This is absurd. Of course the executive can cancel grants from agencies that are directed by the executive. It is not an issue of speech, but whether the grant implements the goals the administration has. And in this case they don’t. Claiming that Harvard has to control who it hires for it to have free speech is inconsistent. Would the same judge agree then that federal contracts requiring ownership or quotas based on race and sex are also a violation of free speech? It’s also weird that the judge is guessing at the administration’s intent to make his case rather than on what the administration laid out (regarding discrimination against Jewish students and faculty).
> It is not an issue of speech, but whether the grant implements the goals the administration has.
Oh yes? And what goals are those, exactly?
> regarding discrimination against Jewish students and faculty
It's funny that you make this assertion, because, and this is a quote:
> Nowhere in the April 3 Letter did the government ... identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus, or ... specify how Harvard failed to respond to any such acts of antisemitism in a way that violated Title VI.
and then we can quote
> Once again, nowhere in the April 11 Letter did the government ... identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus, or... specify how Harvard failed to respond to any such acts of antisemitism in a way that violated Title VI.
and then we can quote
> The April 14 Freeze Order ... also did not identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus or specify how Harvard’s actions violated Title VI.
and then we can quote
> Once again, nowhere in the May 5 Freeze Order did the government ... identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus, or ... specify how Harvard failed to respond to any such acts of antisemitism in a way that violated Title VI.
and then we can quote
> There is no obvious link between the affected projects and antisemitism. By way of example (although by no means an exhaustive list), Defendants have ordered immunologists overseeing a multi-school tuberculosis consortium to immediately stop research, a researcher at the
Wyss Institute to halt his development of an advanced chip designed to measure NASA astronauts' radiation exposure during the upcoming Artemis II mission to the moon, and another Wyss Institute scientist, a recipient of the nation’s highest honor for technological achievement, to cease his research into Lou Gehrig’s disease. Officials at the
Department of Veterans Affairs have begun the process of cutting funding for research into, among other life-saving measures, "a predictive model to help V.A. emergency room physicians decide whether suicidal veterans should be hospitalized."
Surprising to say the least that these projects are not "goals the administration has".
It's an 84-page discussion of why the plaintiff's activities were protected speech. Your dismissal of that as "absurd" would be more convincing if it enjoyed any supporting statements.
SilverElfin|6 months ago
BugsJustFindMe|6 months ago
Oh yes? And what goals are those, exactly?
> regarding discrimination against Jewish students and faculty
It's funny that you make this assertion, because, and this is a quote:
> Nowhere in the April 3 Letter did the government ... identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus, or ... specify how Harvard failed to respond to any such acts of antisemitism in a way that violated Title VI.
and then we can quote
> Once again, nowhere in the April 11 Letter did the government ... identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus, or... specify how Harvard failed to respond to any such acts of antisemitism in a way that violated Title VI.
and then we can quote
> The April 14 Freeze Order ... also did not identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus or specify how Harvard’s actions violated Title VI.
and then we can quote
> Once again, nowhere in the May 5 Freeze Order did the government ... identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus, or ... specify how Harvard failed to respond to any such acts of antisemitism in a way that violated Title VI.
and then we can quote
> There is no obvious link between the affected projects and antisemitism. By way of example (although by no means an exhaustive list), Defendants have ordered immunologists overseeing a multi-school tuberculosis consortium to immediately stop research, a researcher at the Wyss Institute to halt his development of an advanced chip designed to measure NASA astronauts' radiation exposure during the upcoming Artemis II mission to the moon, and another Wyss Institute scientist, a recipient of the nation’s highest honor for technological achievement, to cease his research into Lou Gehrig’s disease. Officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs have begun the process of cutting funding for research into, among other life-saving measures, "a predictive model to help V.A. emergency room physicians decide whether suicidal veterans should be hospitalized."
Surprising to say the least that these projects are not "goals the administration has".
jeffbee|6 months ago