infinity ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

I like what the Trump administration is doing with Harvard's patents. It is basically trying to tie every patent that has been assigned to Harvard to research $$$'s. Any patents so tied to research funding that was not disclosed by Harvard as such can be confiscated by the U.S. government. Would create a HUGE mess for Harvard if the U.S. government starts asking any of Harvard's patent licensees for Royalties.

If Trump wanted to go nuclear on patents, he could just start reviewing all of Harvard's patents that receive any amount of licensing revenue with the Patent Trial Appeals Board, which invalidates something like 50% of the claims it reviews. The only PTAB challenges brought by the U.S. government have been brought by the armed forces, and they are batting 1.000, or close to 1.000.

I don't think Harvard wants to get real dirty with Trump. If they play nice and let this go to SCOTUS, Team Trump will likely let this settle in the courts mostly. If they go all Boasberg on Trump, I don't think Harvard will appreciate the results. PTAB findings all get appealed at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which seems to be a little more rational than the DC appeals court.

---

Research money needs to be accounted for. I suspect for decades, universities took money claiming research and professors partied all around the world with the money with nothing or minimal to show for it. No output that can be measured in $$$. I hope that changes. I don't mind Harvard or any univ getting our tax money but there needs to be some oversight on how it was used. Not to give Profs a lavish life all around the world.

---

No adult or government that cares about its citizens tries to fix this supposed problem by just blanket ending funding like they did at their top tier research institutions.

We all know it's ideological, but apparently weaponized, illegal tactics like this are OK if it's your "team". Spineless.

The return on investment from research at universities is significant. What is stupid is the government funding pharmaceutical research and then pharmacies charging us an arm and a leg for medication that we helped develop.

The biggest issue with the way this administration is handling things, is that these funds have already been appropriated by Congress, and they are trying to unilaterally deny funding at handpicked universities. If every administration is going to rescind allocated funds, why do we even have Congress? The biggest issue with Congress is there are not enough moderates in either party to work on compromise. As a country we continue to elect the crazies on the far right and the far left, and they would rather block any legislation then try and compromise on what is best for the country.

Quote:

---

So judge, according to you, the antisemitism on campus is just a "smokescreen", and therefore irrelevant? As is Harvard's tacit approval and support of antisemitic activities?

Should Josef Mengele have had full access to U.S. federal funds to conduct his "research"? Surely so, as antisemitism is just a "smokescreen".

---

So first of all . . .Godwin's Law here.

Secondly, there are literally millions of ways to intervene in illegal research without alleging that whatever lab's parent university hates Jewish students.

It was just an oafish, clumsy approach.

The actual problem is the far left and moderate right.

The far left makes promises and the moderate right goes along with the compromise only to get the rug pulled out from under them when it is time for the left to pay up.

All politicians are liars, the democrats are better liars.

Quote:

---

Corporate first amendment rights came much later than that. Contract rights I can see - otherwise we have no way to have corporate commerce.

---

Right, and it was small beer until the campaign spending matters like Citizen's United hit the dockets.

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

Was the judge a Harvard grad?

---

No.

Middlebury College (BA)
University of Pennsylvania (JD)

I'm fine with this - the long game is bringing this front and center to public attention.

Also, you want academic freedom? Don't take money from the government (MY money).

infinity ag said:

---

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

Was the judge a Harvard grad?

---

No.

Middlebury College (BA)
University of Pennsylvania (JD)

---

So the I didn't get into Harvard but think I should have and another Ivy school. K.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

So judge, according to you, the antisemitism on campus is just a "smokescreen", and therefore irrelevant? As is Harvard's tacit approval and support of antisemitic activities?

Should Josef Mengele have had full access to U.S. federal funds to conduct his "research"? Surely so, as antisemitism is just a "smokescreen".

---

So first of all . . .Godwin's Law here.

Secondly, there are literally millions of ways to intervene in illegal research without alleging that whatever lab's parent university hates Jewish students.

It was just an oafish, clumsy approach.

---

As far as Godwin's Law, I call Bullcrap.

The judge took us there herself by using - and dismissing - antisemitism as an excuse, rather than the canary in the coal mine that put an exclamation point on the fact that these universities have moved far afield from their stated objective of research in favor of systematic indocrination based upon their own ideology - funded by unaudited, unaccountable taxpayer dollars that go to a myriad of things beyond "research".

And I'll remind you of the Congressional testimony by Harvard president Claudine Gay... The one in which she and other University presidents chose to equivocate rather than condemn outright calls for genocide on their campus.

Yeah, they do. Liberals need to learn to obey ALL laws like the rest of us, not just the ones they like.

I looked into this a bit last spring. 2021 was the most recent 1099 I could find.

Harvard had over $5 billion in investment income and revenue less expenses of about $3.8 billion.

Quote:

---

As far as Godwin's Law, I call Bullcrap.

The judge took us there herself by using - and dismissing - antisemitism as an excuse, rather than the canary in the coal mine that put an exclamation point on the fact that these universities have moved far afield from their stated objective of research in favor of systematic indocrination based upon their own ideology - funded by unaudited, unaccountable taxpayer dollars that go to a myriad of things beyond "research".

And I'll remind you of the Congressional testimony by Harvard president Claudine Gay... The one in which she and other University presidents chose to equivocate rather than condemn outright calls for genocide on their campus.

---

So citing Joseph Mengele is going to get you that label 100% of the time. You should know that.

The Trump Administration is the one that cited antisemitism as the reason for blocking funds. It leaned on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act as a pre-text for the block. It did not actually follow any of the procedures, however, required to make a Title VI claim.

And the Judge does not ignore the behavior of Harvard. She cites very clearly that

" "has been plagued by antisemitism in recent years and could (and should) have done a better job of dealing with the issue. There is, in reality, little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism."

She points out that no evidence was offered and no DOJ analysis conducted into how the areas affected by the grant freezes were involved with the Title VI claim. You offered up some potential consequences based on your personal and fact-less view that grant money int his case went into a "myriad of things beyond research." That is just in this case an unfounded and slightly paranoid allegation and not how the law works.

This is not different than some A&M undergrad students doing something stupid in College Station and the Trump Administration shutting down grants to the RELLIIS or the Energy Research we do in Los Alamos in response.

It was an incredibly rushed, poorly though out, and amateurish way to approach the situation and Harvard seems to have called the bluff here.

Label me whatever you want. I could not care less.

While we're making points...

You offered up some potential consequences based on your personal and fact-less view that grant money int his case went into a "myriad of things beyond research."

Fact-less? Did you even read the article from Harvard Crimson that pointed out the 69% of federal funds that go to a broad unaudited category of "administrative costs"?

Are you prepared to account for that $1.38 billion? Or are we to continue to simply run with the assumption that a completely unbiased, non-ideologically based Harvard that just so happened to run off pretty much every conservative mind from its faculty is spending EVERY penny on beneficial research?

It's our money that's being spent here. By a Harvard administration with little to no accountability that has moved far afield from the esteemed pillar of education/research that it once was. This is an ever-increasing money grab that has gotten totally out of hand. I applaud the Trump administration's efforts here, however rushed it may be.

And if they do not prevail in this instance, I fully expect the administration to move next to a policy of sticking a forensic microscope so far up Harvard's finances it would make a proctologist blush.

ETA:
This is not different than some A&M undergrad students doing something stupid in College Station and the Trump Administration shutting down grants to the RELLIIS or the Energy Research we do in Los Alamos in response.

I should point out that you and I both well know that undergrads do stupid things all the time. That's one thing. The administration tacitly supporting stupid things - especially when they target specific groups - is quite another.

Ag87H2O said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

Harvard has a 51 billion dollar endowment. They shouldn't get one dime of federal money. They've got plenty to pay for the research themselves if they think it's worth funding.

---

The HARVARD endowment is similar to TAMU. The money can only be spent on specific projects. The interest on the endowment money is a different issue.

Let the money flow for now. Cancel the next HARVARD grants at their source (NSF, NIH, DOE, DOD etc), that will hurt. That action will bring HARVARD to the negotiation table.

---

At 5% interest, 51 billion generates a little over 2.5 billion in interest. Seems doable. Problem solved.

Agree with canceling at the source. There is always more than one way to skin a cat. If nothing else, Trump's team has been fairly creative in finding justifications for cutting funding/personnel.

---

Of the 2.5B most would go toward new faculty, infrastructure, faculty retention or internal projects. HAVARD expects their faculty, facilities and centers to seek out grant money.

I don't know how a judge could rule that the federal government doesn't have the right to pull any funding, at any time, for any reason?

How do research grants relate to contract law? I'm assuming the $2 billion is a grant.

ETFan said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

I like what the Trump administration is doing with Harvard's patents. It is basically trying to tie every patent that has been assigned to Harvard to research $$$'s. Any patents so tied to research funding that was not disclosed by Harvard as such can be confiscated by the U.S. government. Would create a HUGE mess for Harvard if the U.S. government starts asking any of Harvard's patent licensees for Royalties.

If Trump wanted to go nuclear on patents, he could just start reviewing all of Harvard's patents that receive any amount of licensing revenue with the Patent Trial Appeals Board, which invalidates something like 50% of the claims it reviews. The only PTAB challenges brought by the U.S. government have been brought by the armed forces, and they are batting 1.000, or close to 1.000.

I don't think Harvard wants to get real dirty with Trump. If they play nice and let this go to SCOTUS, Team Trump will likely let this settle in the courts mostly. If they go all Boasberg on Trump, I don't think Harvard will appreciate the results. PTAB findings all get appealed at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which seems to be a little more rational than the DC appeals court.

---

Research money needs to be accounted for. I suspect for decades, universities took money claiming research and professors partied all around the world with the money with nothing or minimal to show for it. No output that can be measured in $$$. I hope that changes. I don't mind Harvard or any univ getting our tax money but there needs to be some oversight on how it was used. Not to give Profs a lavish life all around the world.

---

No adult or government that cares about its citizens tries to fix this supposed problem by just blanket ending funding like they did at their top tier research institutions.

We all know it's ideological, but apparently weaponized, illegal tactics like this are OK if it's your "team". Spineless.

---

Not the job of Government to fund research in universities. If Univs cannot handle it, they can shut down for all I care. I am amazed. People get uptight about welfare money for 80 year old Uncle Jim who is too old to work but have no problems splurging billions on rich universities doing "research" while Profs wine and dine and have precious little to show for it.


I have no issue if there is a return in cold hard cash. If the Government funds $10B, they better generate $12B or something like that.

The only way to do it is by lending the Univs money. Not giving for free. If they don't pay back with interest, the Univ President gets his ass hauled to jail and university assets sold off to pay back. Now let's see how many billions these crooks ask for.

This will get overturned- the fed has been pulling funding from organizations who don't follow the anti discrimination laws for years. And Harvard is guilty of anti semitiism - Jewish students didn't feel safe enough to attend class. It is gaslighting by all the libs on here to say otherwise