A university president makes a case against cowardice
(newyorker.com)468 points by pseudolus 10 days ago
468 points by pseudolus 10 days ago
He is making a stink about Covid vaccine requirements during a period where hospitals were overflowing and bodies were being stacked in refrigerated trailers.
There are no stories about this outside the first month. The hospitals were initially ill equipped but were so well equipped after March/April that the giant boat they sent as a backup to New York was barely used.
Almost no healthy people died from COVID, most had co-morbidities and they should have been the only ones forced to vax and stay home.
Vaccines were a miracle. The state medical examiner converted one nearby university’s arena to a temporary morgue at one point in 2020. It’s mind boggling that people were and still are in denial about how bad it got before large parts of the population started getting vaccinated
Are you referring to the most studied medicine in human history or the one that saved more lives than any other medicine in human history?
I'm referring to the medicine deployed against a pandemic whose death count is still entirely unknown.
How many people died because of COVID?
You don't know. No one knows.
Meanwhile, everyone who knows better pretends that the most fundamental data about the subject, on top of which all other data and decsions were built ... is garbage.
about 7 million people died of COVID according to the WHO: https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths
This is what statistics is for? We rarely ever “know” (in the sense of your restrictive epistemology) the precise value of ANY demographic measure.
We don’t know how many people live in the United States at any particular moment, but the Census is still useful.
Ah yes, because we don't have the exact numbers your appeal to idiocy must be normalized.
Do you know how many people are saved by antibiotics RIGHT NOW? You don't know?! NO ONE KNOWS!
Give me a break, we don't need to dissect every corpse to see how effective the vaccine is.
> I don't remember dissent being tolerated, let alone encouraged.
How many people were jailed or disappeared for their dissent?
Being able to dissent doesn't mean that people accept your opinion, it means that you are allowed to make your point using your own means.
People still get to disagree with you, point out where you are dishonest or mistaken, etc. etc. etc.
The idea that dissent wasn't tolerated is absolute BS. It was tolerated far more than it should have been, far more accommodations were made than necessary, such as in the military, which injects people with all sorts of vaccines but somehow decided that this well-tested one didn't have to be because some people were scared.
> Mahmoud Khalil lied on hus visa application about being a member of UNRWA.
He was briefly an unpaid intern.
https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/2015/11/uscis-explains-if-u...
> USCIS is frequently asked whether an unpaid intern needs to complete Form I-9. In general, an unpaid intern does not need to complete Form I-9 unless he or she will receive remuneration, which is something of value such as no-cost or reduced-cost meals, lodging or other benefits in exchange for his or her labor or services.
I can see how someone'd leave that off a green card application for that reason, which is more plausible than hiding an association with a UN agency while applying for a green card during the Biden years. (If anything, work for the UN and a close ally's embassy should increase trust here.)
Given https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4... says things like "Have you EVER been a member of, involved in, or in any way associated with any organization, association, fund, foundation, party, club, society, or similar group in the United States or in any other location in the world?" there's a good chance every single green card applicant has forgotten to list something. Do I include my kindergarten? The music club I was in as a toddler? Joining a political party's subreddit? Donating $10 to a charity ten years ago?
Hell, I'm "associated with" Hacker News, but it wouldn't go on my I-485. Should that get me deported to an El Salvadorean slave camp?
I'm not arguing in favor of el salvadoran prisons, but he's not in an el salvadoran prison. He's being charged with being in violation of his Visa. And yes, I do expect you to report the time that you "Interned" at the UNRWA. This organization has always operated tightly with Hamas and the PA, and if I'm establishing your background, I need to know about it so that I can investigate it, period. I don't need to know about your affiliations with hackernews, because hackernews is not closely affiliated with designated terror organizations. Now that the UNRWA is properly designated as a terrorist organization itself, do you think it would be appropriate to lie about your affiliations with them on a visa application?
Mahmoud Khalil is in an American jail awaiting trial. A New Jersey court will rule on his status.
> I'm not arguing in favor of el salvadoran prisons, but he's not in an el salvadoran prison.
He might wind up there; a judge has halted the deportation process for now. The administration is demonstrably sending folks (some with no criminal record: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...) there, including via "clerical error" they can't undo (https://apnews.com/video/white-house-says-maryland-resident-...). Oopsie daisy!
> He's being charged with being in violation of his Visa.
He has not been charged at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil
"Khalil has not been charged with a crime and is not alleged to have engaged in any activity legally prohibited to U.S. residents... Removal procedures were initiated under section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which permits deportation of lawful residents if the Secretary of State believes their presence risks "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences"."
> I don't need to know about your affiliations with hackernews, because hackernews is not closely affiliated with designated terror organizations.
The form doesn't say that. It says anything, ever.
> Now that the UNRWA is properly designated as a terrorist organization itself, do you think it would be appropriate to lie about your affiliations with them on a visa application?
When did the US designate UNRWA as a terrorist organization?
I don't think they ever have, but they certainly hadn't back in 2023 when he applied.
(The US was UNRWA's single largest donor that year, in fact. https://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/top_20_donors_over...)
> Mahmoud Khalil is in an American jail awaiting trial.
Having not been charged with any crimes, he is in immigration detention awaiting a court hearing.
Most simply this all boils down to two entirely incompatible models of a university. One institution produces thinkers who can innovate and lead. The other is a training camp that produces docile workers for the oligarchs. Regardless of allowing students free speech on campus universities have been heading toward the latter for three decades. It's a little late to be preaching courage thirty years after selling-out the core tenets of pedagogy. There is so much more to this than just "Trump". The fascists in power now are the result of 30 years of moral cowardice.
It's nice universities will have to reform themselves and people will be able to speak their minds again without being afraid.
You mean like afraid of being deported when they are here legally?
The data do not support what you suggest being a widespread problem. There's a popular story about it being a big problem, but when people start trotting out examples most of them fall apart on closer examination, which is weird if lots of solid examples exist (why pick so many that are, at best a stretch if not simply wrong, if this is a widespread trend and not just a couple actual events that were maybe not great?). Folks have tracked things like speaker cancellations, and there are vanishingly few of those, conservatives, even fairly fringe ones, speak on campuses all the time.
I like how you claim data doesn't support this being a problem but at the same time can't be bothered to cite any data. I'll do it for you: https://5666503.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/5666503...
"Alarming proportions of students self-censor, report worry or discomfort about expressing their ideas in a variety of contexts, find controversial ideas hard to discuss, show intolerance for controversial speakers, find their administrations unclear or worse regarding support for free speech, and even report that disruption of events or violence are, to some degree, acceptable tactics for shutting down the speech of others."
"Less than one-in-four students (22%) reported that they felt “very comfortable” expressing their views on a controversial political topic in a discussion with other students in a common campusspace. Even fewer (20%) reported feeling “very comfortable” expressing disagreement with one of their professors about a controversial topic in a written assignment; 17% said the same about expressing their views on a controversial political topic during an in-class discussion; 14%, about expressing an unpopular opinion to their peers on a social media account tied to their name; and 13%, about publicly disagreeing with a professor about a controversial political topic. "
And as for examples, the sitting NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, who in hindsight was far more correct on everything COVID-related than the CDC was: had this to say about his experience at Stanford: https://stanfordreview.org/stanfords-censorship-an-interview...
" I presented the results in a seminar in the medical school, and I was viciously attacked. ... It was really nasty: allegations of research misconduct, undeclared conflicts of interest… In reality, the whole study was funded by small-dollar donations."
"It was very stressful. I had to hire lawyers. I've been at Stanford for 38 years and I felt it was really, really out of character. At one point, the Chair of Medicine ordered me to stop going on media and to stop giving interviews about COVID policy. They were trying to totally silence me."
> Jay Bhattacharya, who in hindsight was far more correct on everything COVID-related than the CDC was
Bhattacharya who signed the Great Barrington Delaration, advocating for herd immunity and "focused protection" for the elderly? Just imagine how much larger the death toll would have been.
This page has a good list of concerns about Bhattacharya, including how the study mentioned in your link was flawed and one of the co-authors went on to admit the results were wrong: https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/jay-bhattacharya-has-a-h...
These do not represent the whims of one person. Donald Trump was elected.
He was elected as president of a constitutional republic. He's acting like an emperor, enacting control through cronyism, threats and targeting of individuals and private companies via executive power. You could counter that he was elected by people who wanted to disrupt the system but that's a massive assumption and even many of his political base seem to be surprised by the extent of his actions. There is constantly political alignment behind his actions, with aligned politicians & media noticeably readjusting their opinions, politics and bills and revising history to align with the latest demagoguery to appear from this one person.
The constitutional republic was designed to protect from one person's whims but that ideal seems to have crumbled when the rest of the republic has been co-opted, controlled or simply ignored. In Europe we always knew that US claims to have the best democratic system were hubristic nonsense, no maybe more in the US realise the fragility of government.
So, after long years of accepting cancel culture, kicking off people from universities since they happened to write a twitter comment that was not aligned with the current "right" way of thinking, universities suddenly are protectors of free speech. Well...
Who is going to buy this?
> And in the last two months, it’s become painfully apparent that wanting to have nice conversations is not going to stop people who are bent on authoritarianism. Right now, I’m not sure what will stop them, except successful court challenges, and even that seems precarious.
Winning elections could work.
> Watching the video of this poor woman at Tufts who was abducted by federal agents —I wrote my blog today about that. I think the government is spreading terror, and that’s what they mean to do.
Brother, a blog post is, quoting you, a “nice conversation.” A New Yorker interview is a nice conversation.
Getting rid of legacy admissions… guess who wins elections? The sons and daughters of politicians! Whereas grandstanding on X or Y achieves nothing.
[flagged]