Deepthroat

The presidents of Harvard University and three other prestigious universities in the United States were questioned by American politicians last week. However, after the heated hearing ended, friction between the two sides continued.

On December 8, more than 70 bipartisan U.S. lawmakers issued a joint letter calling on the Boards of Trustees of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to immediately remove the school presidents because of their earlier comments on anti-Semitism on campus. dissatisfied with the testimony.

The incident stemmed from the heightened tension on university campuses across the United States after the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Hundreds of protests broke out, some of which even turned violent. Principals have come under fire from the school’s pro-Jewish community for their handling of the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel controversy.

Against this background, on December 5, Harvard University President Claudine Gay, University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill and MIT President Sally Kornblut (Sally Kornbluth) attended the hearing of the House Education and Workforce Committee and was questioned about the issue of “anti-Semitism” on campus. The hearing lasted about 5 hours.

According to the New York Times, all three principals said they were alarmed by anti-Semitism and were taking action to curb it. When asked whether they supported Israel’s right to exist, they answered in the unequivocal affirmative.

However, when it came to “whether to protect students who participated in anti-Semitic activities,” the scene was full of tension.

In their defense, all three principals condemned the Hamas attack and reiterated their commitment to ensuring Jewish students feel safe. At the same time, the three people also reiterated their commitment to protecting free speech on campus, saying that comments calling for genocide against Jews would only violate school rules if they lead to students being bullied.

During the hearing, Elise Stefanik, a Republican congressman from New York State, asked Harvard President Gay whether he would punish students who made “hateful remarks” against Jews during protests. But Gay twice answered by saying, “Our school abides by its commitment to freedom of speech,” which aroused the dissatisfaction of Stefanik, who asked the question.

“We will not punish individuals for their political views or speech, but when such speech … turns into bullying, harassment and intimidation, we will take action,” Gay said.

Two other principals gave similar responses, saying it depends on the situation. Magill, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, responded: “Only when speech turns into behavior that is targeted, severe and pervasive, it constitutes harassment.”

Michigan State Representative Lisa McClain was very dissatisfied with the presidents’ remarks: “It is obvious that Jewish students on all of your campuses are scared because you refuse to take real action…to oppose those who oppose Judaism.”

After the hearing, 74 cross-party congressmen issued a joint letter in which Republican Representative Stefanik and Democratic Representative Jared Moskowitz demanded that Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology The board of trustees ousted its principal or risked being deemed guilty of “an act of complicity in anti-Semitism.”

“The testimony provided by your school principals demonstrates a complete lack of moral clarity and displays problematic double standards and dehumanizing thinking about the Jewish community. In light of this current moment of crisis, we ask that your board of directors immediately remove these principals from their positions , and provide a workable plan to ensure the safety of Jewish and Israeli students, faculty and staff on campus.”

The letter was signed by 71 Republicans and 3 Democrats.

Later, at Harvard University, hundreds of academic authorities and faculty members supported Harvard President Gay. Harvard University issued a statement on Tuesday (December 12) supporting President Gay’s retention. However, this decision caused great dissatisfaction among Gay’s critics.

Some critics parked trucks with rolling digital billboards in front of Gay’s home, calling her “Hamas’ best friend” and accusing her of “refusing to protect Jewish students.”

Bill Ackerman, a Jewish alumnus and donor who has a deep feud with Harvard, said on December 13 that these advertisements may make Gay “empathize” with the situation of Jews. Some US media believe that Guy is facing pressure to “resign” because Ackman is adding fuel to the fire, and this also reveals to some extent the “terrible” influence exerted by the top wealthy Americans on elite colleges and universities.

Ackman, known as the Wolf of Hedge Funds, has “long-standing feud” with Harvard.

According to a report by the New York Times on the 13th, the struggle between Ackerman and Harvard President Gay has been going on for two months since the new round of Palestinian-Israeli conflict broke out. During this period, Ackerman has always regarded himself as a “protector of Jewish students” and strongly condemned Harvard leadership for failing to actively respond to anti-Semitic sentiment on campus. However, behind these rhetoric, Ackerman, a major donor to Harvard, has long had a grudge with his alma mater Harvard. He is deeply annoyed that the school has “ignored” his opinions on many issues.

Ackerman previously stated on the social platform

The 57-year-old Ackman is a well-known hedge fund manager in the United States. His personal net worth is approximately US$3.8 billion. He has donated tens of millions of US dollars to his alma mater. The most generous donation was a $2,500 investment in 2014 to expand the Harvard Economics Department. Ten thousand U.S. dollars. In 2017, Ackman once again donated $10 million worth of stock to Harvard. According to Ackman’s own description, Harvard sold its original shares with huge potential for appreciation without informing him, resulting in losses of tens of millions of dollars.

According to the New York Times, Ackman has written angrily to Harvard many times, questioning the school’s ability to invest and manage money. He also once said harshly to Harvard staff that he “will not donate another penny.”

The British “Independent” stated that although Gay successfully retained his position as president, the waves stirred up by Ackerman were enough to stir up the university circle: he created a “national scandal” for Harvard University through a public opinion offensive. , prompting a congressional committee to summon the presidents of three prestigious universities to attend hearings, and most likely indirectly led to the resignation of Magill, the president of the University of Pennsylvania. The energy displayed by this “trouble-provoking” major funder can’t help but make American universities deeply worried.

The operations of private universities in the United States mainly rely on endowment funds. The more famous a university is, the more donations it receives from endowment funds and other forms of donations. However, the investment of these “financiers” is often conditional. Relevant information from Harvard shows that 80% of the endowment funds received by the school can only be used “for specific purposes.” According to U.S. News and World Report, as of the end of fiscal year 2022, Harvard University ranks first among American universities with an endowment of nearly $50.9 billion.

CNN stated that “this kind of donation is both a blessing and a curse” because some important donors to higher education institutions can sit on the university’s board of directors, participate in major decisions such as campus management and school direction, and can even conduct Personnel appointments and dismissals – this includes leadership at the principal level.

In fact, an important job of presidents of private universities in the United States is to raise funds, and for this they have to cooperate with “financiers.” This also raises concerns about the autonomy of universities. The British “Guardian” quoted relevant experts as saying that donors use their financial influence to “force or seek to remove the president, endangering the autonomy of American universities.”

In this regard, the New York Times and other media have recently issued soul-searching questions: “Who has the final say about the future of universities?”

deepthroat

**Blog articles are written at your own responsibility and do not represent the position of our company**

After Florida Governor DeSantis was re-elected as governor in a landslide victory in 2022, he was regarded as a political star in the Republican Party and became a strong contender for Trump to become the next president.

DeSantis has always used anti-China as a selling point.

DeSantis earlier suppressed TikTok, WeChat and QQ in Florida on the grounds of so-called “protecting data security.” Recently, it has issued new tasks to local public universities, causing backlash.

According to a report on the website of the US magazine Science on December 12, the laws of the state of Florida, under the administration of DeSantis, prohibit public universities in the state from recruiting graduate students and postdoctoral fellows from China. However, the new measures have caused a huge stir at the University of Florida. dissatisfied.

Faculty members at the University of Florida sent a letter to President Ben Sasse and other university leaders, calling on the school to continue to admit top talents, otherwise it will have a devastating impact on the school’s graduate programs and research activities. So far, about 250 University of Florida faculty and staff have signed a related petition.

In May of this year, Florida passed a bill called SB 846. The bill, which went into effect in July, prohibits the state’s public universities from receiving funding from or collaborating with entities that are “countries of concern” such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria, including those who live in those countries. Anyone in the country is offered a research contract.

When DeSantis signed and announced the relevant bill, the slogan on the podium was “Stop the influence of the Chinese Communist Party.” Its pertinence is self-evident.

The law states that a “green light” will be given only if a student passes rigorous vetting by state officials and the state’s Board of Governors or the state Board of Education determines that the interaction “will not be detrimental to the safety or security of the United States and its residents.” However, exactly how this will be implemented is unclear.

According to reports, the University of Florida currently recruits about 350 graduate assistants and 200 postdoctoral fellows from seven “countries of concern.”

Li Chenglong, a computational chemist at the school, said, “Restrictions on enrollment are undoubtedly shooting ourselves in the foot.”

The petition from UF faculty states that the school is currently suspending plans to recruit graduate assistants from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria. But it is worth noting that a large proportion of doctoral applications in various departments and colleges come from China and Iran. “Restricting or even preventing the admission of graduate students, postdocs, etc. from these countries will have a devastating impact on our graduate programs and research activities. At the same time, it may have a negative impact on the long-term development, reputation and leadership of the University of Florida.”

Since admission letters are issued to students from December to early January each year, students currently enrolling in the fall of 2024 have been affected.

“We hope that the school will allow us to continue to recruit top international students, regardless of their nationality,” the faculty wrote in the letter. “We urgently request a timely decision, and given the application season, timing is of the essence. Failure to act quickly could result in The loss of outstanding students to other universities is irreversible.”

The problem is that Governor DeSantis only wants to sell his anti-China campaign. Even if the new bill puts local universities in a dead end, will DeSantis care?

#Prestigious #American #universities #controlled #financial #sponsors #president #Harvard #constantly #pursued
2023-12-15 03:34:02

After Florida Governor DeSantis was re-elected as governor in a landslide victory in 2022, he was regarded as a political star in the Republican Party and became a strong contender for Trump to become the next president.

DeSantis has always used anti-China as a selling point.

DeSantis earlier suppressed TikTok, WeChat and QQ in Florida on the grounds of so-called “protecting data security.” Recently, it has issued new tasks to local public universities, causing backlash.

According to a report on the website of the US magazine Science on December 12, the laws of the state of Florida, under the administration of DeSantis, prohibit public universities in the state from recruiting graduate students and postdoctoral fellows from China. However, the new measures have caused a huge stir at the University of Florida. dissatisfied.

Faculty members at the University of Florida sent a letter to President Ben Sasse and other university leaders, calling on the school to continue to admit top talents, otherwise it will have a devastating impact on the school’s graduate programs and research activities. So far, about 250 University of Florida faculty and staff have signed a related petition.

In May of this year, Florida passed a bill called SB 846. The bill, which went into effect in July, prohibits the state’s public universities from receiving funding from or collaborating with entities that are “countries of concern” such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria, including those who live in those countries. Anyone in the country is offered a research contract.

When DeSantis signed and announced the relevant bill, the slogan on the podium was “Stop the influence of the Chinese Communist Party.” Its pertinence is self-evident.

The law states that a “green light” will be given only if a student passes rigorous vetting by state officials and the state’s Board of Governors or the state Board of Education determines that the interaction “will not be detrimental to the safety or security of the United States and its residents.” However, exactly how this will be implemented is unclear.

According to reports, the University of Florida currently recruits about 350 graduate assistants and 200 postdoctoral fellows from seven “countries of concern.”

Li Chenglong, a computational chemist at the school, said, “Restrictions on enrollment are undoubtedly shooting ourselves in the foot.”

The petition from UF faculty states that the school is currently suspending plans to recruit graduate assistants from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria. But it is worth noting that a large proportion of doctoral applications in various departments and colleges come from China and Iran. “Restricting or even preventing the admission of graduate students, postdocs, etc. from these countries will have a devastating impact on our graduate programs and research activities. At the same time, it may have a negative impact on the long-term development, reputation and leadership of the University of Florida.”

Since admission letters are issued to students from December to early January each year, students currently enrolling in the fall of 2024 have been affected.

“We hope that the school will allow us to continue to recruit top international students, regardless of their nationality,” the faculty wrote in the letter. “We urgently request a timely decision, and given the application season, timing is of the essence. Failure to act quickly could result in The loss of outstanding students to other universities is irreversible.”

The problem is that Governor DeSantis only wants to sell his anti-China campaign. Even if the new bill puts local universities in a dead end, will DeSantis care?

deepthroat

**Blog articles are written at your own responsibility and do not represent the position of our company**

Zelensky visited the United States for the third time after the conflict between Russia and Ukraine broke out, and was described by many foreign media as almost “returning empty-handed.” He rushed from the United States to Europe, almost circling the earth in four days, but what he got might just be “cake in the sky.”

On the afternoon of the 12th, Zelensky came to the White House and met with US President Biden in the Oval Office. During this period, Biden announced additional military aid to Ukraine, but the amount was only US$200 million. Fox News said that this batch of military aid mainly includes ammunition and some equipment parts, which are taken out of the US military’s own inventory. Biden took advantage of Zelensky’s visit to once again appeal to the U.S. Congress, asking Congress to pass the Ukraine aid bill before the Christmas holiday recess, otherwise he would give Russian President Vladimir Putin a “Christmas gift.” Biden promised that the United States “will not leave Ukraine,” but he also said that “without additional funding, our ability to help Ukraine will quickly end.”

CNN stated that when Biden met with Zelensky that day, he said: “We will support (Ukraine) as long as we can.” Previously, Biden had always insisted, “(Aiding Ukraine) will take as long as it takes.” , we will support it as long as it lasts.” According to the report, this means that Biden also realizes that as the American people’s support for aid to Ukraine continues to decline, it will become increasingly difficult for Congress to pass any aid bill to Ukraine, and “every day that can be supported counts.”

That morning, Zelensky came to the U.S. Capitol Hill and met with leaders and members of the House and Senate. Reuters stated that Zelensky “returned empty-handed” from his visit to Capitol Hill. According to reports, he asked Democrats and Republicans to provide more assistance during the meeting to help Ukraine “defend Russia’s invasion.” But House Speaker Johnson said he would never give the green light to Biden’s aid bill to Ukraine unless the White House meets Republican demands for border security. Republican Congressman Vance said that Zelensky’s speech meant that “the United States will become Putin’s puppet if it wants to ensure its own border security first.” Such remarks are “extremely shameful and ridiculous.” The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) stated that aid to Ukraine is still at a deadlock, and Zelensky’s trip to the United States achieved almost “nothing.”

The Associated Press stated that Biden has always said that he wants to rebuild the “credibility” of the United States around the world, and if the U.S. Congress cannot pass a new aid bill for Ukraine, then the so-called “credibility” of the United States will evolve into inconsistency in U.S. domestic affairs. A steady warning.

Russian Ambassador to the United States Antonov said: “Zelensky’s trip came up empty-handed and failed to convince Americans that Ukraine is more important than the security of the United States.” He said, “Everyone is tired of beggars from Kiev.” ” The United States providing Ukraine with another $200 million in lethal weapons labeled ‘Made in the United States’ will only prolong the conflict and bring suffering to thousands of people… Nothing will help Zelensky, and Americans are facing The risk of sinking deeper into the quagmire of the conflict in Ukraine.”

In the early morning of the 13th local time, Ukrainian President Zelensky once again traveled almost halfway around the world from Washington, the United States, to Oslo, the capital of Norway, in order to seek support from the five Nordic countries in aiding Ukraine before the EU summit. Although Zelensky’s trip to the United States to seek aid was called “returning empty-handed” by Western media, he still hopes to get a little more “warmth” from the EU at home. EU leaders will hold a summit on the 14th, but not only the 50 billion euro plan to aid Ukraine at the summit is in trouble due to the EU’s own economic crisis, but also the “comfort” promised by EU leaders to Ukraine to start negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the EU. It was openly opposed by many countries. Following Hungary and Slovakia, the Austrian Chancellor also opposes Ukraine’s “quick accession to the EU”. In this regard, the British “Financial Times” said that the EU is considering Plan B to allow other EU countries to assist Ukraine through donations. However, many analysts believe that such a statement is completely pie-in-the-sky for Ukraine.

According to Agence France-Presse, Zelensky flew from the United States to Oslo, the capital of Norway, in the early morning of the 13th. On the same day, he held meetings with the leaders of the five Nordic countries including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. According to reports, since Ukraine’s “counteroffensive” failed to achieve the desired results, Zelensky is trying to regain the support of allies amid growing objections to aid to Ukraine.

Zelensky will visit Argentina from the 10th and attend the inauguration ceremony of Argentine President Milai, then go to the United States, and then to Norway. In just 4 days, the journey almost circled the earth.

“Ukraine is now facing pressure from both sides of the Atlantic.” Germany’s “Le Monde” said on the 13th that EU leaders held a summit in Brussels on the 14th to discuss 50 billion euros in new aid to Ukraine and decide whether to open negotiations for Ukraine’s accession to the EU. According to reports, on the occasion of the summit, Ukraine is at a critical crossroads, with pressure from both sides of the Atlantic making Zelensky’s mission awkward. A year ago, Zelensky delivered a speech in the U.S. Congress, winning loud applause from Democrats and Republicans alike. Just 12 months later, when he concluded his third visit to the United States since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, he almost “returned empty-handed.” On this side of the Atlantic, he may still face European disappointment.

For Ukraine, almost all the news coming out before the EU summit is “bad news.” According to the Hungarian Mandiner website, Hungarian Prime Minister Orban said forcefully in an interview with the website that day that he would not allow the EU to make mistakes and start negotiations for Ukraine’s accession to the EU, even if he is the only opponent among the leaders of the 27 EU member states. “The EU is about to make a terrible mistake and it must be stopped,” he said.

In terms of opening negotiations for Ukraine’s EU accession, after Hungary and Slovakia strongly opposed accepting Ukraine’s “quick accession” to the EU, Austria also joined the ranks of opponents. Austrian Prime Minister Nehammer stated at a government meeting on the 11th that “any preferential treatment should not be given to Ukraine” on the road to becoming a member of the European Union. European Commission President von der Leyen said on the 10th that this week’s EU summit only “opens the accession negotiations, not the accession itself.” But Nehammer believes that under current conditions, Austria will not agree to any EU accession negotiations with Ukraine.

Another major topic at the EU summit is 50 billion euros in new aid to Ukraine. However, as most countries in the EU are in crisis of high inflation and sluggish economic growth, the debate on this issue has become more intense. Even the countries that most support aid to Ukraine have recently begun to retreat. Spanish Foreign Minister Alvarez said in an interview with El Pais on the 11th that he fully supports Ukraine and “we cannot allow basic principles such as sovereignty and territorial integrity to be violated in Europe.” But he stressed that the EU may not have enough funds to continue providing assistance to Ukraine. “Funds are limited and the EU must divide its priorities.”

“Due to opposition from many countries, the EU is considering Plan B to raise emergency aid funds for Ukraine outside the EU common budget.” The British “Financial Times” said on the 12th that for the EU summit to pass a new aid plan for Ukraine, the 27 member states must unanimously agree. To get around the objections, EU officials are looking for possible solutions. The newspaper said that one option is to provide 10 billion euros in EU funds to Hungary, which strongly opposes the aid plan to Ukraine, in exchange for Hungary softening its stance. The funds were originally transfer payments from the EU to Hungary in accordance with regulations, but Hungary was accused of violating the EU’s democratic and rule of law standards, and the funds were frozen. According to reports, another plan is being negotiated privately, which considers allowing other member states that support aid to Ukraine to develop a new aid package. An EU source with knowledge of the situation said, “No one wants to do it if it is not necessary.” According to reports, this Plan B may be carried out outside the EU budget through contributions from member states.

Uzbekistan is very angry that the EU may “breach its commitments” in terms of aid and opening of EU accession negotiations. Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister in charge of Euro-Atlantic integration Stefany Shina told the Financial Times on the 12th that Ukraine would be on the verge of death if the EU did not provide Ukraine with 50 billion euros in new aid. When Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba attended the foreign ministers’ meeting before the EU summit on the 11th, he said that if the EU summit fails to reach an agreement on starting Ukraine’s accession negotiations, it will show that “the EU cannot fulfill its historical commitments” and will cause “devastation” to both Ukraine and the EU. “sexual” influence. He emphasized that Ukraine has met all the conditions required for EU accession negotiations. “If there are additional requirements, we can jump around, we can even dance for you. But everything should be done fairly.”

In fact, it is difficult for the EU, which is in the midst of an economic crisis, to bear any new burdens. “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” said on the 13th that European Council President Michel proposed to cut the EU budget by 40 billion euros.

Under such circumstances, all EU countries are considering their own interests. “Ukraine’s accession will cost the EU a high price.” Germany’s “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” quoted the latest report from the German Economic Institute (IW) on the 13th, saying that if Ukraine joins the EU, it will be costly for other EU countries: According to regulations, up to 17 % of the EU common budget will flow to Ukraine. Among them, agricultural subsidies to Ukraine alone will reach 130 billion to 190 billion euros in the next few years. Orban previously said in an interview with the French weekly “Viewpoint” that Ukraine is a major agricultural country. If Ukraine were allowed to join the EU, it would destroy the European agricultural system the next day. “The consequences will be dire,” he said.

#order #elect #American #politicians #governor #Florida #banned #universities #recruiting #Chinese #graduate #students #Ph.D
2023-12-14 08:27:50

#moon #doesnt #sleep #wont #sleepBiden #Trump #doesnt #run #dont #run
2023-12-09 03:31:54

#Russian #Foreign #Minister #abandoned #iPhone #switched #Huawei #Chinese #netizens #disliked #latest #model #asked #Huawei #send #Mate #pro
2023-12-06 04:17:00

#Unexpectedly #U.S #Congress #passed #temporary #spending #bill #Ukraine #funding #unavailable
2023-11-19 03:08:19