[wat0n]

None of this is a rebuttal to the facts presented.

You have not presented any facts. On the contrary, you have unjustifiably disregarded verifiable facts like Harvard's statement supporting Gay.

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

By whom? By himself, by other donors?

He was warning Harvard that donations were at risk as early as November 5th. He did not specify if his own donations were at risk, that's why I am asking.

This is not the number of donations withheld.

Weird, I thought you were concerned about the amount of donations.

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?

Even weirder, because thus far you have only mentioned Jewish donors by name.

[Pants-of-dog]

By whom? By himself, by other donors?

It depends on what exactly your argument is.

If you are trying to refute the claim that withholding donations were part of the reason for Ms. Gay’s firing, then you would have to show that the funds he contributed were withheld before Harvard issued its statement of solidarity.

You have not presented any facts. On the contrary, you have unjustifiably disregarded verifiable facts like Harvard's statement supporting Gay.

He was warning Harvard that donations were at risk as early as November 5th. He did not specify if his own donations were at risk, that's why I am asking.

Weird, I thought you were concerned about the amount of donations.

Even weirder, because thus far you have only mentioned Jewish donors by name.

Nome of this is relevant to my claim.

[wat0n]

It depends on what exactly your argument is.

If you are trying to refute the claim that withholding donations were part of the reason for Ms. Gay’s firing, then you would have to show that the funds he contributed were withheld before Harvard issued its statement of solidarity.

Again, his personal funds? Those of large donors?

As I said, Ackman did issue a thinly veiled threat that some donors could stop donating to Harvard om November 5th. This presumably includes himself.

He also claimed Harvard had lost up to $1 billion in donations in the runup to the Harvard Board meeting in which they decided to stand by Claudine Gay



So, no, it doesn't seem reasonable to believe donor pressure was the reason for the firing of Claudine Gay. Now, those extra plagiarism accusations which were made public on the other hand...

[Pants-of-dog]

The date on that image is Dec. 10th, two days before the statement of solidarity.

It is implausible that he would have canceled the money in time for there to have had a measurable impact on Harvard policy within two days.

[wat0n]

The date on that image is Dec. 10th, two days before the statement of solidarity.

It is implausible that he would have canceled the money in time for there to have had a measurable impact on Harvard policy within two days.

The announcement was made the day Harvard's board met to discuss Claudine Gay. They were aware of Ackman's threats, and didn't quite care.

Note that these threats were not a reaction to Harvard's statement supporting Gay either.

[Pants-of-dog]

:lol:

The announcement was made the day Harvard's board met to discuss Claudine Gay. They were aware of Ackman's threats, and didn't quite care.

Note that these threats were not a reaction to Harvard's statement supporting Gay either.

Yes, it is reasonable to assume Harvard Corporation is smart enough to understand the difference between a threat and a measurable impact.

I discussed the latter.

You are discussing the former.

[wat0n]

Yes, it is reasonable to assume Harvard Corporation is smart enough to understand the difference between a threat and a measurable impact.

I discussed the latter.

You are discussing the former.

I think they can figure out what the measurable impact of losing those donations is, and also that they can get comparable funding from Qatar and other Gulf states.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

They will not be able to assess the impact fully for a few months, because they close their books then. Consequently, it is literally impossible to know whether donations from Qatar could possibly cover the loss. The evidence is simply not available now and so this must be an argument from ignorance.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog Harvard has a fairly good idea of how much its annual budget is and of its financial situation more generally.

As importantly, it also has a good idea of what venues it can use to replace those donors... And that's assuming Ackman wasn't buffing.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Maybe, but you definitely do not.

Hence, argument from ignorance.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog who cares about what I believe? What matters is what Harvard believes.

So, based on its behavior, it is easy to infer Harvard did not care about Ackman's antics.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Again:

It is not about you believe.

It is about what evidence you could possibly know.

It is impossible for you to know the evidence showing that Harvard could absorb the donation loss.

Hence, argument from ignorance.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog Harvard seems to believe otherwise, given it supported Claudine Gay despite the threats.

So no, she was not fired because of those threats, she was fired because of the plagiarism even you admit happened.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Please stop ignoring my point addressing why and when Harvard stood by her, and the timeline of funding revolt.

Your previous argument was that you magically knew that the donor revolt was not making nay real impact on funding, despite the fact that you have no idea what Harvard’s books say.

Since you are abandoning this argument, I will assume that you agree that your claim was an argument from ignorance.

Can we get back to my argument that explains why Harvard standing by her was a failure? Or do you want to ignore that and claim I am ignoring it?

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog I don't need to know anything, one can infer what Harvard's Board itself thought about those donors from its actions.

I have not ignored anything, on the contrary, I have addressed each and every claim of yours. You, on the other hand, are unable to explain why is it that Harvard publicly stood by Claudine Gay if it was concerned about pissing some donors off.

And Harvard was forced to change in mind as more plagiarism examples began to be made public and other academics were publicly saying they were in fact plagiarism.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog I don't need to know anything, one can infer what Harvard's Board itself thought about those donors from its actions.

Then why are you ignoring the timeline?

I have not ignored anything, on the contrary, I have addressed each and every claim of yours. You, on the other hand, are unable to explain why is it that Harvard publicly stood by Claudine Gay if it was concerned about pissing some donors off.

Why are you ignoring my point about how Harvard publicly stood by Ms, Gay?

And Harvard was forced to change in mind as more plagiarism examples began to be made public and other academics were publicly saying they were in fact plagiarism.

Why are you ignoring the donor revolt?

[late]

Then why are you ignoring the timeline?



Why are you ignoring my point about how Harvard publicly stood by Ms, Gay?



Why are you ignoring the donor revolt?

There is a simple 5 letter answer that starts with T and ends with Roll..

[wat0n]

Then why are you ignoring the timeline?

I'm not. Ackman made these comments on the same day the board was meeting, and he had made previous similar comments in the weeks prior.

Why are you ignoring my point about how Harvard publicly stood by Ms, Gay?

I am not, what matters is that Harvard didn't listen to donors. They were also disappointed to see Harvard did not fire her.

Why are you ignoring the donor revolt?

I am not, I am only saying Harvard didn't care enough about it to fire Gay. What tipped the balance was the fact that outside academics were saying Gay committed plagiarism.

@late cope.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm not. Ackman made these comments on the same day the board was meeting, and he had made previous similar comments in the weeks prior.

Then why are you ignoring how I addressed that?

I am not, what matters is that Harvard didn't listen to donors. They were also disappointed to see Harvard did not fire her.

Why are you ignoring the timeline here?

I am not, I am only saying Harvard didn't care enough about it to fire Gay.

Why are you ignoring the money?

[Drlee]

@wat0n

"maybe, calling for genocide"

So, now showing your true colours, you think that calling for the genocide of Palestinians will make Harvard more popular.

With whom?

The donors?

Sadly, I think it absolutely will make it more popular. American right wingers are besotted with Israel. And yes, with donors. There are only two groups in American to which bigotry is allowed to be openly directed. One is Muslims and the other is white males.

The left is stuck on this one because they chose a black female who got stuck on stupid a couple of times and they cannot imagine being racist enough to admit it. The right is stuck on this one because by pandering to their pro-Israel fundamentalists they are turning off a lot of centrist Americans. They are also screwing the pooch by not supporting Ukraine but they are equally besotted with Putin so......