with no training in science or engineering). Could a Stop Oil group camp out until Harvard agrees to stop consuming massive amounts of energy via heat and A/C?

Or, how about the flip side of the pro-Hamas group that occupied the Yard? Could a pro-Israel group set up tents to demand that Harvard make more investments in Israeli companies?

If the answer to all of the above is “No” then the natural question is why Harvard tolerated an anti-Israel encampment.

Related:

• From a friend in the Boston suburbs: “I saw a yard sign today in Lincoln: ‘Let Gaza live'” (My response: “It makes sense because most of them are followers of Greta Thunberg and she has abandoned climate change alarmism in favor of supporting Hamas.”)
• If you want to learn about people whom progressives used to care about, I recommend “Tibet: History, Culture, and Religion” (Great Courses). taught by Constance Kassor, PhD (she/her), a professor right near Oshkosh!
• from The Hill:

An addendum to Harvard’s border wall to exclude the undocumented… Although the signs on the border wall explicitly say that no tents are allowed, it appears that a tented pro-Hamas demonstration is thriving nonetheless. View from outside the border wall:

Outside of the Yard, the exclusion of the undocumented is done on an building-by-building basis. Example:

The bakery selling $72 (updated via sticker) pies has a Black Lives Matter sign in the window:

The Harvard-owned theater up the street says that Black and BIPOC lives matter:

Folks in Cambridge apparently agree that a Black life on the sidewalk is not a matter of concern:

Maybe someone would care about the sidewalk dwellers if they flew Palestinian and/or rainbow flags?

When they’re not plagiarizing from mediocrities, what do the world’s smartest people read? A few recent snapshots from the Harvard Bookstore…

Featured for youngsters, stories by trans and nonbinary authors:

For those preparing for the next pro-Hamas rally in Harvard Square, a tale of victimization at the hands of the cruel Israelis:

The #2 bestseller in the store covers the entire history of Jewish cruelty in a noble indigenous people’s homeland:

Let’s not forget that American democracy is imperiled if Americans are allowed to vote for Republicans:

Considering moving to Canada (never Mexico) if a Republican wins in 2024?

And the #6 bestseller, described on Amazon:

Now an acclaimed live-action Netflix series!

Boy meets boy. Boys become friends. Boys fall in love. The bestselling LGBTQ+ graphic novel about life, love, and everything that happens in between: this is the fifth volume of the much-loved HEARTSTOPPER series, featuring gorgeous two-color artwork.

Nick and Charlie are in love. They’ve finally said those three little words, and Charlie has almost persuaded his mum to let him sleep over at Nick’s house. He wants to take their relationship to the next level… but can he find the confidence he needs? And with Nick going off to university next year, is everything about to change?

Part of an Amazon review:

It seems that with volume 5 of this book (and the novella that came out earlier this year) we’ve reached a point in the storyline where the entire book seems to solely be focused on the main characters having sex. Much of the dialogue is discussing it and obsessing over the event to come. There isn’t a lot of content here. A few paragraphs of written material bulked out by very simple drawings. The basic premise is that the two characters better take things to the next level or they will break up when one goes to college. This culminates in a multi page wordless sex scene near the end. Admittedly it is incredibly tame by adult standards, but it is absolutely not something a young girl needs to be gifted by her father.

(He was happy to buy the first four books, though?)

Finally, everyone in Massachusetts can agree that the state belongs to the indigenous, but nobody will give the land back!

Regarding the person my academic friends are starting to call “Claudine GPT”… a guy on Twitter:

Plagiarism if a student does it. ‘Duplicative language’ if a university president. Please someone make it make sense

I asked ChatGPT to sort out the Twitter user’s conundrum. The TL; DR version:

When a student plagiarizes, it is often seen as a failure of this learning process. In contrast, the president of an esteemed institution like Harvard is expected to be well-versed in academic integrity. Plagiarism at such a high level suggests a deliberate breach of ethical standards, which is more serious given their role and influence. … The president of Harvard, as a leader and scholar, holds a position of significant influence and authority. Plagiarism in their scholarly work would severely undermine their credibility, the integrity of their research, and could lead to broader implications for the reputation of the institution they represent. … The president of a university is held to higher standards of accountability due to their leadership position. Plagiarism in their work can lead to severe consequences, including loss of their position, public censure, and damage to their professional career. For a student, consequences are usually confined to academic penalties, such as failing the assignment or course, and potentially facing disciplinary action from the university.

ChatGPT agrees that it is all about context:

Harvard’s Widener Library has been locked down for more than 100 years–longer than lockdowns were deemed necessary by Science. The titanic building was opened in 1915, just three years after the sinking of the RMS Titanic activated Harry Elkins Widener’s will. Most of the library was closed to undergraduates for most of its life. Since they weren’t researchers, why did they need to poke around in the stacks? Male undergraduates were welcome to use Lamont Library and females (Radcliffe students) had their own library.

Respectful tourists have always been strictly barred from the library, as far as I’m aware. Harvard teaches that no human is illegal at the border, but nobody can get anywhere near Widener without a Harvard ID.

Thanks to the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”), we can now see the inside of Widener in the Wall Street Journal (by a U.S. senator from Alaska):

When I walked upstairs to the famous Widener Reading Room, I couldn’t believe my eyes. Nearly every student in the packed room was wearing a kaffiyeh. Fliers attached to their individual laptops, as well as affixed to some of the lamps in the reading room, read: “No Normalcy During Genocide—Justice for Palestine.” A young woman handed the fliers to all who entered. A large banner spread across one end of the room stated in blazing blood-red letters, “Stop the Genocide in Gaza.”

Curious about what was going on, I was soon in a cordial discussion with two of the organizers of this anti-Israel protest inside of one the world’s great libraries—not outside in Harvard Yard, where such protests belong. They told me they were from Saudi Arabia and the West Bank. I told them I was a U.S. senator who had recently returned from a bipartisan Senate trip to Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I mentioned the meetings I had. I expressed my condolences when they told me their relatives had been killed by Israeli military action in Gaza.

One then asked whether I supported a cease-fire in Gaza. I said I didn’t, because I strongly believe Israel had the right both to defend itself and to destroy Hamas given the horrendous attacks it perpetrated against Israeli civilians on Oct. 7.

Their tone immediately changed. “You’re a murderer,” one said. “You support genocide,” said the other.

They repeated their outrageous charges. I tried to debate them, noting the Israel Defense Forces don’t target civilians, and that the only group attempting to carry out genocide is Hamas. But civil debate with these women was pointless. As I was leaving Widener Library, they pulled out their iPhones and continued taunting: “Do you support genocide? Do you support genocide?” The Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee posted some of this exchange on Instagram.

If students were handing out fliers and hanging large banners in the Widener Library Reading Room denouncing, say, affirmative action or NCAA rules allowing men to compete in women’s swim meets, Harvard leaders would shut them down in a minute. But an anti-Israel protest by an antisemitic group, commandeering the entire Widener Reading Room during finals? No problem.