How not to submit to a tyrant - by Robert Reich (Harvard)

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

Dr. Reich cannot even remember what he believes from day to day. Are rich institutions evil or good? Is having billions of dollars evil or good? Should powerful government be resisted or embraced?

Today he defends the extremely rich (but apparently virtuous) institution called Harvard for resisting the will of government. And tomorrow he will blast extremely rich (and evil) businesses, likely for not paying their fair share of taxes or for resisting some government dictate. 

It's also worth noting that Harvard has experienced a surge in donations since Trump's actions,

...with $1.14 million collected in under 48 hours...

So it seems that if Harvard doesn't like Trump's dictates, the obvious solution is to stop taking federal money. It's clear that private donors are willing to take up the slack.

------------------------

Harvard should not negotiate

Friends,

Despite a series of legal wins against the Trump administration, Harvard officials have concluded that those victories alone might be insufficient to protect the university. So Harvard is reentering negotiations with Trump.

Among the sticking points with the Trump White House are issues of admissions, hiring, and viewpoint diversity.

Lawrence H. Summers, a former Harvard president, suggested in an interview with The New York Times on Monday that a deal, in and of itself, should not be seen as a surrender. “I don’t hear anyone at Harvard saying Harvard doesn’t need to work at diversity of perspective,” he said.

Hello? What the hell does “diversity of perspective” mean? (He doesn't even know. Astonishing.)

More professors and students who believe in authoritarianism and fewer who believe in democracy? More courses emphasizing biblical views and fewer based on science? More students who are racist and xenophobic and fewer who are tolerant? (This is completely crazy. Dr. Reich can only think of extreme examples of supposed diversity. This of course makes sense because leftists like Dr. Reich arrogantly assume their intellectual superiority, which means any sort of dissent is automatically extreme.

Diversity for Leftists like Dr. Reich is solely based on skin pigment or sexual proclivities. Yet they demand absolute ideological conformity, because it is inconceivable for them that someone might legitimately dissent from Leftist political dogma. Such a thing isn't intellectually possible.

And by the way, if some professor does believe in authoritarianism, why would that a problem? Harvard embraces authoritarianism. Is there a list of things to which professors must assent? Oh, there is, because 80% of Harvard's professors describe themselves as liberal or very liberal. If you're conservative you won't be working at Harvard.

Ironically, leftist "diversity" is itself authoritarian.)

And who’s to decide when and whether Harvard’s “perspectives” have become sufficiently “diverse” anyway? Stephen Miller? Trump? (Well, Harvard seems to have no difficulty determining if it is diverse enough when it comes to skin pigment, so why would it be hard to determine if there exists enough intellectual diversity?)

A deal with Trump would be a surrender if Harvard agrees to even a smidgeon of government oversight over who’s hired or admitted or what’s taught. (Harvard received $625 million in federal dollars in 2021, two-thirds of its revenue. It seems to us that the Feds should have quite a bit of "oversight" regarding how those dollars are spent.)

Even negotiating with Trump gives his demands a degree of legitimacy he should never have. ("I've got a pen and I've got a phone.")

Responsible leaders of American institutions must deal with the tyrant in the Oval Office by saying unequivocally “no” and unambiguously refusing to do what he demands. (Hmm, it's tyranny to put strings on federal dollars. Again, the simple solution for Harvard is to not take federal dollars.)

There’s no reason for Harvard to negotiate. So far, federal courts have backed its independence. And the courts will continue to do so — if academic freedom means anything at all and the First Amendment still holds. (Academic freedom to enforce the leftist viewpoint...

And since when do institutions have rights? Dr. Reich wants "Citizens United" overturned because corporations aren't people and therefore don't have rights, yet apparently Harvard has rights.)

In the meantime, Harvard is sufficiently wealthy and prestigious to withstand Trump’s assaults. (??? Dr. Reich hates billionaires. But apparently billionaire institutions are just fine... IF they share his politics.)

Not so with other universities in America — which makes it even more urgent that Harvard hang tough and lead the way with a firm “no.”

The “no’s” of the brave institutional leaders who have stood up to Trump reverberate across America. They give courage to others. They enable people to see the tyrant for what and who he is. The meek “yes’s” undercut American democracy.

Besides, it’s impossible to appease a tyrant. ("Tyrant." He keeps using this word. We do not think he knows what it means.)

Negotiations only encourage him to ask for more.

After ABC settled a baseless lawsuit Trump filed against it for $15 million, (It must have not been "baseless" if they settled.)

Trump demanded CBS pay him even more to settle an even less credible charge. Trump’s lawsuits have never been about winning. They’ve been designed to impose financial and political costs on institutions that say and do things he doesn’t like. (Irony Alert. This is exactly the strategy the Left has been routinely employing to hamstring Trump and conservatives for decades.)

When some of the nation’s biggest law firms agreed to deals with Trump, the initial terms appeared straightforward. But Trump then signaled far more ambitious plans for what he will call on those firms to do, and he sees their promises of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services as a legal war chest that he can do with as he wishes.

Leaders of America’s great institutions — of our top universities, law firms, museums, the media — should treat Trump for what he is: a liar, bully, conman, and malignant narcissist who cares only about wreaking vengeance and accumulating more personal power and wealth. (If Trump's purpose was to accumulate wealth, he seems to be pretty bad at it:

Negotiating with him only contributes to the dangerous mythologies of omnipotence and invincibility he is seeking to cultivate.

This is not a partisan political fight between the traditional political left and right, but a struggle between democracy and dictatorship. (Hyperbole, and rather insane as well.)

At this perilous time in American history, the moral leadership of great American institutions like Harvard University is desperately needed.

Harvard should not negotiate.