Can a Free Tibet, Stop Oil, or Pro-Israel group camp out in Harvard Yard?

“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.


  • 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:
Full post, including comments

Harvard’s border wall has been breached

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?

Full post, including comments

Harvard Bookstore

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!

Full post, including comments

Claudine Gay will be paid $50 million to write her next book

Back in July 2023, I remarked on the Stanford president’s “resignation” in which he would get a paycheck for the rest of his life:

The last part is my favorite. Involvement with academic fraud is intolerable in an administrator, but acceptable for an active researcher and teacher. (Note that CNN implies in the headline that he will be gone (“resigned” from Stanford) when, in fact, he is merely moving offices.)

(Unlike Claudine GPT, Prof. Tessier-Lavigne may not have personally violated any rule. It may have been co-authors who manipulated data (Wikipedia).)

From the folks who broke the proven-untrue-then-banned-by-Facebook-and-Twitter Hunter Biden laptop story… “Harvard’s Claudine Gay set to keep her nearly $900K annual salary despite resigning as university president” (New York Post):

She won’t be leading the Crimson, but green shouldn’t be a problem.

Outgoing Harvard University president Claudine Gay will still likely earn nearly $900,000 a year despite being forced to resign her position as the school’s top administrator.

Political science professor Gay — who stepped down amid a tempest of allegations that she did not do enough to combat antisemitism and academic plagiarism Tuesday — will return to a position on the Cambridge, Mass., school’s faculty.

Prior to being named president just six months ago, Gay earned $879,079 as a faculty of arts and sciences dean in 2021 and $824,068 in 2020, according to records published by the university.

Her new position was not specified Tuesday, but she is expected to receive a salary comparable to what she previously received — if not higher.

Claudine Gay is 53. If we assume that $880,000 in salary translates to $1 million per year including benefits, the Comparative Victimhood scholar could get approximately $50 million before she dies. (No reason to retire since tenure trumps mental infirmity.) Her last book was a popular hit:

O.J. Simpson’s publisher has announced that it will be handling Gay’s next work: If I Did Research.

Let’s check in with Harvard commitment to free speech now that Suppressor-in-Chief Gay is gone. A tweet from before the Gazans’ October 7 raping/killing/kidnapping spree allows anyone to comment. A tweet from December 12 is locked down so that the unrighteous can’t besmirch with comments:

The latest tweet is similarly locked down against vox populi:

Harvard does not have to pay taxes on its $60 billion hoard (it was $50 billion in 2022, so I’m adjusting for inflation). The university doesn’t have to pay sales tax on stuff that it buys, nor real estate taxes on the land that it uses for nominally academic purposes (it does make a voluntary contribution to Cambridge). Harvard receives direct infusions of taxpayer cash via student loan subsidies, tuition grants, and research grants. But the school doesn’t want to hear from the chumps who pay for the federal and state infrastructure in which it sits.

Claudine Gay recently broke her silence to email “Members of the Harvard Community”. She is not resigning because she did anything wrong, but because it will be better for Harvard:

… after consultation with members of the Corporation, it has become clear that it is in the best interests of Harvard for me to resign so that our community can navigate this moment of extraordinary challenge with a focus on the institution rather than any individual.

Those who objected to her tight control of speech on campus with the single exception of anti-Jewish/Israel speech were motivated primarily by racism:

Amidst all of this, it has been distressing to have doubt cast on my commitments to confronting hate and to upholding scholarly rigor—two bedrock values that are fundamental to who I am—and frightening to be subjected to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus.

Nobody hates hate and plagiarism more than Prof. Gay! Ergo, anyone who is against this scholar and leader is a racist. The board members (“Fellows of Harvard College”) agree. They simultaneously spammed out a message condemning “racist vitriol directed at her through disgraceful emails and phone calls”.

Speaking of racism, the Affirmative Action/DEI religion says that U.S. society should have quotas for Black Americans whose ancestors lived through slavery and then Jim Crow. Descendants of victims of these pre-Eisenhower systems (it was Eisenhower who engineered the desegregation of schools) are entitled to preference in college admissions, government contracting, executive jobs, etc. Claudine Gay’s parents, however, are from Haiti (Wikipedia). Her retention as Harvard president was supported by Barack Obama, whose father was an elite Kenyan and whose mother was white, yet Obama was able to take advantages of quotas intended for descendants of slaves. Wouldn’t it make more sense for Black Americans to be angry with this pair of quota-stealers than to embrace them as fellow victims of Systemic Everything?

Update from a reader:

Full post, including comments

Plagiarism depends on the context

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:

Full post, including comments

Thanks to Hamas we can finally see the inside of Widener Library

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.

Full post, including comments

What we can learn from Claudine Gay’s PhD thesis (when Blacks are elected, whites should move)

I found Claudine Gay’s PhD thesis, which has been in the news recently, on ProQuest (locked down tightly so that peasants can’t get access, but free to academic elites… and me). Here’s part of the abstract:

The last part is interesting, if true: “Where African-Americans enjoy political prominence, race becomes the primary lens through which blacks and whites, alike, interpret and experience politics. The end result is an electorate polarized in attitudes, in political preferences, and in political involvement.”

The thesis was completed in 1997. Can we at least give President Gay credit for being a successful prophetess?

What’s in the conclusion?

The only certainty in regards to [Black] constituents is that when it comes to winning the black vote, black incumbents always secure a larger proportion than do other incumbents.

At least some Americans vote purely based on candidate skin color. This supports my previously stated theory that Republicans should run only Black female candidates if they want to win elections. Gay suggests that Democrats, at least as of 1997, could do best by picking white progressives:

The significance of black congressional representation is best measured in white constituents alienated from politics, and white votes lost to Republican challengers.

A white stooge could do everything that Black Americans might want, but without causing white Democrats to stay home on election day or, worse, vote for a Republican. I’m not sure that this is true in 2023, however. First, we have the phenomenon of Barack Obama, which shows that 21st century white Americans, including Republicans, are more than happy to vote for a candidate who identifies as Black. Second, we have vote-by-mail, which requires only a slight amount of engagement for a vote. But perhaps Democrats are being guided to some extent by Claudine Gay’s thesis. Joe Biden and his fellow senior citizen Senator Ed Markey both appear to be white, yet they advocate for discrimination against whites far beyond what, according to the Supreme Court, the Constitution allows.

Part of the conclusion doesn’t make sense to me. The U.S. is huge, far larger than the people who dreamed up our political system could ever have imagined and with the central government in D.C. taking a much bigger role than was ever imagined (via the magic of the Interstate Commerce clause). Except for some billionaires, nobody in the U.S. has representation at the federal level.

For whites, black congressmen compromise the representational experience: they are considered less sympathetic and less helpful to the constituent, and less active in serving the district. Even white constituents who share their representative’s party affiliation are unhappy with the quality of representation they receive. The disapproval only increases over time….

In a country of 336 million (or 346+ million?), any peasant who says “my congressman/woman cares about me” is delusional and that was also true in 1997 (population 273 million; all of the increase due to low-skill immigration). Still, if what was true in 1997 is still true and if we believe Claudine Gay (and/or the sources from which she drew), white people can make themselves happier by moving out of places where Blacks dominate politics. Instead of trying to fit in at an Ayanna Pressley rally in Maskachusetts, for example, a constituent could move to tax-free New Hampshire and be represented by Chris Pappas, Harvard graduate and white guy:

(saves 5-9% income tax and 16% state estate tax, resulting in children who are 40% wealthier)

The #Science of DEI says that it is important for people in victimhood groups to be surrounded by authority figures who “look like me”. Claudine Gay’s PhD thesis found that this is also true for white people. When possible, based on Wikipedia, they should move out of California and New Jersey due to high tax rates combined with Black senators, and out of Al Green‘s Houston district and up to The Woodlands.

Loosely related…

Full post, including comments

Claudine Gay and the other Ivy League super-elites

To show the world’s Jew-haters just how wrong they are about rich Wall Street Jewish speculators controlling everything from behind the scenes, some rich Wall Street Jewish speculators have forced out the president of University of Pennsylvania. “UPenn President Liz Magill has resigned, but antisemitism remains a problem on college campuses” (CNN):

Last week, Magill and her counterparts from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were called to testify in a hearing before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Magill, along with Claudine Gay of Harvard University and Sally Kornbluth of MIT, gave widely criticized testimony, in which they failed to condemn calls for the genocide of Jews as explicitly against campus harassment and bullying codes.

Unable to imagine a job more secure than university bureaucrat, I was stunned by this development. I’m also dismayed because I don’t think that this will change anyone’s mind and, I guess, I’m a free-speech absolutist. If Liz Magill had straight-up told the politicians “I hate Jews, hope that more of them are killed, and hope that the Islamic Resistance Movement (‘Hamas’) and Palestinian Islamic Jihad achieve their long-sought river to the sea liberation even if they have to kill every Jew in Israel” I wouldn’t call for her resignation.

[Note that in the consequence-free world of non-profit orgs, “resigned” means “will collect a paycheck for rest of life”. Magill will be a tenured professor at the Penn Law school until she decides that she would rather get a pension check than a paycheck. She could be older than Joe Biden by the time she finally stops working at the university from which she reportedly “resigned”.]

Speaking of changing minds, here’s a November 9, 2023 email from President Claudine Gay (the African-American Studies expert elevated in 2022 to the top job so that she can direct Harvard’s crucial efforts to save humanity from climate change, SARS-CoV-2, and other scientific/tech-related hazards) to everyone even slightly affiliated with Harvard:

The subject line was “Combating Antisemitism”, but the body of the letter reminds us that “Islamophobia” is the real problem. That’s not the best part, however:

We will implement a robust program of education and training for students, faculty, and staff on antisemitism broadly and at Harvard specifically. As part of this program, we will provide education about the roots of certain rhetoric that has been heard on our campus in recent weeks, and its impact on Jewish members of our community, to help us all better recognize antisemitism in daily life and interrupt its harmful influence.

What I wrote to a Harvard professor friend at the time:

Imagine thinking that a Muslim student or staff member, outraged over what Britain and the UN did in 1947 and over what Israel has done every year from 1948 onward will be persuaded to see the Jew-loving light by some pabulum that Harvard spoons out. Egos big enough to assert that Israel doesn’t need nuclear weapons for its security because as soon as someone from Harvard with a giant brain speaks, all of the previously hostile Arabs and Iranians will say “Oh, the Nakba was actually a good thing.”

I have more respect for this Palestinian woman who says she is willing to sacrifice her 17 kids and 65 grandchildren to achieve Hamas’s goals.

(I disagree with the Palestinian grandmother’s goal, but at least she is not deluded about what is achievable as President Gay is.)

Is it unfair to hold college bureaucrats responsible for what students and staff say on campus? Elite American universities have controlled speech so tightly since 2016 that any statement heard on campus can be considered officially approved speech. Bureaucrats suppressed criticism of BLM, mask orders and school closures, forced vaccination. rainbow flag worship, etc. If they don’t suppress criticism of Jews and/or Israel then they actually are effectively endorsing it despite their born-again conversion to the Church of the First Amendment. Despite swimming in tax dollars and tax subsidies, private universities aren’t bound by the Bill of Rights. State universities, on the other hand, are subject to limits on what their DEI squads can suppress. You might hear something upsetting on the campus of University of Texas, but you don’t have to suffer with the knowledge that the upsetting idea was officially approved by the administration.

Loosely, related, “One Law Firm Prepared Both Penn and Harvard for Hearing on Antisemitism” (NYT) shows how out of touch American elites are with the peasantry:

Two of the school presidents, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Elizabeth Magill of Penn, prepared separately for the congressional testimony with teams from WilmerHale, according to two people familiar with the situation who asked not to be identified because the preparation process is confidential.

WilmerHale also had a meeting with M.I.T.’s president, Sally Kornbluth, one of the people said.

Lawyers for WilmerHale sat in the front row at the hearing on Tuesday. They included Alyssa DaCunha, who leads the firm’s congressional investigations and crisis management practices, and Felicia Ellsworth, the vice chair of the firm’s litigation and controversy department.

If these administrators had $100,000 of prep from an elite law firm, how could one (so far) have lost her job?

Let’s look at the WilmerHale web site:

We’re proud of how these efforts were reflected in our 2022 summer associate class: 60% women, 37% students of color and 14% LGBTQ. Our new hires are invited to join our affinity groups as soon as they arrive. We have five active affinity groups: Asian American Affinity Group, Black/African American Affinity Group, Latino Affinity Group, LGBTQ Affinity Group and Middle Eastern Affinity Group.

We support Practice Pro’s 1L Diversity Scholar Program, which provides coaching, training and recruiting opportunities for law students from underrepresented backgrounds.

They proudly trumpet their sorting of Americans by skin color, gender ID, 2SLGBTQQIA+ lifestyle, etc. They disclose their practice of discriminating against white males (they have “recruiting opportunities for law students from underrepresented backgrounds”; i.e., white males cannot apply to these opportunities). Harvard, Penn, MIT, and WilmerHale are all so isolated from the peasants that they are unaware that anyone might oppose this kind of sorting. The same web page also proudly describes the firm’s suppression of thoughtcrime:

We support professional development and inclusion through… internal workshops that educate lawyers and staff about implicit bias, allyship and other topics, giving attendees the tools to interrogate their own assumptions and behavior

In other words, they teach employees that it is unacceptable to say anything critical of DEI.

Should we blame the university presidents and fire them? I blame the rich Jews instead! If they love Israel so much that they don’t want daily “river to the sea” demonstrations on campus, they should have been donating to universities in Israel where the money would actually make a difference (Israeli schools don’t have $50 billion in the bank, as Harvard does). If they don’t like officially approved hate speech they should have been donating to state universities here that are bound by the First Amendment and can’t approve any speech (a donation to a state university would also make a bigger difference than if given to an Ivy League school). On a broader basis, progressive Jews can also be considered responsible for the current political and social situation in the U.S. These folks worked hard starting in 1965 to fill the U.S. with Muslim immigrants, to increase the voting participation rates of young Americans and Americans of color, and to get Muslim women and women of color into Congress. Now it seems that these are precisely the groups that support the Palestinians against Israel. “Half of adults in new poll support Israel’s action in Gaza, 45 percent disapprove” (The Hill, November 30, 2023):

White adults were also more likely to back Israel’s moves compared to Americans of color, the poll found; 61 percent of white adults said they supported Israel’s response, while just 30 percent of people of color said the same.

Men were also more likely to voice their support for Israel than women, with 59 percent of men backing Israel in the war, compared to 44 percent of women. Thirty-seven percent of men and 52 percent of women said they disapproved of Israel’s military actions.

Sixty-four percent of adults aged 18-34 said they disapproved of Israel’s decisions in Gaza. Half of those aged 35-54, and 63 percent of those 55 and older, said they approved.

Progressive Jews who want to see Israel survive as a nation are hoist with their own petard. They’ve successfully transformed American society via immigration and American politics and now they want to suppress the manifestations of these transformations. I don’t see the point, though. A Jew-hater who has been temporarily silenced will still be a Jew-hater and, if present immigration and political trends continue, will be able to speak and act on that Jew-hatred soon enough.

The current progressive Jewish theory seems to be that Harvard, et al., are molding a Jew-hating society. What if it is progressives who created a Jew-hating younger generation and Harvard merely reflects a transformation that has already occurred (see the poll results above for the 18-34-year-olds). Universities cater to their audience and today’s audience is very different than the 1970s and 1980s audiences of which the angry donors were a part. (See, for example, “Majority of Americans 18-24 think Israel should ‘be ended and given to Hamas’” (New York Post, December 16, 2023): “Just 4% of Americans 65 and over said they felt Israel should be ended.”)


  • “The Vanishing: The erasure of Jews from American life” (Tablet, February 2023): just 4% of elite American academics under 30 are Jewish (compared to 21% of boomers). … Jews now number just 7% of Ivy League students, compared to 10% during the height of the antisemitic quotas … “The university has decided that DEI is the overarching principle of admissions,” one Hillel director told me. “There’s a general consensus that it’s more difficult for Jewish students to get into top tier schools.” … In New York—the seat of American Jewish political power—there are almost no Jews left in power. A decade ago the city had five Jewish congressmen, a Jewish mayor, two Jewish borough presidents, and 14 Jewish City Council members. Today just two congressmen and a single borough president remain.
  • White men correctly perceive American Jews as their enemies? (2019, noting the efforts that Jewish Democrats had made to transform society)
Full post, including comments

Banner-towing of a Palestinian flag over Harvard for International Civil Aviation Day

Somewhat bizarrely, December 7, famous for Japanese naval aviation achievements in Hawaii, is also International Civil Aviation Day.

How was this day observed in Maskachusetts? “Plane flying banner with the Palestinian flag and the words ‘Harvard Hates Jews’ circles the Cambridge campus” (Daily Mail):

A plane with the banner ‘Harvard Hates Jews’ coupled with a Palestinian flag has been spotted circling Harvard University’s campus ahead of the first night of Chanukah.

Anonymous Jewish students were reportedly behind the stunt on Thursday – sending a message in response to Harvard President Claudine Gay’s contentious testimony in Congress.

The aerial campaign that made its rounds around Cambridge was initiated by a group called ‘Harvard with Hamas,’ as reported by the Boston Herald.

The message was meant to ‘respond to the runaway antisemitism on the campus and the shocking support for Hamas terrorism and rape obscenely vocalized by Harvard faculty and students following the Oct. 7th massacre in Israel,’ according to the group.

Gay and the presidents of UPenn and MIT were eviscerated for telling Congress on Tuesday that calls for the genocide of Jews do not violate their codes of conduct, causing ferocious backlash and calls for her to resign.

A Cessna 172?

Full post, including comments

Diversity at Harvard

A friend is an alumni interviewer for Harvard. He sent me the Interviewer Guidebook for 2028.

Let’s keep in mind that Harvard was so passionate about the critical need for diversity that they fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to do what was ultimately found unconstitutional, i.e., select people by skin color. Here’s the team that the diversity experts assembled…

Could a Harvard graduate who questioned school closures, lockdowns, mask orders, and vaccine papers checks be an interviewer? No:

[you must disclose and will be rejected if] Your internet presence might be considered inappropriate, problematic or if other considerations might affect the perception of Harvard’s integrity. Many applicants Google their alumni interviewer in preparation for the interview.

[Advocating the liberation of Palestine by whatever means are necessary, on the other hand, is the kind of “free expression” that Harvard officially supports and, perhaps, the only freedom of expression that is tolerated at Harvard.]

Thoughtcrime on the Internet (why can’t these huge-brained Ivy League geniuses capitalize the public “Internet”?) is as bad as “You have been convicted of a felony”.

If your criminal record is thin and your Internet presence is righteous, you might be selected. You’re then reminded that “Harvard prides itself on being welcoming and inclusive” and to “Avoid making assumptions about applicants’ pronouns.” Also, that some of the 17-year-old applicants might be afraid of COVID-19 and therefore might want a virtual interview, but also that “Some applicants may not have a computer or smartphone”.

How’s the new skin-color-blind Harvard doing? Here are example reports from an alumni interviewer back to the mother ship:

Olivia spoke at length about her experience being the only student of color in gifted classes in elementary school, and one of only a few now in high school.

Sarah is a very accomplished young woman. She shared that her affiliation with the Klikitat nation, a North Pacific Tribe, is central to her identity… The majority of her time is spent serving elderly and disabled community members at a tribal nursing home.

Xavier’s most rewarding high school experiences have been his social justice work. He is the president of his school’s Black Student Union and has collaborated with his local NAACP chapter, youth council, and local elementary and middle schools. He shared that there is not a large African American nor Latinx community local to him…

What if an interviewer hasn’t been to reeducation camp lately?

Full post, including comments