Seems like such a contradicting message from a school that is supposed to encourage independent thinking.
Edit: colleges with large endowment funds seem like glorified businesses with conflicts of interest.
Harvard does not encourage independent thinking. Where would you get that impression?
Suppressing what was clearly a peaceful protest. Almost all these colleges have used the police and violence to escalate things and then blame the students for their inability to take criticism.
Edit: I think I misread your comment, I agree maybe they don’t encourage it, but should if they want to be considered a college.
Any college that refers to their graduates as “a [college name] man” clearly expects a large degree of conformity.
“any institution with an endowment as large as Harvard’s isn’t a school, it’s a hedge fund that offers classes, and should lose it’s tax exempt status”… Sorry I forget who said it, and I’m paraphrasing
Removed by mod
They’re denying the degrees ENTIRELY or simply not granting them at commencement?
Because after 4 years and who knows how many thousands of dollars, there’s likely a contractual obligation to supply the degree.
CAMBRIDGE - Thirteen Harvard University students who participated in the pro-Palestinian protest encampment on campus will not get their degrees at commencement Thursday.
Thursday
They will still get the degree
Edit: CBS, ABC and the rest of mainstream media have turned into clickbait
Edit2: the article has been updated, the Harvard corporate board over ruled faculty. Students will not receive degrees at this time because demanding BDS
Well summarized ;)
I just read the last part of the Harvard statement included in the CBS article:
We will consider conferral of degrees promptly if, following the completion of all FAS processes, a student becomes eligible to receive a degree.
It sounds like they’re not getting degrees. Am I missing something here?
Harvard is dead. Fuck em. They’ve lost all my respect.
I haven’t been able to find any explanation from Harvard about who the specific students were, or why they were singled out for punishment. Does anybody know? Were they the leaders of the protest? Were they accused of specific acts that were considered more serious than what other students did? I saw one article that said two of them are Rhodes Scholars, but I can’t find much more information.
in a year nobody will even remember this even happened.
No Americans, you mean. I’m sure the Palestinians might occasionally have a thought about it
Only the ones that escaped already at this rate.
does not matter this has nothing to do with the Palestinians themself.
Americans protesting absolutely has an impact on the Palestinians themselves. They see us, and they know we see them and what’s happening to them. There are tons of interviews with Palestinians saying how much they appreciate the solidarity, even if it hasn’t ended the war. A tiny drop of empathy can be incredibly powerful when bombs are falling all around you.
dude this is an article about Harvard university. people will not get degrees for something that will be forgotten in a year.
Good any protestors who support bigots don’t deserve a degree.
Trump supporters got degrees
well then bye bye to pro-natenyahu protestors
Removed by mod
Protesting against murdering people is not the same as supporting those people’s beliefs. If someone doesn’t like gay people it doesn’t mean they all deserve death. That would be like a genocide or something
EXTREME DICK RIDING CONTEST
🤦♂️
It’s not about participation, but rather the socially unacceptable ways to express it. Come on, please be decent, others are here too.
So why was it socially unacceptable this time, but not when students were protesting South African Apartheid? Or Climate change? Or any number of the other divestments that have been successful without us even ever hearing about it?
“Because the Palestinians aren’t worth saving” - what other message are we to take away from this decision by Harvard?
I know it seems weird to think about this now, but back when Mandela was being released, the conservative establishment was calling him a terrorist and insisting that we still needed to support the apartheid government In South Africa against terrorist communists like Mandela.
Reagan and Thatcher were both quite explicit about it.
So this really is nothing new. The Right is always going to back the powerful against the powerless, and will always come down hard on any person or group that challenges the “natural order”.
Here, here. Won’t somebody think of the moderates, and their refined sensibilities? After all, they certainly didn’t personally blow up aid trucks and hospitals in Gaza.
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
-two excerpts from MLK Jr’s letter from Birmingham jail.
the socially unacceptable ways to express it
What does that even mean?
I am the high king of Skyrim, you have questioned my decency by making such a statement, woe unto you.
