We're gonna be in the news again

[BearLover]

I'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

Respectfully, you lack the imagination to make this request given the position you are arguing from.

I have no idea what this means

It means you are having trouble imagining a universe where Cornell fighting ends up better in the long run than capitulating. I don't think people lambasting the deal have any such problem.

Well yeah, that's the entire reason I'm asking the people lambasting the deal to sketch out the next few years in such a universe.

[nshapiro]

I'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

Respectfully, you lack the imagination to make this request given the position you are arguing from.

I have no idea what this means

It means you are having trouble imagining a universe where Cornell fighting ends up better in the long run than capitulating. I don't think people lambasting the deal have any such problem.

Well yeah, that's the entire reason I'm asking the people lambasting the deal to sketch out the next few years in such a universe.

Appeasement is never the answer.  Just ask Neville Chamberlain and Czechoslovakia

[Dafatone]

I'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

There's only one school that isn't playing ball—-it's Harvard, and because they fought back they're getting totally screwed over by the Trump admin currently. They're also orders of magnitude richer than us, meaning their risk tolerance is much higher. Oh, and they're probably going to end up settling soon anyway, for probably five times as much as if they had just played ball from the start.

I don't see how Cornell had any real choice here. The alternative was financial ruin and ruining the lives of countless university students and workers.

This is where I disagree. It seems like Harvard is winning by fighting back.

And sure they're richer, but it's not like Cornell can't afford legal fees, even if they are significant.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

I'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

There's only one school that isn't playing ball—-it's Harvard, and because they fought back they're getting totally screwed over by the Trump admin currently. They're also orders of magnitude richer than us, meaning their risk tolerance is much higher. Oh, and they're probably going to end up settling soon anyway, for probably five times as much as if they had just played ball from the start.

I don't see how Cornell had any real choice here. The alternative was financial ruin and ruining the lives of countless university students and workers.

This is where I disagree. It seems like Harvard is winning by fighting back.

And sure they're richer, but it's not like Cornell can't afford legal fees, even if they are significant.

I don't think it was the legal fees.  I think it was the lost funding and the associated job cuts.

[Dafatone]

I'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

There's only one school that isn't playing ball—-it's Harvard, and because they fought back they're getting totally screwed over by the Trump admin currently. They're also orders of magnitude richer than us, meaning their risk tolerance is much higher. Oh, and they're probably going to end up settling soon anyway, for probably five times as much as if they had just played ball from the start.

I don't see how Cornell had any real choice here. The alternative was financial ruin and ruining the lives of countless university students and workers.

This is where I disagree. It seems like Harvard is winning by fighting back.

And sure they're richer, but it's not like Cornell can't afford legal fees, even if they are significant.

I don't think it was the legal fees.  I think it was the lost funding and the associated job cuts.

Most of the lost funding was restored in court.

[BearLover]

I'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

There's only one school that isn't playing ball—-it's Harvard, and because they fought back they're getting totally screwed over by the Trump admin currently. They're also orders of magnitude richer than us, meaning their risk tolerance is much higher. Oh, and they're probably going to end up settling soon anyway, for probably five times as much as if they had just played ball from the start.

I don't see how Cornell had any real choice here. The alternative was financial ruin and ruining the lives of countless university students and workers.

This is where I disagree. It seems like Harvard is winning by fighting back.

And sure they're richer, but it's not like Cornell can't afford legal fees, even if they are significant.

I don't think it was the legal fees.  I think it was the lost funding and the associated job cuts.

The lost funding, the job cuts, the uncertainty, the huge risk that Harvard doesn't ultimately win (it won the first case before a friendly judge, but there is no ultimate guarantee of success on appeal/in other cases), the fact the Trump administrations has responded by drumming up other charges and additional fines/suspensions, and is taking even more draconian action like trying to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students at all. The list goes on. Harvard is in a terrible position now. It's especially terrible for those whose careers depend on Harvard succeeding.

I can't find them now but there were several articles published a few months back about how Harvard can't win this fight. Kotlikoff's job is to protect Cornell, its students and its employees. He clearly made the right call IMO. I think it's telling that no one here can sketch out how the rest of the Trump administration (and god forbid another Republican administration) would go in the universe where Cornell doesn't settle.

[nshapiro]

I'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

There's only one school that isn't playing ball—-it's Harvard, and because they fought back they're getting totally screwed over by the Trump admin currently. They're also orders of magnitude richer than us, meaning their risk tolerance is much higher. Oh, and they're probably going to end up settling soon anyway, for probably five times as much as if they had just played ball from the start.

I don't see how Cornell had any real choice here. The alternative was financial ruin and ruining the lives of countless university students and workers.

This is where I disagree. It seems like Harvard is winning by fighting back.

And sure they're richer, but it's not like Cornell can't afford legal fees, even if they are significant.

I don't think it was the legal fees.  I think it was the lost funding and the associated job cuts.

The lost funding, the job cuts, the uncertainty, the huge risk that Harvard doesn't ultimately win (it won the first case before a friendly judge, but there is no ultimate guarantee of success on appeal/in other cases), the fact the Trump administrations has responded by drumming up other charges and additional fines/suspensions, and is taking even more draconian action like trying to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students at all. The list goes on. Harvard is in a terrible position now. It's especially terrible for those whose careers depend on Harvard succeeding.

I can't find them now but there were several articles published a few months back about how Harvard can't win this fight. Kotlikoff's job is to protect Cornell, its students and its employees. He clearly made the right call IMO. I think it's telling that no one here can sketch out how the rest of the Trump administration (and god forbid another Republican administration) would go in the universe where Cornell doesn't settle.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

confessional prose piece by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

[BearLover]

I'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

There's only one school that isn't playing ball—-it's Harvard, and because they fought back they're getting totally screwed over by the Trump admin currently. They're also orders of magnitude richer than us, meaning their risk tolerance is much higher. Oh, and they're probably going to end up settling soon anyway, for probably five times as much as if they had just played ball from the start.

I don't see how Cornell had any real choice here. The alternative was financial ruin and ruining the lives of countless university students and workers.

This is where I disagree. It seems like Harvard is winning by fighting back.

And sure they're richer, but it's not like Cornell can't afford legal fees, even if they are significant.

I don't think it was the legal fees.  I think it was the lost funding and the associated job cuts.

The lost funding, the job cuts, the uncertainty, the huge risk that Harvard doesn't ultimately win (it won the first case before a friendly judge, but there is no ultimate guarantee of success on appeal/in other cases), the fact the Trump administrations has responded by drumming up other charges and additional fines/suspensions, and is taking even more draconian action like trying to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students at all. The list goes on. Harvard is in a terrible position now. It's especially terrible for those whose careers depend on Harvard succeeding.

I can't find them now but there were several articles published a few months back about how Harvard can't win this fight. Kotlikoff's job is to protect Cornell, its students and its employees. He clearly made the right call IMO. I think it's telling that no one here can sketch out how the rest of the Trump administration (and god forbid another Republican administration) would go in the universe where Cornell doesn't settle.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

confessional prose piece by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

So you would have Cornell sacrifice itself to take a performative stand against the Trump administration? That's the only way I can see this analogy applying to the present situation. And yes, many of us are Jews who identify with this piece.

[Dafatone]

I'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

There's only one school that isn't playing ball—-it's Harvard, and because they fought back they're getting totally screwed over by the Trump admin currently. They're also orders of magnitude richer than us, meaning their risk tolerance is much higher. Oh, and they're probably going to end up settling soon anyway, for probably five times as much as if they had just played ball from the start.

I don't see how Cornell had any real choice here. The alternative was financial ruin and ruining the lives of countless university students and workers.

This is where I disagree. It seems like Harvard is winning by fighting back.

And sure they're richer, but it's not like Cornell can't afford legal fees, even if they are significant.

I don't think it was the legal fees.  I think it was the lost funding and the associated job cuts.

The lost funding, the job cuts, the uncertainty, the huge risk that Harvard doesn't ultimately win (it won the first case before a friendly judge, but there is no ultimate guarantee of success on appeal/in other cases), the fact the Trump administrations has responded by drumming up other charges and additional fines/suspensions, and is taking even more draconian action like trying to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students at all. The list goes on. Harvard is in a terrible position now. It's especially terrible for those whose careers depend on Harvard succeeding.

I can't find them now but there were several articles published a few months back about how Harvard can't win this fight. Kotlikoff's job is to protect Cornell, its students and its employees. He clearly made the right call IMO. I think it's telling that no one here can sketch out how the rest of the Trump administration (and god forbid another Republican administration) would go in the universe where Cornell doesn't settle.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

confessional prose piece by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

So you would have Cornell sacrifice itself to take a performative stand against the Trump administration? That's the only way I can see this analogy applying to the present situation. And yes, many of us are Jews who identify with this piece.

I think there's a valid argument to be made for a yes to that question, setting aside whether sacrifice versus appeasement are the only two options.

[nshapiro]

I'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

There's only one school that isn't playing ball—-it's Harvard, and because they fought back they're getting totally screwed over by the Trump admin currently. They're also orders of magnitude richer than us, meaning their risk tolerance is much higher. Oh, and they're probably going to end up settling soon anyway, for probably five times as much as if they had just played ball from the start.

I don't see how Cornell had any real choice here. The alternative was financial ruin and ruining the lives of countless university students and workers.

This is where I disagree. It seems like Harvard is winning by fighting back.

And sure they're richer, but it's not like Cornell can't afford legal fees, even if they are significant.

I don't think it was the legal fees.  I think it was the lost funding and the associated job cuts.

The lost funding, the job cuts, the uncertainty, the huge risk that Harvard doesn't ultimately win (it won the first case before a friendly judge, but there is no ultimate guarantee of success on appeal/in other cases), the fact the Trump administrations has responded by drumming up other charges and additional fines/suspensions, and is taking even more draconian action like trying to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students at all. The list goes on. Harvard is in a terrible position now. It's especially terrible for those whose careers depend on Harvard succeeding.

I can't find them now but there were several articles published a few months back about how Harvard can't win this fight. Kotlikoff's job is to protect Cornell, its students and its employees. He clearly made the right call IMO. I think it's telling that no one here can sketch out how the rest of the Trump administration (and god forbid another Republican administration) would go in the universe where Cornell doesn't settle.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

confessional prose piece by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

So you would have Cornell sacrifice itself to take a performative stand against the Trump administration? That's the only way I can see this analogy applying to the present situation. And yes, many of us are Jews who identify with this piece.

I think there's a valid argument to be made for a yes to that question, setting aside whether sacrifice versus appeasement are the only two options.

Yes. As much as I hate Harvard, they are standing up for an independent higher education system, not subject to government review.  Principles are Principles.  either you live them all the time, or it is just lip service.

[BearLover]

I'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

There's only one school that isn't playing ball—-it's Harvard, and because they fought back they're getting totally screwed over by the Trump admin currently. They're also orders of magnitude richer than us, meaning their risk tolerance is much higher. Oh, and they're probably going to end up settling soon anyway, for probably five times as much as if they had just played ball from the start.

I don't see how Cornell had any real choice here. The alternative was financial ruin and ruining the lives of countless university students and workers.

This is where I disagree. It seems like Harvard is winning by fighting back.

And sure they're richer, but it's not like Cornell can't afford legal fees, even if they are significant.

I don't think it was the legal fees.  I think it was the lost funding and the associated job cuts.

The lost funding, the job cuts, the uncertainty, the huge risk that Harvard doesn't ultimately win (it won the first case before a friendly judge, but there is no ultimate guarantee of success on appeal/in other cases), the fact the Trump administrations has responded by drumming up other charges and additional fines/suspensions, and is taking even more draconian action like trying to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students at all. The list goes on. Harvard is in a terrible position now. It's especially terrible for those whose careers depend on Harvard succeeding.

I can't find them now but there were several articles published a few months back about how Harvard can't win this fight. Kotlikoff's job is to protect Cornell, its students and its employees. He clearly made the right call IMO. I think it's telling that no one here can sketch out how the rest of the Trump administration (and god forbid another Republican administration) would go in the universe where Cornell doesn't settle.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

confessional prose piece by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

So you would have Cornell sacrifice itself to take a performative stand against the Trump administration? That's the only way I can see this analogy applying to the present situation. And yes, many of us are Jews who identify with this piece.

I think there's a valid argument to be made for a yes to that question, setting aside whether sacrifice versus appeasement are the only two options.

Yes. As much as I hate Harvard, they are standing up for an independent higher education system, not subject to government review.  Principles are Principles.  either you live them all the time, or it is just lip service.

Fair enough. I mean, I obviously hope Harvard wins. But I really don't think Cornell could afford to do what Harvard is doing. I also don't think the president and board of Cornell, who are tasked with protecting the university and its students and employees, should be sacrificing these things for a higher purpose, especially when doing so is likely to fail and jeopardize its constituents further. Lastly, I think Harvard absolutely would have settled for $30m if it was offered at any point. So I don't think the extreme criticism of Cornell's leadership is warranted.

[ugarte]

Fair enough. I mean, I obviously hope Harvard wins. But I really don't think Cornell could afford to do what Harvard is doing. I also don't think the president and board of Cornell, who are tasked with protecting the university and its students and employees, should be sacrificing these things for a higher purpose, especially when doing so is likely to fail and jeopardize its constituents further. Lastly, I think Harvard absolutely would have settled for $30m if it was offered at any point. So I don't think the extreme criticism of Cornell's leadership is warranted.

i think this is probably true but the money (imo) is far less important than letting yourself be subject to wokeness audits, something clearly targeted at shaping the student body and permissible discourse. without independence* on those issues, cornell is nothing but a hockey team.

i mean, that's a pretty good reason to found an institution but it isn't the one cornell makes a big deal about.

*please no nitpicking on whether antidiscrimination law writ large is an imposition here. i already probably don't respect you if you've got that one in the chamber ready to fire

[nshapiro]

Fair enough. I mean, I obviously hope Harvard wins. But I really don't think Cornell could afford to do what Harvard is doing. I also don't think the president and board of Cornell, who are tasked with protecting the university and its students and employees, should be sacrificing these things for a higher purpose, especially when doing so is likely to fail and jeopardize its constituents further. Lastly, I think Harvard absolutely would have settled for $30m if it was offered at any point. So I don't think the extreme criticism of Cornell's leadership is warranted.

i think this is probably true but the money (imo) is far less important than letting yourself be subject to wokeness audits, something clearly targeted at shaping the student body and permissible discourse. without independence* on those issues, cornell is nothing but a hockey team.

i mean, that's a pretty good reason to found an institution but it isn't the one cornell makes a big deal about.

*please no nitpicking on whether antidiscrimination law writ large is an imposition here. i already probably don't respect you if you've got that one in the chamber ready to fire

Fair enough. I mean, I obviously hope Harvard wins. But I really don't think Cornell could afford to do what Harvard is doing. I also don't think the president and board of Cornell, who are tasked with protecting the university and its students and employees, should be sacrificing these things for a higher purpose, especially when doing so is likely to fail and jeopardize its constituents further. Lastly, I think Harvard absolutely would have settled for $30m if it was offered at any point. So I don't think the extreme criticism of Cornell's leadership is warranted.

i think this is probably true but the money (imo) is far less important than letting yourself be subject to wokeness audits, something clearly targeted at shaping the student body and permissible discourse. without independence* on those issues, cornell is nothing but a hockey team.

i mean, that's a pretty good reason to found an institution but it isn't the one cornell makes a big deal about.

*please no nitpicking on whether antidiscrimination law writ large is an imposition here. i already probably don't respect you if you've got that one in the chamber ready to fire

Maybe I don't understand the meaning of "wokeness."  To me this implies a leftist bent to make sure underrepresented get a better than even chance.  I am sure that this administration wants to do audits to make sure that this does NOT happen.

I also don't like the assertion that "Harvard absolutely would have settled for $30m if it was offered" when I see no evidence that THEIR principles are for sale. 

I also don't like defending Harvard

[BearLover]

Fair enough. I mean, I obviously hope Harvard wins. But I really don't think Cornell could afford to do what Harvard is doing. I also don't think the president and board of Cornell, who are tasked with protecting the university and its students and employees, should be sacrificing these things for a higher purpose, especially when doing so is likely to fail and jeopardize its constituents further. Lastly, I think Harvard absolutely would have settled for $30m if it was offered at any point. So I don't think the extreme criticism of Cornell's leadership is warranted.

i think this is probably true but the money (imo) is far less important than letting yourself be subject to wokeness audits, something clearly targeted at shaping the student body and permissible discourse. without independence* on those issues, cornell is nothing but a hockey team.

i mean, that's a pretty good reason to found an institution but it isn't the one cornell makes a big deal about.

*please no nitpicking on whether antidiscrimination law writ large is an imposition here. i already probably don't respect you if you've got that one in the chamber ready to fire

Fair enough. I mean, I obviously hope Harvard wins. But I really don't think Cornell could afford to do what Harvard is doing. I also don't think the president and board of Cornell, who are tasked with protecting the university and its students and employees, should be sacrificing these things for a higher purpose, especially when doing so is likely to fail and jeopardize its constituents further. Lastly, I think Harvard absolutely would have settled for $30m if it was offered at any point. So I don't think the extreme criticism of Cornell's leadership is warranted.

i think this is probably true but the money (imo) is far less important than letting yourself be subject to wokeness audits, something clearly targeted at shaping the student body and permissible discourse. without independence* on those issues, cornell is nothing but a hockey team.

i mean, that's a pretty good reason to found an institution but it isn't the one cornell makes a big deal about.

*please no nitpicking on whether antidiscrimination law writ large is an imposition here. i already probably don't respect you if you've got that one in the chamber ready to fire

I also don't like the assertion that "Harvard absolutely would have settled for $30m if it was offered" when I see no evidence that THEIR principles are for sale. 

There have been reports that Harvard was close to settling for hundreds of millions of dollars. Also there are reports that many within Harvard are uneasy that Harvard is fighting this, and there is tremendous uncertainty whether they can actually win. In the meantime the Trump administration has frozen billions in research (now temporarily unfrozen), tried to block all foreign students from attending (currently being litigated), etc. I think Harvard is trying to protect itself, its students, its employees, its life-saving research, etc. It's not about principles being for sale.

[nshapiro]

Fair enough. I mean, I obviously hope Harvard wins. But I really don't think Cornell could afford to do what Harvard is doing. I also don't think the president and board of Cornell, who are tasked with protecting the university and its students and employees, should be sacrificing these things for a higher purpose, especially when doing so is likely to fail and jeopardize its constituents further. Lastly, I think Harvard absolutely would have settled for $30m if it was offered at any point. So I don't think the extreme criticism of Cornell's leadership is warranted.

i think this is probably true but the money (imo) is far less important than letting yourself be subject to wokeness audits, something clearly targeted at shaping the student body and permissible discourse. without independence* on those issues, cornell is nothing but a hockey team.

i mean, that's a pretty good reason to found an institution but it isn't the one cornell makes a big deal about.

*please no nitpicking on whether antidiscrimination law writ large is an imposition here. i already probably don't respect you if you've got that one in the chamber ready to fire

Fair enough. I mean, I obviously hope Harvard wins. But I really don't think Cornell could afford to do what Harvard is doing. I also don't think the president and board of Cornell, who are tasked with protecting the university and its students and employees, should be sacrificing these things for a higher purpose, especially when doing so is likely to fail and jeopardize its constituents further. Lastly, I think Harvard absolutely would have settled for $30m if it was offered at any point. So I don't think the extreme criticism of Cornell's leadership is warranted.

i think this is probably true but the money (imo) is far less important than letting yourself be subject to wokeness audits, something clearly targeted at shaping the student body and permissible discourse. without independence* on those issues, cornell is nothing but a hockey team.

i mean, that's a pretty good reason to found an institution but it isn't the one cornell makes a big deal about.

*please no nitpicking on whether antidiscrimination law writ large is an imposition here. i already probably don't respect you if you've got that one in the chamber ready to fire

I also don't like the assertion that "Harvard absolutely would have settled for $30m if it was offered" when I see no evidence that THEIR principles are for sale. 

There have been reports that Harvard was close to settling for hundreds of millions of dollars. Also there are reports that many within Harvard are uneasy that Harvard is fighting this, and there is tremendous uncertainty whether they can actually win. In the meantime the Trump administration has frozen billions in research (now temporarily unfrozen), tried to block all foreign students from attending (currently being litigated), etc. I think Harvard is trying to protect itself, its students, its employees, its life-saving research, etc. It's not about principles being for sale.

I looked for "reports that Harvard was close to settling for hundreds of millions of dollars"
and found articles from July, August, September, and one on October 1st, so I don't know how 'close' a settlement is.  I also don't know if it is being held up because Harvard might be willing to pay to the extortion fee, but is not willing to compromise on letting the administration review admissions decisions.  Let's not tar Harvard with the same brush that tarred Cornell until we see the details of any settlement.

Now please stop arguing and making me defend Harvard.  I am getting ill.