[wat0n]

Then stop claiming that you know what they are saying.

Thus far, they have all said similar things i.e. that Harvard isn't doing enough to combat campus antisemitism.

Boavatnik gave 270 million reasons why Harvard should listen to him.

Do you really want to get into how much federal funding Harvard gets?

No, I addressed this.

While Harvard could avoid bankruptcy, it would have to significantly cut many programs.

So?

I would think Harvard's faculty and activists would be happy to do so for the sake of standing up to their principles, however racist they are.

[Pants-of-dog]

Thus far, they have all said similar things i.e. that Harvard isn't doing enough to combat campus antisemitism.

….which provides a clear idea as to their motivations for pressuring Harvard to have Ms, Gay fired.

Do you really want to get into how much federal funding Harvard gets?

Since you are ignoring the point that donors have openly accused Harvard of allowing antisemitism and have also threatened to withhold funding, I assume you agree.

So?

So it does not want to.

[wat0n]

….which provides a clear idea as to their motivations for pressuring Harvard to have Ms, Gay fired.

Sure, but that doesn't mean she was fired because of their pressure. This conspiracy theory doesn't fit the verifiable behavior of Harvard.

Since you are ignoring the point that donors have openly accused Harvard of allowing antisemitism and have also threatened to withhold funding, I assume you agree.

So you still choose to ignore the fact that Harvard, like most if not all universities in the US, relies on federal funding to function.

So it does not want to.

It's interesting you chose to ignore the rest of my response.

But anyway, Harvard would probably be able to just find other donors:

During the meeting of the United States House of Representatives Education Committee’s grilling of the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Representative Elise Stefanik asked Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, if she was aware that Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES) department had received US$1.5 billion from foreign entities and governments over the past three years.

Gay had answered several previous questions on the source of the department’s funding in one or another version of the words: “We receive funding from alumni from all over the world.” On the question of the amount, she changed tack and told the Republican congresswoman from upstate New York: “I don’t know if that’s the correct number, but that’s the number you shared.”

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure, but that doesn't mean she was fired because of their pressure. This conspiracy theory doesn't fit the verifiable behavior of Harvard.

It is not a conspiracy theory since the donors were open and explicit about their campaign. They even wrote opinion pieces about it.

Since I already explained how it fits Harvard’s behaviour and you did not disagree, you will need to go back and figure that out.

So you still choose to ignore the fact that Harvard, like most if not all universities in the US, relies on federal funding to function.

What does this have to do with donors getting Ms. Gay fired because she allows criticism of Israel?

It's interesting you chose to ignore the rest of my response.

But anyway, Harvard would probably be able to just find other donors:

You have already argued that donors have a right to use their economic leverage to influence campus debate ad they see fit.

Is there a problem now?

[wat0n]

It is not a conspiracy theory since the donors were open and explicit about their campaign. They even wrote opinion pieces about it.

Since I already explained how it fits Harvard’s behaviour and you did not disagree, you will need to go back and figure that out.

I did disagree and have been disagreeing for a while now. You keep ignoring the fact Harvard's board explicitly and publicly stood by Claudine Gay, despite donor protests.

What does this have to do with donors getting Ms. Gay fired because she allows criticism of Israel?

A lot, since they didn't do that. Her plagiarism did, as shown by the fact she was only fired after it became so inarguable even you admitted she plagiarized - and that matters for Harvard because not firing her would leave Harvard open to further federal scrutiny if its funds for research are funding academic misconduct.

You have already argued that donors have a right to use their economic leverage to influence campus debate ad they see fit.

Is there a problem now?

No, if anything it shows Harvard can just get other donors.

I would think you'd have no problem with that

[Rancid]

I wonder if Havard's image is tarnished enough that I could afford to send my kid there now.

[Potemkin]

I wonder if Havard's image is tarnished enough that I could afford to send my kid there now.

This ‘tarnishing’ thing sounds good to me! I wonder what other pompous, stuffy institutions we can tarnish and bring down to our own level… hmm….

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. Harvard stood by Ms, Gay after the plagiarism charges. Harvard forced Ms, Gay to apologize, retract her statements, and step down from her positions as President after the donors pressured them to deal with perceived antisemitism in campus.

Please stop ignoring this.

2. Harvard was under financial threat from perceived antisemitism. The plagiarism brouhaha had no impact on funding.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. Harvard stood by Ms, Gay after the plagiarism charges. Harvard forced Ms, Gay to apologize, retract her statements, and step down from her positions as President after the donors pressured them to deal with perceived antisemitism in campus.

Please stop ignoring this.

Please stop ignoring the indisputable fact that Harvard stood by Gay after her Congressional testimony, despite some donors pressuring the school, and only fired after more plagiarism instances became known.

2. Harvard was under financial threat from perceived antisemitism. The plagiarism brouhaha had no impact on funding.

The plagiarism scandal didn't have impact on funding precisely because Harvard fired Claudine Gay.

And Harvard, as also shown before, gets plenty of donations from foreign sources. So those donors who aren't happy with Harvard's policies regarding on campus antisemitism don't even have a monopoly on this donations, no matter how much you are willing ignore yet another fact you don't like.

[late]

no matter how much you are willing ignore yet another fact you don't like...

Project much?

[wat0n]

Project much?

We've already gone through this.

It is indisputably true that Claudine Gay committed plagiarism.

This is also another very obvious fact that is being ignored. I can't recall any university presidents who have been allowed to remain in their position after this kind of thing has come out.

[late]

We've already gone through this.

Rufo, troll.

[wat0n]

Rufo, troll.

It is still indisputably true that Claudine Gay committed plagiarism.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please stop ignoring the indisputable fact that Harvard stood by Gay after her Congressional testimony, despite some donors pressuring the school, and only fired after more plagiarism instances became known.

So the conversation has gone like this:

You brought this up before.

I explained how Harvard slowly caved in to donor demands by increasing the penalties to Ms. Gay, each one of which was unsuccessful in stopping the donor revolt.

You did not disagree with this.

All you did was say that this was “inconsistent” with her getting fired.

You did not explain how this was inconsistent. It is consistent since we can see a pattern of Harvard being increasingly less supportive of Ms. Gay as the donor revolt threatens more and more funds.

Firing her is the consistent and logical next step of these increasing penalties.

The plagiarism scandal didn't have impact on funding precisely because Harvard fired Claudine Gay.

The perception of antisemitism definitely had an impact on funding precisely because Harvard did not fire Ms. Gay until the impact on funding was enough to be felt.

And Harvard, as also shown before, gets plenty of donations from foreign sources. So those donors who aren't happy with Harvard's policies regarding on campus antisemitism don't even have a monopoly on this donations, no matter how much you are willing ignore yet another fact you don't like.

No one claimed there was a monopoly.

It is rational to assume that a group’s influence on any other group is directly proportional to the amount of money the former group gives to the latter.

This is how capitalism works. The pro-Israel camp has an agenda which resulted in Ms, Gay being fired. The other camps have other agendas.

[wat0n]

So the conversation has gone like this:

You brought this up before.

I explained how Harvard slowly caved in to donor demands by increasing the penalties to Ms. Gay, each one of which was unsuccessful in stopping the donor revolt.

You did not disagree with this.

All you did was say that this was “inconsistent” with her getting fired.

You did not explain how this was inconsistent. It is consistent since we can see a pattern of Harvard being increasingly less supportive of Ms. Gay as the donor revolt threatens more and more funds.

Firing her is the consistent and logical next step of these increasing penalties.

It is not hard to see how issuing a statement standing by Claudine Gay despite donor pressure to dismiss her is inconsistent with the theory that she was fired because of donor pressure. Ackman in particular was vocal about demanding her dismissal.

If those donors were so powerful, why did Harvard ignore them?

At this point, one may wonder if there's a measure of stereotyping about donors instead of fact.

The perception of antisemitism definitely had an impact on funding precisely because Harvard did not fire Ms. Gay until the impact on funding was enough to be felt.

Prove this.

No one claimed there was a monopoly.

It is rational to assume that a group’s influence on any other group is directly proportional to the amount of money the former group gives to the latter.

This is how capitalism works. The pro-Israel camp has an agenda which resulted in Ms, Gay being fired. The other camps have other agendas.

Then you will understand that Harvard has no problem replacing those donors, indeed, by getting donations from foreign ones like Qatar and others that have donated a lot more to Harvard than people like Ackman. The donation mentioned in the Congressional hearing is over $1.5 billion, which is a lot more than Ackman's $25 million.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is not hard to see how issuing a statement standing by Claudine Gay despite donor pressure to dismiss her is inconsistent with the theory that she was fired because of donor pressure. Ackman in particular was vocal about demanding her dismissal.

Now you are changing your argument again.

Cool. You concede that firing her was consistent with the escalation of penalties imposed by Harvard on Ms. Gay.

On to the new goalposts:

If both the statement and the firing happened at the same time, you would be correct to say that the two were inconsistent.

They did not happen at the same time.

The statement of solidarity happened long before the firing. The donor’s reaction to the statement was one of the events that eventually led to her firing.

If those donors were so powerful, why did Harvard ignore them?

Because at the time of the statement, it was smaller individual donors who were upset. The really rich donors and the anti-funding campaigns among the smaller donors had not had an impact by that time.

Prove this.

Sure.

If you look at the alumni who were pulling funding before the statement of solidarity, it was less wealthy volunteers and alumni.

Then after, we see the effects of the organized campaign by these small time alumni, and we see the big players like Blavatnik step in.

It is impossible to deduce this from a single source. Instead, I had to look at a complete timeline of Ms, Gay’s career as President of Harvard and then compare this to the dates when newspaper articles were released about the funding revolt.

Then you will understand that Harvard has no problem replacing those donors, indeed, by getting donations from foreign ones like Qatar and others that have donated a lot more to Harvard than people like Ackman. The donation mentioned in the Congressional hearing is over $1.5 billion, which is a lot more than Ackman's $25 million.

No, Harvard is already dependent on the existing donations from Qatar and others. For Harvard to weather this while maintaining the current level of programs, they would need the Qatar and others group to replace all that Harvard would have lost by keeping Ms. Gay, which would mean a massive increase from those groups.

And then they would also have to deal with accusations of antisemitism and working with terrorist states or some such rot.

[wat0n]

Now you are changing your argument again.

Cool. You concede that firing her was consistent with the escalation of penalties imposed by Harvard on Ms. Gay.

On to the new goalposts:

If both the statement and the firing happened at the same time, you would be correct to say that the two were inconsistent.

They did not happen at the same time.

The statement of solidarity happened long before the firing. The donor’s reaction to the statement was one of the events that eventually led to her firing.

I did not change anything. Harvard was fully aware of the opinions of donors like Ackman, yet it still decided to stand by Gay.

Your reasoning makes no sense, because you're desperate to justify your own stereotyping of donors.

Because at the time of the statement, it was smaller individual donors who were upset. The really rich donors and the anti-funding campaigns among the smaller donors had not had an impact by that time.

Bill Ackman has an estimated net worth of $4.1 billion

Sure.

If you look at the alumni who were pulling funding before the statement of solidarity, it was less wealthy volunteers and alumni.

Then after, we see the effects of the organized campaign by these small time alumni, and we see the big players like Blavatnik step in.

It is impossible to deduce this from a single source. Instead, I had to look at a complete timeline of Ms, Gay’s career as President of Harvard and then compare this to the dates when newspaper articles were released about the funding revolt.

This is clearly false, given Ackman was involved from the beginning.

No, Harvard is already dependent on the existing donations from Qatar and others. For Harvard to weather this while maintaining the current level of programs, they would need the Qatar and others group to replace all that Harvard would have lost by keeping Ms. Gay, which would mean a massive increase from those groups.

And then they would also have to deal with accusations of antisemitism and working with terrorist states or some such rot.

Qatar and other states are perfectly able to replace $270 million in donations.

Between 2014 and 2019, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates donated at least US$4.4 billion to numerous US colleges. Together with donations from other Middle East nations, over the five years in question, more than US$5 billion was donated to American universities from authoritarian Middle Eastern nations.

The top five universities that benefitted from these donations include Carnegie Mellon (Pittsburgh), which received US$1.4 billion, Cornell (US$1.2 billion), Harvard (US$894 million) and MIT (US$859 million), and Texas A&M (College Station, Texas) which received just over half a billion dollars.

Note these donations were made just in 5 years.

Let's not even get into all the federal funding Harvard gets.

It is interesting you have chosen to focus only on Jewish donors. I wonder why.

[QatzelOk]

...It is interesting you have chosen to focus only on Jewish donors. I wonder why.

I think your "wondering" focusses on much more important variables in this thread than your "posting" does. Your narratives in this thread are mediocre and add zero to the mainstream media story that we already know and distrust.

I do about five times as much wondering as I do posting.
You should probably do a lot more "wondering" and a bit less "posting."

[wat0n]

I think your "wondering" focusses on much more important variables in this thread than your "posting" does. Your narratives in this thread are mediocre and add zero to the mainstream media story that we already know and distrust.

I do about five times as much wondering as I do posting.
You should probably do a lot more "wondering" and a bit less "posting."

Facts are not mediocre.

Something below mere mediocrity is to be a conspiracy theorist and ignore the facts.

[Pants-of-dog]

:lol:

I did not change anything. Harvard was fully aware of the opinions of donors like Ackman, yet it still decided to stand by Gay.

Your reasoning makes no sense, because you're desperate to justify your own stereotyping of donors.

None of this is a rebuttal to the facts presented.

Bill Ackman has an estimated net worth of $4.1 billion

This is clearly false, given Ackman was involved from the beginning.

On what date did Ackman publicly disclose a withholding of funds?

Qatar and other states are perfectly able to replace $270 million in donations.

This is not the number of donations withheld.

Note these donations were made just in 5 years.

Let's not even get into all the federal funding Harvard gets.

It is interesting you have chosen to focus only on Jewish donors. I wonder why.

I am not focused on Jewish donors. I am focused on those donors who took part in the donor revolt against perceived antisemitism on campus.

If you are arguing that all these donors are Jews, are you basing it on the stereotype that only Jews support Israel and/or oppose antisemitism?