Thursday: Hili dialogue

72 thoughts on “Thursday: Hili dialogue”

1. A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
   The cure for anything is salt water — sweat, tears, or the sea. -Isak Dinesen (pen name of Karen Blixen), author (17 Apr 1885-1962)

2. Harvard should stop taking federal money. If any institution can go it alone, it is Harvard.

   Anna has a nice article on the pain of submitting an NSF proposal: https://hxstem.substack.com/p/funded-research-at-a-us-university

   1. Thank you for the link to Anna’s letter. Horrors! I watched these over the top complexities develop in the Nasa grants award process from the 70’s and 80’s into the new century. Nasa is a funding agency so I had the perspective of an NSF or NIH program manager in the process as university PI’s submitted grant requests to Nasa and I was a (often the) technical evaluator with all of the business administrative evaluation done by our grants office bean counter accountant type people. I received the technical proposal with attached budget and had to comment simply on whether the technical proposal was appropriate for the Nasa mission, whether the PI and other proposed personnel were qualified (based on their attached bios for faculty/post docs; nothing needed for grad students other than level of effort), that the salary the PI proposed for himself and post docs and/or grad students was appropriate (my judgement), that proposed travel was appropriate (i might expect him to make one trip to our lab plus maybe attend a technical conference to present a paper on the work), and I think that was it. Because this was a grant rather than a contract, Nasa could not require deliverables beyond a written report at midway and end of period. My review/technical approval was a one-pager. The technical proposal was typed free form of maybe 6-12 pages plus budget numbers. Of course I only looked at Direct costs. There was a budget line called “Indirect costs” which I had no say about but was noted as agreed upon by Nasa and the university. We had no “broader impacts” like NSF criterion 2 if I recall correctly.

      I do recall that every time Nasa tried to simplify things with a common format, it seemed to get more complicated and with computer driven formats that were designed for simplifying the task of a bean counting evaluator and not the pi user, things started to get worse…culminating it seems in what Anna wrote about her world of today. Arghhh!

   2. Wow, that was an incredible eye-opener. I had no idea.
      It seems to me that Musk and the DOGE team missed an opportunity to get university researchers on their side. Rather than talking about just the funding cuts, they should have packaged those with vastly reduced bureaucratic requirements so that the research remained funded while the admin portion was minimized per Anna’s suggestions. There would still have been hue and cry over the evil Trump administration cutting funding, but at least they could have had a more positive response from those actually doing the research.

      The other thing this Substack brings to mind is that the process described on the federal level all has to do with requirements imposed by the federal government with the threat of loss of funding if the requirements are not strictly followed. Isn’t that something that universities should #Resist?

3. “It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the government seeks to impose by fiat beliefs that cannot compete on their own merits in the marketplace of ideas.”

   That is harsh. A more charitable interpretation is that the government is demanding that Harvard must allow beliefs that can compete in the marketplace of ideas, but which have not been allowed to if they conflict with woke-left ideology.

   A good example is Carole Hooven’s view that sex is based on biology and is binary and based on gamete size — which got her drummed out of Harvard for the sin of heresy. That’s just one example, there are plenty of others (Roland Fryer, Ronald Sullivan, etc).

   Indeed, the whole point of the government’s demands is to return Harvard to being a “marketplace of ideas” rather than a woke madrasa. Of course Trump’s demands might be over-authoritarian and overdoing it the other way, but surely some draconian course-correction is necessary?

   I’d be interested in Pinker set out his alternative plan for restoring free speech and a “marketplace of ideas” to Harvard and similar institutions.

   1. Uh . . . they MIGHT BE . . . ?

   2. Yes. I am hoping that the now-organized adults in the room on the, for lack of a better identifier for now, Steve Pinker Academic Council can propose something in the broad middle ground between the dei driven Harvard of recent past and the whatever the hell tRump is imposing Harvard. More than hoping…I am very optimistic given the Garber/Pritzker letter and Prof Pinker’s excellent comments in the past.

4. Re: response from Southwest Airlines: Words are cheap.

   1. I have a suspicion that PCC-E’s reply from SWA was machine made.
      No proof of course, just… wouldn’t be surprised.

      D.A.
      NYC

      1. It sure looks LLM-created to me. “Sara” picked out the key words and sentiment, then responded accordingly in a vague manner.
         That said, I would not have expected an AI agent to capitalize “Heart” and “Member”.

5. What legal action other than saying “contempt of court” can be taken from a federal court against the admin. regarding its actions in is now a foreign affair? Any arrest warrants? I suspect not.

   I suspect the drama queen cat is AI. Look closely.

   1. Was thinking the same about the drama queen.
      Was also wondering how much you spend on a cigar if you’re JKR.

      1. It looks like a Panatella.

   2. The eyes at the beginning of the video are not right.

6. In honor of bat appreciation day I’d like to thank Jim “Bat” Batterson for his contributions to this site. Have a great day!

   1. Ha! Thank you Neil! Very kind of you.

   2. +1

   3. +1

   4. 🦇…🏏…⚾️bat (no emoji found).

      As deemed suitable for the task.

7. In other news the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) has made a criminal referral to the DOJ for New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud.

8. It is blatantly obvious that Harvard is unable and, I believe, unwilling to course correct of its own accord. Like why would it? The same people who took it down this path are still there. The same people who, after the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding admissions, sought loopholes to circumvent.

   I do think the Trump government has overreached, although not by much, but the harm these institutions are doing is far worse.

   Let them do what they want, but there’s zero reason the American taxpayer should be funding their current ideology.

   Those against the government’s strong arm approach, what do you suggest instead?

   I’d also add that if funding has not been cut off before, has the college ever been behaving so flagrantly outside of the norms most people would expect of it? It’s had chances the last year and a half, even longer, to get its house in order. And hasn’t. Are there precedents? I honestly don’t know. Bit the same people up in arms about Trump’s government disobeying a lower court’s order don’t seem to be giving the same treatment to Harvard circumventing the Supreme Court’s orders.

   1. Surely there’s a constituency within Harvard which wants 90% of these changes. No more idiot plagiarists in high office. Non-racist admissions & hiring. Open debate instead of orthodoxy.

      The people who want this have been scared to speak up, unwilling to risk social ostracism… easier to stay in the lab & ignore the broader university’s culture. Bite your tongue when your friends spout woke nonsense (or take notes for the mandatory section on your next grant).

      But now, they have another path to speak up. They can say “Look there’s a compromise position which will save the university from ruin!” They can pretend these aren’t their personal positions, just a necessary defence against the barbarians at the gate.

      Any chance this happens? If not at Harvard (which might be sacrificed pour encourager les autres) then at less well-endowed institutions, where the loss of a few billion would be truly catastrophic.

      1. Exactly right, Pawel. +3

9. Why a cigar?

   In the TV show The A-Team (NBC? 80s), the leader Hannibal (George Pappard) had a recurring line “I love it when a plan comes together.” – usually after a decisive team conclusion of some sort. He’d say this … I think every time with the cigar.

10. In addition to turning a blind eye to antisemitism, Harvard was also found by the Supreme Court to have engaged in racial discrimination against Asians.

    Yet, somehow, I don’t think Harvard feels it has done anything wrong.

    1. I’m not sure that Harvard has turned a “blind eye” to antisemitism, but I’ll defer to more expert witnesses.

       https://www.adl.org/campus-antisemitism-report-card/harvard-university

       It might also be worth noting that the Supreme Court did not find that Harvard had discriminated against Asians. The Court’s found that Harvard’s admissions system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but there was no evidence of discrimination against Asians, who were in fact admitted to Harvard College at a higher rate than minority applicants.

       1. RE: “The Court’s found that Harvard’s admissions system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but there was no evidence of discrimination against Asians, who were in fact admitted to Harvard College at a higher rate than minority applicants.”

          Are you sure about this? Can you link to anything credible (a non-Harvard source) that states that Harvard did not discriminate against Asians? The fact that Asians were admitted “at a higher rate than minority applicants” does not prove that they were not discriminated against. If Asians are much better academically prepared than other minorities (say, blacks or hispanics), then they could be admitted “at a higher rate than [these other] minority applicants” while also being discriminated against.

          1. A lawsuit reveals how peculiar Harvard’s definition of merit is. The Economist, June 23rd, 2022
             The university’s reputation for fairness and impartiality emerges bruised
             https://archive.li/3wfGB
             Excerpts:

             By [Harvard’s] admission office’s own ratings, Asian-Americans rank higher than white applicants in both their academic prowess and the quality of their extracurricular activities. Yet their admission rates are much lower. For Asian-Americans in the top decile of academic skill, just 13.4% are admitted, compared with 18.5% of whites (see chart). Asians are scored much worse on another measure of applicant quality—the “personal rating”—by admissions officers. Unlike the other two metrics, personality is judged subjectively and is decided by admissions officers who have not met the applicants. The alumni who conduct in-person interviews rate Asian-Americans as highly as white applicants. To SFFA, this constitutes clear proof of discrimination.

             Peter Arcidiacono, an economist at Duke University employed by the plaintiffs, built a statistical model of the effect of race on admissions. He estimates that a male, non-poor Asian-American applicant with the qualifications to have a 25% chance of admission to Harvard would have a 36% chance if he were white. If he were Hispanic, that would be 77%; if black, it would rise to 95%. Damningly for the defendants, an internal report by Harvard’s research arm, obtained during discovery, reached the same conclusions. Harvard officials claim that the report was incomplete and the analysis oversimplified.

             For those unconvinced by fancy maths, the basic statistics also look worrying. Harvard insists that it has no racial quotas or floors, which would fall foul of Supreme Court rulings and jeopardise the university’s federal funding. Yet the share of Asian-Americans it admits has stayed near 20% over the past decade. This is true even as the number of Asian-Americans in high schools has increased. Caltech, a top university without race-based affirmative action, saw its share of Asian-Americans increase dramatically over the same period.

             Note that admission to selective universities is a zero-sum game for different ethnic groups. If the admission rate for one group goes up the admission rate for at least one other group has to go down.

             Barbara, you seem to be saying that SCOTUS found Harvard’s and UNC’s admission policies unconstitutional without finding that these two institutions had actually engaged in illegal discrimination against Asians. Am I getting this right?

          2. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

             See also

             https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199

             https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/LC_Harvard-UNC-Cases_D.pdf

             The problem with the rest of the issue is that ‘discrimination’ FOR a category of applicant does not entail active discrimination AGAINST another category of applicant. As a human rights attorney (and a Harvard Law grad) I watched this case closely. To simplify a bit, the admissions process first selected a group of highly qualified applicants, each of whom was then examined closely for other factors that might be weighed in the admission process. SFFA wanted colleges to use only a few quantifiable measures of “merit” for admissions decisions, such as high school GPA and SAT scores, while the ‘holistic’ assessment that Harvard used took into account other factors as well — in line with the Supreme Court’s earlier Grutter v Bollinger decisions allowing the use of race so long as quotas were not applied.

             You should also read the Appeals Court decision, in which there is also no claim that Asian or Asian-American applicants were discriminated against. I don’t want to split hairs here, but for a couple of hundred years at least Harvard did discriminate against Black applicants — none were allowed to attend, whatever their “merit” — and that is pretty clearly “discrimination.”

       2. Let’s try facts. Asians had the same admission rate in the 10th decile (12.7%) as blacks did in the 4th decile (12.8%). The SAT gap is ‘only’ 60 points (out of 800).

          A typical article on the subject has a headline “Supreme Court affirmative action case showed ‘astonishing’ racial gaps”

          1. First, let me confess that I am not a statistician, and phrased my point about admission rates awkwardly, even inaccurately. My point was that the percentage of Asian-American students in each freshman class at Harvard (College) far exceeds the percentage of Asian-Americans in the U.S. population. The percentage of minority students in each freshman class at Harvard (College) is significantly lower than the percentage of minority members (esp Black and Hispanic) in the U.S. population, and had been dropping over the past decade. Harvard’s interest in achieving “diversity” or some form of Affirmative Action was certainly a factor in bumping up the admission prospects of minority applicants — that was never at issue.

             1. Let’s try facts. The class of 2009 was 11% black. The class of 2028 is 14% black. The class of 2009 was 8% Hispanic. The class of 2028 is 16% Hispanic.

          2. Perhaps the cruelest part of affirmative action is that the failure/dropout rate for those otherwise unqualified students who are admitted is enormous.
             Amy Wax talks about this, a law prof. a few years ago was fired for pointing it out, but it is noticeable (to me anyway) as a law student 25 years ago.

             So you’re not actually helping these kids: you’re putting them in an environment where they can’t compete and they’re leaving as failures with huge debt.
             Thomas Sowell has a lot to say about this from his Cornel days.

             But the unis get brochures that look like a United Colors of Benetton ad.
             Incredible.

             D.A.
             NYC

             1. Another significant confounding factor is that admissions are not based on equal criteria for every applicant e.g., you’re a top athlete, different line; exceptional musician, different line; even declaring a low enrollment major can send you to a different line.

       3. Barbara, suppose under a colour-blind merit standard the success rate for Asian applicants would be 20% and the rate for native black applicants would be 0.2%. Now suppose instead Harvard peeks behind the veil and stacks the deck on race so that the actual success rate for black applicants is 8%. In a fixed freshman class size something has to give. The success rate for non-black applicants has to fall because they are competing only for the spots not guaranteed to black applicants (by the quantitative decision about how much to stack the deck.). After this re-jigging, Harvard finds that the success rate for Asian applicants is now 10%. It proudly points to this success-rate difference. The acceptance rate is lo and behold yet higher for Asians than for blacks, “proving” that Harvard did not discriminate against Asians. Even though it did. This was inevitable as soon as it stacked the deck in favour of black applicants.

       4. … Asians, who were in fact admitted to Harvard College at a higher rate than minority applicants.

          Just pointing out how the word “minority” has become a euphemism for “less successful” groups, such that Asian Americans and Jewish Americans don’t count as “minorities”!

          1. +1

             (Although I still object to iDJiT referring to the “less successful” as “losers”, on account of the pejorative connotations.)

    2. The above is all very interesting and provides credible details about race-based discrimination. But what do we want our elite higher institutions to look like? If its to be only a meritocracy, blind to race, then the population at Harvard would be essentially all asian and white. Other minorities pay taxes too, and getting into Harvard would be a huge chance for them to move into the middle and upper economic classes. I certainly don’t have all the answers, but the mostly highly privileged white and asian young people will have little trouble getting into an elite college somewhere.

       1. RE: “the mostly highly privileged white and asian young people will have little trouble getting into an elite college somewhere.”

          It seems to me that most elite universities have practiced the same type of racial discrimination as Harvard and UNC.

          Besides, I don’t see why being a taxpayer entitles one to an outsized probability of admission to an elite university (outsized relative to academic potential as measured by past acdemic achievement).

          Remember we are talking about admission to world-class universities. There are many universities below that level which will gladly accept students of lower academic caliber.

          There is also the question whether you do mediocre students a favor by admitting them to elite universities. What’s the empirical evidence on that?
          Just recently, I looked at law scholar Ilya Shapiro’s book Lawless: The miseducation of America’s elites (2024) . At one point he was talking about admission to law school at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. Recently there was pressure to admit more academically weak candidates. The consequence of yielding to this pressure: a large fraction of these marginal candidates can’t pass the bar exam. Next step one can expect: reduce the standards of the bar exam. Because, obviously, the bar exam is racist (because of disparate impact).
          In the meantime, those who can’t pass the bar, they still have their students loans to pay back.

       2. A fundamental principle of enlightenment values is that we treat people as individuals, on their individual merits, not as avatars of groups. We shouldn’t have group-based quotas.

          Secondly, the blacks admitted to Harvard are usually already from middle-class or well-off families (or the children of recent immigrants). Few of them are from low-income families.

          Thirdly, admitting students who are under-qualified onto elite courses is not good for them, they will struggle to cope (at least in STEM subjects) and may drop out. They are likely to do better when properly matched to a course and in a cohort of similar-ability students.

          Fourthly, preferential admission of less-qualified students to meet a racial quota can only be sustained by draconian taboos on discussing the topic. (An example being the professor sacked for lamenting in a Zoom call that students admitted with lower standards then tend to perform weakly; and the sacking of another professor whose only fault was failing to shout down the first professor.) This is not good for society.

          Fifth, if one did this openly, then everyone would regard any and all black students as being DEI admits who are not up to it academically, but are there to make up the numbers. That is a huge burden to place on any student. (While nearly everyone in academia declares that affirmative action is both good and necessary, it is pretty much an instant-dismissal offense for any faculty to suggest that any specified student is an affirmative-action admit; see accusations about Amy Wax for example.)

          Sixth, while all of this might not matter much for students gaining degrees in “gender studies” and other non subjects, it would matter a lot for any subject where competence matters (such as law, medicine, engineering, etc). You would be pretty much announcing to the public that black students with those degrees didn’t earn them but were given them only to fulfill a quota. The students who would suffer most from this are those (admittedly few) black students who genuinely could make the grade on ability.

          1. I didn’t get to your post before I wrote my own just now but we make almost the same points, Coel.
             haha Great minds think alike!
             best,
             D.A.
             NYC

       3. I found James Bloodworth’s small UK book The Myth of Meritocracy (2016) quite enlightening. YMMV.

          1. I recommend:”
             Ruy Teixeira: The Democrats’ Merit Problem. May 11, 2023
             They No Longer Seem So Sure It’s a Good Idea
             https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-democrats-merit-problem

             Chetty, Deming, Friedman: Diversifying Society’s Leaders? The Determinants and Consequences of Admission to Highly Selective Colleges. Oct 2023 [non-technical research summary]
             https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

11. Love the Jewish haiku!

    Student evaluations: You can’t win. Here are two that I got the same year for my History if the Earth and Life course. These are rough quotations from memory.

    “The professor uses slides and visual aids that make the class interesting.”
    “As soon as the lights go down and he starts showing the slides, I can’t help but fall asleep. So boring!”

    Oh well.

    And in other news, Harvard had no choice but to challenge the Trump administration, as the government’s demands go well beyond DEI and antisemitism. Imagine the faculty response if Garber acquiesced to the government demands. This could end up being an epic battle, but then again, the two sides might reach a settlement.

    1. Re student evaluations, my first set included one that called me a fascist on account of my marking scheme. Truth be told, my naive expectations were unreasonably high, and I learned much more from the experience than most of my students did. I’ve learned to be gentler.

    2. “I can’t help but fall asleep. So boring!”

       That is (infuriating)^3. Sounds like a “First World Problem” or “Luxury Belief.” At least when he falls asleep he can’t bother anyone in the lecture hall unless he snores. Is he bored when he’s asleep?!? Is he one of these entitled tyros who email a professor at 3 a.m. and expect an answer by 8 a.m.?

       How is that juvenilized college student going to react when he is finally on his own (his parents shouting “Hallelujah!”), enters his abode and announces to the Universe, “I’m bored!” and there’s no one there to drop whatever they are doing and instantly respond to his bloody exquisite, exacting, exceptional requirements? (Sounds Trumpian to me.) He better accumulate a bundle of skills by means of which to entertain himself.

12. BlueSky comments related to the UK Supreme Court decision are typical BS groupthink, with lots of comments about JKR being a C***, and lots of F*** JKR type comments. Also many indirect threats, such as “I hope the WORST things happen to JK Rowling and I mean that with my whole f*ing chest. Like I mean the worst I don’t mean like step on a lego, or lose all of her money. I mean the WORST.”, “This is JK Rowling, billionaire writer and an exceptionally malicious person…This is your target.”, and “I want jk rowling to actually fear for her safety for the rest of here life”.

    Glad all those people who claimed to be against the meanness and hatred on X found a kindler, gentler venue to express their rational perspective on an issue they disagree with and are able to do so in such a intellectual manner.

    1. When employers say they don’t want to hire trans people, these are the sort of people they are trying to protect their customers and other employees from having to deal with. You want the force of law to prohibit me from discriminating against them?

       OK, you might say I can discriminate against sociopaths and narcissists but not against trans people as a group. But when I comply you will still say I have discriminated against trans when you look at disparate impact.

    2. Sad. I’m still unclear why this rather bizarre topic (men can become women, and the reverse) is such a massive flashpoint.

       But everywhere I read it’s the same: a certain subset of the population sees this as hugely important topic and becomes VERY nasty if you don’t agree.

       1. It is the “Be kind” people Frau Katze my friend.
          So kind they are!

          D.A.
          NYC

    3. Yes they always respond in such sane reasoned rational manner. It is very peurile immature and warrants an instant dismissal from me for their concerns. Harsh but true

       1. You have to admit, wishing for something worse than stepping on a Lego is a pretty good line. There is a certain clownish, impotent, theatricality to it. Like breaking into her house and sowing LEGO everywhere like caltrops. I mean, stepping on LEGO in bare feet really fricken hurts, man! Duplo’s not so bad. Some of the corners are rounder and there’s more flatness than points. But LEGO? You want something worse than that?!

13. I think, regards Abrego Garcí, we all know he’s probably a gang member and a wife-beater. He also entered America illegally and is not an American citizen.

    Yes, he seems to have been granted something along the lines of asylum, but in what context and is that really an indefinite stay of deportation? It also wasn’t state sponsored persecution he seems to have been afraid of, it was gang violence. Why did he have a target on his back?

    I believe, reading between the lines, this isn’t a guy you’d want in your country.

    No, they haven’t necessarily proven he’s guilty of anything, but do they have to? Can they not just rescind his protected status? (I suspect this is the administrative error alluded to.) And as an illegal immigrant to the US was he ever proven to be innocent or legitimately aggrieved by his own country?

    If he’s the best the left/the MSM can come up with, as their cause célèbre, out of the many hundreds/thousands deported, I’d say the government is actually doing a pretty good job.

    1. Regarding: “I think, regards Abrego Garcí, we all know he’s probably a gang member and a wife-beater.”

       Well, I know no such things. How come you know this?

       1. Yeah, that’s one hell of an accusation and until Craig can support it, it’s best to ignore his comment

          1. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k4072e3nno

             You’re welcome to make up your own mind. He probably is a gang member. There’s also accusations in here that he was involved in human trafficking. Smoke without fire and all that. Or are you going to wait until he shows you his MS-13 membership card? I reckon you’re being wilfully ignorant.

             He’s also locked up in El Salvador. Why? What crime is he accused of there? Why was he in fear of his life from gangs?

             He entered the US illegally. He was granted a stay of deportation (why, I don’t know, but surely this isn’t forever binding). His stay wasn’t because of state-level persecution, it was because of gangs wishing him harm. He was accused by his wife of physical violence toward her. She hasn’t reversed this accusation, just now claims that they got through it. He’s probably a gang member. I can’t bold/italics probably for you. The authorities likely have more intel on him than you and they seem pretty convinced he’s a wrong ‘un. They’re not just deporting all men from El Salvador, it’s certain people.

             And this is the best stick the left/MSM have found to beat the administration with? That says to me, as I’ve already said, that they’re actually doing a pretty good job.

    2. We do not know this about this man. I’ve read a lot about this case and there is no evidence he’s a gang member.

       As for wife beater: that’s a new one. Hadn’t heard that accusation before. His wife if working hard to get him back.

       1. She filed for a restraining order but withdrew it.

    3. The BBC has this to say, earlier today.
       https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k4072e3nno
       You didn’t make the wife-beater or “probable gang member” up in your head but since the information seemed to have come as a surprise to some readers it would have been better to have provided a source. Of course much that is advanced in his favour comes from his lawyers trying to paint their client in the best possible light.

       You make a good point about his apparent immunity (temporary, permanent, conditional?) from deportation which seems maybe was breached. To qualify for asylum under international law, one has to have a well-founded fear of state persecution so, no, it’s not asylum, more like lying low until the heat dies down. An illegal immigrant has little other chance of being allowed to stay in any country once apprehended. Asylum is a long shot but it’s the only one he’s got. If fear of living in a high-crime neighbourhood where gang retaliation is a thing was grounds for asylum, Canada’s asylum system would be overwhelmed with American claimants from violent cities. Going there we aren’t.

       1. Thanks Leslie. Yes, I sort of just presumed people were aware of the details. In future will lead with whatever source I’m using.

          Interesting points re. asylum. And yes, I figured just being afraid of gangs in your neighbourhood wouldn’t be grounds for an asylum appeal. A lot of people would fall into that category. It seems to me there’s more to this case.

          I suspect the “administrative error” was not formally revoking his protected status before deportation. But seems he had few rights otherwise to remain in the USA after entering illegally.

    4. “Yes, he seems to have been granted something along the lines of asylum”

       The immigration court (years ago) held that he should not be sent back to El Salvador. He was never granted asylum. His request for asylum was denied.

       1. The following is a quote from “Mark”.

          “The facts here are amazingly simple. Garcia was here illegally and is neither a US citizen nor an resident alien properly here with a green card or other documentation (passport with I-94 form, EAD, TPS). Clear violation of the INA and crime #1. He was also driving without a license nor did he even have one (misdemeanor under Tennessee law and crime #2 with up to 6 month jail time in Tennessee). He was caught transporting 7 other illegals without that license. (Suspected human trafficking and possible crime #3).

          But we don’t need to go to number 3. #1 allows his removal out of the country and #2 (open and shut case) allows for 6 months jail time. That makes him a criminal illegal alien, regardless what he did or didn’t do in El Salvador. #2 never went to trial and #3 was never fully investigated because the Biden administration ordered his release. Why? For what reason? Answer, politics pure and simple.

          Wake up people. The guy didn’t belong here, period. That’s the beginning, middle and end of this story. They sent him back where he belongs and what El Salvador does with him is their business, not ours.”

14. I have flown Southwest just once, only because they don’t serve our local airport. That one time was long after the Herb Kelleher era of fun and creativity. Nowadays all I ask for from an airline is a well-maintained fleet with clean interiors flown by experienced crews, all under the guidance of the smartest traffic control system that can be developed by humans and A.I.

15. Harvard would have more credibility, if it was not known as really crazy place (it has been really crazy for a long time). Let me use a few examples. Back in 2002 a Harvard professor by the name of Steven Pinker wrote a book titled “The Blank Slate”. Blank Slate ideology utterly dominates elite institutions such as Harvard. Back in 2006, the president of Havard (Larry Summers) dared to suggest the men and women are different. He actually invoked the GMV. For that heresy he was forced out of office. Shall we consider the SFFA vs. Harvard case? The evidence against Harvard was overwhelming. More recently, the DEI president of Harvard (Claudine Gay) failed to support Caroline Hooven. Later she (CG) was forced out by her plagiarism and antisemitism. Just lately a Harvard instructor (Alejandra Caraballo) stated (retweeted) “Chromosomes are meaningless”. This stuff is so bizarre you can’t make it up.

    1. Your comment about Steve Pinker and “The Blank Slate” confuses me. It would seem that you say that Pinker is an advocate of the “blank slate” concept. In fact, just the opposite is true. Harvard certainly has its faults, but I don’t think Pinker deserves to be tarred with the same brush, if that was your intention.

       1. S. Pinker did write the book “The Blank Slate”. He apparently wrote the book to condemn the idea (which is utterly dominant in much of elite/academic American life, including Harvard). Of course, I don’t speak for him. You can get a pretty of how he thinks from his TED talks

          1. I’ve read Pinker’s book. He wrote the book to condemn the idea.

             It is very widespread in society as a whole. I doubt that Harvard is any worse than anywhere else in that regard.

             1. “I doubt that Harvard is any worse than anywhere else in that regard.”

                Congratulations on winning today’s “Damning with Faint Praise” award!

16. I love that bookshop owner’s shirt (seen at 2:48):
    “Books: helping introverts avoid conversation since 1454.”

17. Over the past 48 hours, the Trump administration has turned up the heat on Harvard. On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security threatened to revoke Harvard’s authority to admit foreign, non-resident students if the university did not comply with the administrations demands. Then, yesterday, the administration asked the IRS to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status (apparently, it cannot order the IRS to do so). Sources: The Free Press and NYT.

18. In honor of Haiku Poetry day, here’s one of my favorites. It’s called “Pleasant Dreams”.

    Dreams rain from heaven
    Floating like leaves on water
    I get very wet

19. There once was a man
    From cork, who got limericks
    And haikus confused.

    A cat haiku, for PCC(E)

    The rule for today:
    Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
    New rule tomorrow.

Comments are closed.