Harvard, at 389 years old, seems to be passing through its unruly, adolescent years. Just like a petulant teenager, she must endure both a reckoning of her behavior and as well as disciplinary action in order to experience a little humility. America's oldest educational jewel belongs to us, not to foreign students with nefarious intentions. I applaud your efforts at The Salient to take your university back.
Hi Carole, Sounds like you were (or could have been) a great parent and really know how to handle those pesky, petulant adolescents. Let me guess, you were a teacher of the year somewhere, right?
Is Harvard really any better or worse in this regard than Stanford, Yale, Brown, Princeton... or did the Harvard administration simply incur the wrath of DJT because it pushed back? If you do this for one, then do it for all schools and at the same time, otherwise it's clearly not being done for the reasons stated by the DHS. Fix them ALL, but DHS has not the time, interest or talent to do this the right way, as evidenced by the beacon of light and knowledge leading the DHS. When the Secretary of the DHS does not even know what Habeas corpus means, we're not in "good hands"as my Allstate agent would say.
The Salient has responded thoughtfully to what initially struck me as a startling and dubious action. Upon reflection, however—assuming that a large portion of foreign students return to their homelands after their expensive sojourn in Cambridge concludes—it might be more helpful to the common weal if the USG were to bar Harvard from admitting US students (unless they commit to staffing The Salient, of course), thus minimizing long-term damage to credulous and easily inflamed young minds that would likely abide for decades in the land of the currently free.
This editorial perpetuates the same lame rhetorical tricks of the Trump administration. That's sad, especially at the start-up stage of The Salient. When I subscribed to this channel, I was hopeful that it would provide a window into the intellectualism of the conservative movement of the 21st century. If I wanted to read dumb Trump propaganda magnified, I easily could get that in a thousand other places. So let me start with my assumptions: 1. The people behind The Salient are smart, caring, and want the best for the United States, Harvard, and everyone in the country (that's why I subscribed). 2. The people behind The Salient want to raise interesting and intellectual topics not covered elsewhere, with a conservative foundation to their paradigm. 3. The Salient is grounded in Truth, regardless of the political consequences of sharing the Truth. And, 4. I could learn something from the writers of The Salient. ... On the flip side, this editorial disrupts all of those assumptions as it takes a sketchy institutional claim from a partisan bootlicking hack at the DHS, abstracts it into a broad attack on an extremely complex, diverse, complicated, and beloved American institution (yes, one with flaws, and those should be raised, too). Harvard is one of the country's highest and most-enduring sources of pride and achievement globally, being attacked (not improved) by another American institution, for whose benefit? And then this editorial grandstands about supporting "the rule of law." So I checked the archives of The Salient and could not find anywhere similar and passionate editorials by this writer or others about executive branch overreach under Trump that actually violates law and has been determined as so in real courts. This editorial provides no specific charges, facts, or evidence. I was quite disappointed in that approach. It instead asserts "serious concerns about national security, institutional noncompliance, and a campus climate increasingly hostile to federal oversight" but can't bother to mention a single case, with any details? I mean, The Salient can go this route, I suppose, and be another amplifying mouthpiece for empty assertions of grand malfeasance by the Trump cult. But why? I recommend The Salient instead asserts its independence from stupidity and focuses on providing a reasoned, fact-filled article (or even an editorial) that even the most-liberal American can read and say, OK, that was fair, and it makes a good point; I should think about that more. Almost every abstract sentence in this piece could be pulled out and made into an interesting claim. But most of them are unfounded, at least by what I can find on The Salient. It also assumes guilt, not innocence, which is patently un-American. If you think differently, base these articles in contextualized facts; make them warranted with evidence, follow the evidence and share the whole Truth with your readers (not just the part of the Truth that is convenient). Otherwise, I also have better things to do with my time than read this sort of blather. And I imagine other readers will feel the same way.
As a proud graduate of both Brown University and Harvard University, I am writing in response to your recent communication regarding the federal government’s decision to revoke Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) for the 2025-26 academic year. While I acknowledge the significant impact this action has on our international students and scholars, I remain deeply concerned about Harvard’s broader trajectory and your approach to addressing the institution’s challenges.
Your letter frames the government’s action as an attack on Harvard’s academic independence, yet I believe it reflects a broader call for reform that the university has resisted. For decades, Harvard’s ideological rigidity has stifled diverse perspectives, limiting the intellectual growth of its students, faculty, and administrators. Rather than engaging constructively with the Administration’s efforts to address these issues, your response suggests a commitment to fighting rather than adapting.
I strongly support the Administration’s push to reorient Harvard’s ideological focus, significantly expand class sizes—potentially doubling or tripling them—to democratize access, and foster an environment that prioritizes open-mindedness and critical engagement with ideas. These reforms are critical to ensuring Harvard remains a global leader in higher education. The revocation of SEVP certification, while unfortunate, underscores the urgency of aligning Harvard’s mission with the broader needs of society, including greater inclusivity and intellectual diversity.
While I deeply value the contributions of our international students and scholars, I urge you to view this moment as an opportunity to embrace transformative change rather than pursuing legal battles that may delay the inevitable. Harvard must evolve to meet the demands of a changing world, and I encourage you to work collaboratively with the Administration to implement reforms that will strengthen the university’s legacy.
John, I can't imagine you would support your same statement if someone else said it, and it was applied to, say, Barclay College, Biola University, or even Liberty University, or the like, ... "I strongly support the Administration’s push to reorient _____’s ideological focus" ... You really want the federal government to be intervening in a private university's ideological focus? If so, let's do that nationwide (since the federal government represents everyone in the nation) and have a public debate about what the national ideological focus should be, and then we all will have a robust groupthink about it. ... If you just want the federal government intervening in ideology you don't like, at a private institution, then you should support that across the board, with challenges to all ideologies, right? If not, I think you should rescind your letter and take back this comment.
I agree, we should remove the tax-exempt status of all private organizations that I personally disagree with, starting with all churches. That would raise an enormous amount of public money that we then could redistribute to the very needy billionaires we have in the country, who clearly do not have enough money already (because the current system just doesn't work well at all for those people), so they need to also actively remove wasteful spending, including selling off national parks, drilling for oil in the oceans (what could possible go wrong with that?), aid to starving children in Africa (literally!), and so on, and we should definitely raise the annual federal budget for presidential golf trips, because I'm concerned our current president is not getting the support he deserves on that one. I mean, 5 months on the job, and he only has been allowed to spend $25 million of public money to cover the support staff at his resorts when he is golfing. That is the real travesty in all of this. Andrew, I'm with you; defund Harvard, churches, kids in Africa, etc., and then we will have more money for important stuff, like building a big wall, creating a magic protective dome over the entire U.S., Trump's golf entourage, needed tax breaks for billionaires, and other really important societal priorities. Thank you for raising this issue!
"The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education." Apparently, we need a clearer definition of "our society". It's not unreasonable to think this mission wouldn't extend to foreign students at a rate of 23% of the student body and the exclusion of a huge number of well-qualified American students (as the recent SFA lawsuit demonstrated). Tough to argue that doesn't have something to do with ability to pay and provide other support. Isn't cronyism supposed to be out of fashion?
Lloyd, I'm getting mixed messages from you on this one; I am intrigued by this idea of what "our society" is, and whether Harvard considers that a purely global society, an American society, a 3/4 American, 1/4 global society, or what. Please elaborate on that part; developing the argument either for or against "legacy" admission. I can't tell which side you are on; the "cronyism" turn is a bit unclear; are you talking about Americans with legacy connections getting accepted to Harvard, or are you claiming that international students with legacy connections are getting in? I would be interested in seeing the percentage difference in those two groups, but I'm not sure it circles back around to your original point about what society is to Harvard (or any university that accepts international students, which is, probably all of them). If you think no university should have international students, and/or that international students add no cultural or intellectual value to a university context, then please make that argument and air it out. I personally don't agree with that idea, but I would be curious to hear about what a completely domestic student population nationwide in universities would be like.
I was very surprised to learn that such a high percentage of the students are foreign born. There has also been a tremendous amount of press about foreign governments giving billions to US universities to influence public opinion. It seems to follow this is a quid pro quo for student admissions as well.
With so many applicants from the US for so few spots, it just seems a bit untoward to reserve so many slots for foreign students. I was being a bit facetious about the cronyism with Harvard being very politically correct.
I view the "our society" in what I consider a conservative sense (I like Roger Scruton's view on this) of those in your smaller, cultural space, i.e., American, not in the Obama-esque "citizen of the world" sense. Personally, I don't have a big issue with legacy admissions for a private institution, but I don't believe that would be the default position of the Harvard administration.
Sorry to ramble. Clearly a lot of different thoughts overlapping on this subject.
I also was surprised about the high percentage of foreign-born students; my assumption is that while foreign-born students add a richness and global worldliness to the intellectual and cultural tapestry of the campus, they also probably pay way more $, which is a motivating factor for a private college. ... I read somewhere recently that 15 percent of Harvard students are "legacy," which I assume means that they would not have been accepted on merit only. But really, I don't even know what that term means; I've heard anecdotally from people at the school that about half of the students have a "legacy" connection somehow but I definitely don't know if that is a fact. The entire admissions process is in a "black box" of mystery, where I'm not even sure there is a consistent internal response to applications, since the "merits" of an applicant can vary so much beyond grades and test scores. Another assumption I have is that a student's chance of acceptance vary widely depending on who is on the committee that reviews the application; there was a Tina Fey movie a few years ago that sort of showed the process, for as much as that can be believed. But anyway, about the foreign-born students, since neither you nor I really know whether those students earned places at Harvard based on merit or "legacy," we should probably find out, right? That seems like a good way for the Salient to spend its energy. ... Lastly, I would ask you to define your society label just a bit more than "American." Does that include every citizen, regardless of where they live now? Does it include people living in the U.S., on some sort of legal amnesty program, or through some other legal and arranged system, where the U.S. actively seeks the person (like a foreign worker of high technical skills) or a spouse of such a person, who might not bring the skills to the table but does factor in the decision for the person to come to America? Or what about U.S. citizens who really hate America, and want its destruction, like a domestic terrorist, i.e. Timothy McVeigh? Or David Duke? Would David Duke, or the current leader of the KKK be considered welcome in the cultural space of this Americanism? I'm genuinely curious about what qualifies in your definition of American or not? Thanks for your response.
That's an interesting proposition. What prompted me was when I read the data on the foreign students, I wondered how this comported to Harvard's Mission Statement. That is the source of the quote in my original post. Since they used "our society", I was asking what they meant by it. Personally, I would certainly take it to mean those who subscribe to the American ideals we learned about in grade school civics as part of the society an institution like Harvard would be interested in preserving. I'm a proponent of immigration with few qualifications beyond honestly taking the oath on what is being accepted as a citizen, so where they're born or what skills they bring doesn't matter too much.
As to US citizens who have renounced their American ideals and seek its destruction (left or right), I believe that is a serious matter and society owes them no debt and should not invest in them, nor welcome them. Slippery slope on where you draw the line. Commentary had an interesting article today where Abe Greenwald in essence said for all his classical liberal instincts on the marketplace of ideas, he is presently binary as it relates to dealing with antisemites and worrying about the perils caused in the aftermath in the future. That makes a certain amount of sense to me.
Which gets me back to the original problem of Harvard's fostering an environment which appears antithetical to the continued thriving of that society. This I find to be a hypocrisy for which they are being rightly called to account. Ideal outcome is they renounce their current approach and truly return to those ideals, like the Univ of Chicago declaration, to make the inquiry open and honest. That's what will create citizens who perpetuate the American ideals as I understand them.
I appreciate your time in hopefully teasing out more insightful responses.
Thank you, Lloyd, for your thoughtful response. I appreciate it. ... The last little thread to pull from your comment is this idea about what an American society is, as shaped by "those who subscribe to the American ideals we learned about in grade school civics." I have a suspicion that all of us didn't exactly learn the same things in grade school (or any school) about civics; USC Annenberg had a research study a couple of years ago (not sure of the current stats) that showed less than half of Americans could name the three branches of government, so it's probably not surprising that even fewer people understand the checks and balances philosophy of co-equal power between the three keeping us all afloat; on the other side, more than half of Americans thought that Facebook was violating the First Amendment by restricting any sort of speech on it (of course, the First Amendment addresses government censorship not whatever a private company wants to publish), and there are many other depressing findings there and elsewhere about the complete lack of knowledge and understanding that most people have about civics. All of that said, I would hope you reflect on that point and aim to find more solid ground for your definition of a society. I don't think that one will hold. Thanks, again, for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
I am trying to donate. Our credit cards have a Puerto Rico USPS zip code. Your site does not recognize that as a US zip code. My payment was denied. We wish to support you!
Janet, I'm glad to hear PR is behind Trump all of the way; our president was very generous when tossing all of those rolls of paper towels after Hurricane Maria; I have heard him talk a lot over the years about all of the ways he wants to support, rebuild and develop PR; he's doing a great job with the electricity infrastructure and territorial economy. I'm actually getting a bit tired of winning all of the time in PR. Glad PR is getting what you think it deserves. ... Puerto Ricans for Trump!
I have no idea to what extent if any the Trump administration is having a positive impact on the numerous problems of good governance and the need to vastly improve the infrastructure in PR. Like in so many instances, organizations and companies don't recognize the PR zip code when trying to do business. Having donated to the Harvard Salient in the past, I want to do so again, because I admire their thoughtful, intelligent publication that respond to the issues facing Harvard, issues that have seeped into the greater dialogue in the US, and I hope they reach as many young minds as possible.
You live in Puerto Rico, and you really have no idea if the Trump administration has had an overall positive or negative impact on PR? OK. ... Maybe name 5 positive things that the Trump administration (either term) has done for the most-populous of the American territories, filled with more than 3 million American citizens, akin to the 51st state but actually with way more U.S. citizens than several states, including Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, the Dakotas, Delaware, and several more. ... You tagged your zipcode comment to an article about a Trump administration effort to kick *all* foreign students out of Harvard, which sort of implies that you approve of this action and the tone of the editorial, doesn't it? So, do you approve of it? If not, now's probably a good time to say it.
Well said, Salient leadership! Harvard has drifted off course in recent decades and needs to recommit to its basic mission and role in the world.
Hi, Gale, please define "basic mission," in some detail, so we can make sure we understand your wisdom here. ...
Harvard, at 389 years old, seems to be passing through its unruly, adolescent years. Just like a petulant teenager, she must endure both a reckoning of her behavior and as well as disciplinary action in order to experience a little humility. America's oldest educational jewel belongs to us, not to foreign students with nefarious intentions. I applaud your efforts at The Salient to take your university back.
Hi Carole, Sounds like you were (or could have been) a great parent and really know how to handle those pesky, petulant adolescents. Let me guess, you were a teacher of the year somewhere, right?
Is Harvard really any better or worse in this regard than Stanford, Yale, Brown, Princeton... or did the Harvard administration simply incur the wrath of DJT because it pushed back? If you do this for one, then do it for all schools and at the same time, otherwise it's clearly not being done for the reasons stated by the DHS. Fix them ALL, but DHS has not the time, interest or talent to do this the right way, as evidenced by the beacon of light and knowledge leading the DHS. When the Secretary of the DHS does not even know what Habeas corpus means, we're not in "good hands"as my Allstate agent would say.
The Salient has responded thoughtfully to what initially struck me as a startling and dubious action. Upon reflection, however—assuming that a large portion of foreign students return to their homelands after their expensive sojourn in Cambridge concludes—it might be more helpful to the common weal if the USG were to bar Harvard from admitting US students (unless they commit to staffing The Salient, of course), thus minimizing long-term damage to credulous and easily inflamed young minds that would likely abide for decades in the land of the currently free.
This editorial perpetuates the same lame rhetorical tricks of the Trump administration. That's sad, especially at the start-up stage of The Salient. When I subscribed to this channel, I was hopeful that it would provide a window into the intellectualism of the conservative movement of the 21st century. If I wanted to read dumb Trump propaganda magnified, I easily could get that in a thousand other places. So let me start with my assumptions: 1. The people behind The Salient are smart, caring, and want the best for the United States, Harvard, and everyone in the country (that's why I subscribed). 2. The people behind The Salient want to raise interesting and intellectual topics not covered elsewhere, with a conservative foundation to their paradigm. 3. The Salient is grounded in Truth, regardless of the political consequences of sharing the Truth. And, 4. I could learn something from the writers of The Salient. ... On the flip side, this editorial disrupts all of those assumptions as it takes a sketchy institutional claim from a partisan bootlicking hack at the DHS, abstracts it into a broad attack on an extremely complex, diverse, complicated, and beloved American institution (yes, one with flaws, and those should be raised, too). Harvard is one of the country's highest and most-enduring sources of pride and achievement globally, being attacked (not improved) by another American institution, for whose benefit? And then this editorial grandstands about supporting "the rule of law." So I checked the archives of The Salient and could not find anywhere similar and passionate editorials by this writer or others about executive branch overreach under Trump that actually violates law and has been determined as so in real courts. This editorial provides no specific charges, facts, or evidence. I was quite disappointed in that approach. It instead asserts "serious concerns about national security, institutional noncompliance, and a campus climate increasingly hostile to federal oversight" but can't bother to mention a single case, with any details? I mean, The Salient can go this route, I suppose, and be another amplifying mouthpiece for empty assertions of grand malfeasance by the Trump cult. But why? I recommend The Salient instead asserts its independence from stupidity and focuses on providing a reasoned, fact-filled article (or even an editorial) that even the most-liberal American can read and say, OK, that was fair, and it makes a good point; I should think about that more. Almost every abstract sentence in this piece could be pulled out and made into an interesting claim. But most of them are unfounded, at least by what I can find on The Salient. It also assumes guilt, not innocence, which is patently un-American. If you think differently, base these articles in contextualized facts; make them warranted with evidence, follow the evidence and share the whole Truth with your readers (not just the part of the Truth that is convenient). Otherwise, I also have better things to do with my time than read this sort of blather. And I imagine other readers will feel the same way.
Dear President Garber,
As a proud graduate of both Brown University and Harvard University, I am writing in response to your recent communication regarding the federal government’s decision to revoke Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) for the 2025-26 academic year. While I acknowledge the significant impact this action has on our international students and scholars, I remain deeply concerned about Harvard’s broader trajectory and your approach to addressing the institution’s challenges.
Your letter frames the government’s action as an attack on Harvard’s academic independence, yet I believe it reflects a broader call for reform that the university has resisted. For decades, Harvard’s ideological rigidity has stifled diverse perspectives, limiting the intellectual growth of its students, faculty, and administrators. Rather than engaging constructively with the Administration’s efforts to address these issues, your response suggests a commitment to fighting rather than adapting.
I strongly support the Administration’s push to reorient Harvard’s ideological focus, significantly expand class sizes—potentially doubling or tripling them—to democratize access, and foster an environment that prioritizes open-mindedness and critical engagement with ideas. These reforms are critical to ensuring Harvard remains a global leader in higher education. The revocation of SEVP certification, while unfortunate, underscores the urgency of aligning Harvard’s mission with the broader needs of society, including greater inclusivity and intellectual diversity.
While I deeply value the contributions of our international students and scholars, I urge you to view this moment as an opportunity to embrace transformative change rather than pursuing legal battles that may delay the inevitable. Harvard must evolve to meet the demands of a changing world, and I encourage you to work collaboratively with the Administration to implement reforms that will strengthen the university’s legacy.
Sincerely,
John Lonergan
Harvard MBA '76
Brown BA '72
John, I can't imagine you would support your same statement if someone else said it, and it was applied to, say, Barclay College, Biola University, or even Liberty University, or the like, ... "I strongly support the Administration’s push to reorient _____’s ideological focus" ... You really want the federal government to be intervening in a private university's ideological focus? If so, let's do that nationwide (since the federal government represents everyone in the nation) and have a public debate about what the national ideological focus should be, and then we all will have a robust groupthink about it. ... If you just want the federal government intervening in ideology you don't like, at a private institution, then you should support that across the board, with challenges to all ideologies, right? If not, I think you should rescind your letter and take back this comment.
This is a worthy and positive satement, admirable. Nonetheless it is not Harvard policy. Henece I continue to favor Defund Harvard.
I agree, we should remove the tax-exempt status of all private organizations that I personally disagree with, starting with all churches. That would raise an enormous amount of public money that we then could redistribute to the very needy billionaires we have in the country, who clearly do not have enough money already (because the current system just doesn't work well at all for those people), so they need to also actively remove wasteful spending, including selling off national parks, drilling for oil in the oceans (what could possible go wrong with that?), aid to starving children in Africa (literally!), and so on, and we should definitely raise the annual federal budget for presidential golf trips, because I'm concerned our current president is not getting the support he deserves on that one. I mean, 5 months on the job, and he only has been allowed to spend $25 million of public money to cover the support staff at his resorts when he is golfing. That is the real travesty in all of this. Andrew, I'm with you; defund Harvard, churches, kids in Africa, etc., and then we will have more money for important stuff, like building a big wall, creating a magic protective dome over the entire U.S., Trump's golf entourage, needed tax breaks for billionaires, and other really important societal priorities. Thank you for raising this issue!
well said
"The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education." Apparently, we need a clearer definition of "our society". It's not unreasonable to think this mission wouldn't extend to foreign students at a rate of 23% of the student body and the exclusion of a huge number of well-qualified American students (as the recent SFA lawsuit demonstrated). Tough to argue that doesn't have something to do with ability to pay and provide other support. Isn't cronyism supposed to be out of fashion?
Lloyd, I'm getting mixed messages from you on this one; I am intrigued by this idea of what "our society" is, and whether Harvard considers that a purely global society, an American society, a 3/4 American, 1/4 global society, or what. Please elaborate on that part; developing the argument either for or against "legacy" admission. I can't tell which side you are on; the "cronyism" turn is a bit unclear; are you talking about Americans with legacy connections getting accepted to Harvard, or are you claiming that international students with legacy connections are getting in? I would be interested in seeing the percentage difference in those two groups, but I'm not sure it circles back around to your original point about what society is to Harvard (or any university that accepts international students, which is, probably all of them). If you think no university should have international students, and/or that international students add no cultural or intellectual value to a university context, then please make that argument and air it out. I personally don't agree with that idea, but I would be curious to hear about what a completely domestic student population nationwide in universities would be like.
I was very surprised to learn that such a high percentage of the students are foreign born. There has also been a tremendous amount of press about foreign governments giving billions to US universities to influence public opinion. It seems to follow this is a quid pro quo for student admissions as well.
With so many applicants from the US for so few spots, it just seems a bit untoward to reserve so many slots for foreign students. I was being a bit facetious about the cronyism with Harvard being very politically correct.
I view the "our society" in what I consider a conservative sense (I like Roger Scruton's view on this) of those in your smaller, cultural space, i.e., American, not in the Obama-esque "citizen of the world" sense. Personally, I don't have a big issue with legacy admissions for a private institution, but I don't believe that would be the default position of the Harvard administration.
Sorry to ramble. Clearly a lot of different thoughts overlapping on this subject.
I also was surprised about the high percentage of foreign-born students; my assumption is that while foreign-born students add a richness and global worldliness to the intellectual and cultural tapestry of the campus, they also probably pay way more $, which is a motivating factor for a private college. ... I read somewhere recently that 15 percent of Harvard students are "legacy," which I assume means that they would not have been accepted on merit only. But really, I don't even know what that term means; I've heard anecdotally from people at the school that about half of the students have a "legacy" connection somehow but I definitely don't know if that is a fact. The entire admissions process is in a "black box" of mystery, where I'm not even sure there is a consistent internal response to applications, since the "merits" of an applicant can vary so much beyond grades and test scores. Another assumption I have is that a student's chance of acceptance vary widely depending on who is on the committee that reviews the application; there was a Tina Fey movie a few years ago that sort of showed the process, for as much as that can be believed. But anyway, about the foreign-born students, since neither you nor I really know whether those students earned places at Harvard based on merit or "legacy," we should probably find out, right? That seems like a good way for the Salient to spend its energy. ... Lastly, I would ask you to define your society label just a bit more than "American." Does that include every citizen, regardless of where they live now? Does it include people living in the U.S., on some sort of legal amnesty program, or through some other legal and arranged system, where the U.S. actively seeks the person (like a foreign worker of high technical skills) or a spouse of such a person, who might not bring the skills to the table but does factor in the decision for the person to come to America? Or what about U.S. citizens who really hate America, and want its destruction, like a domestic terrorist, i.e. Timothy McVeigh? Or David Duke? Would David Duke, or the current leader of the KKK be considered welcome in the cultural space of this Americanism? I'm genuinely curious about what qualifies in your definition of American or not? Thanks for your response.
That's an interesting proposition. What prompted me was when I read the data on the foreign students, I wondered how this comported to Harvard's Mission Statement. That is the source of the quote in my original post. Since they used "our society", I was asking what they meant by it. Personally, I would certainly take it to mean those who subscribe to the American ideals we learned about in grade school civics as part of the society an institution like Harvard would be interested in preserving. I'm a proponent of immigration with few qualifications beyond honestly taking the oath on what is being accepted as a citizen, so where they're born or what skills they bring doesn't matter too much.
As to US citizens who have renounced their American ideals and seek its destruction (left or right), I believe that is a serious matter and society owes them no debt and should not invest in them, nor welcome them. Slippery slope on where you draw the line. Commentary had an interesting article today where Abe Greenwald in essence said for all his classical liberal instincts on the marketplace of ideas, he is presently binary as it relates to dealing with antisemites and worrying about the perils caused in the aftermath in the future. That makes a certain amount of sense to me.
Which gets me back to the original problem of Harvard's fostering an environment which appears antithetical to the continued thriving of that society. This I find to be a hypocrisy for which they are being rightly called to account. Ideal outcome is they renounce their current approach and truly return to those ideals, like the Univ of Chicago declaration, to make the inquiry open and honest. That's what will create citizens who perpetuate the American ideals as I understand them.
I appreciate your time in hopefully teasing out more insightful responses.
Thank you, Lloyd, for your thoughtful response. I appreciate it. ... The last little thread to pull from your comment is this idea about what an American society is, as shaped by "those who subscribe to the American ideals we learned about in grade school civics." I have a suspicion that all of us didn't exactly learn the same things in grade school (or any school) about civics; USC Annenberg had a research study a couple of years ago (not sure of the current stats) that showed less than half of Americans could name the three branches of government, so it's probably not surprising that even fewer people understand the checks and balances philosophy of co-equal power between the three keeping us all afloat; on the other side, more than half of Americans thought that Facebook was violating the First Amendment by restricting any sort of speech on it (of course, the First Amendment addresses government censorship not whatever a private company wants to publish), and there are many other depressing findings there and elsewhere about the complete lack of knowledge and understanding that most people have about civics. All of that said, I would hope you reflect on that point and aim to find more solid ground for your definition of a society. I don't think that one will hold. Thanks, again, for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
I am trying to donate. Our credit cards have a Puerto Rico USPS zip code. Your site does not recognize that as a US zip code. My payment was denied. We wish to support you!
Janet, I'm glad to hear PR is behind Trump all of the way; our president was very generous when tossing all of those rolls of paper towels after Hurricane Maria; I have heard him talk a lot over the years about all of the ways he wants to support, rebuild and develop PR; he's doing a great job with the electricity infrastructure and territorial economy. I'm actually getting a bit tired of winning all of the time in PR. Glad PR is getting what you think it deserves. ... Puerto Ricans for Trump!
I have no idea to what extent if any the Trump administration is having a positive impact on the numerous problems of good governance and the need to vastly improve the infrastructure in PR. Like in so many instances, organizations and companies don't recognize the PR zip code when trying to do business. Having donated to the Harvard Salient in the past, I want to do so again, because I admire their thoughtful, intelligent publication that respond to the issues facing Harvard, issues that have seeped into the greater dialogue in the US, and I hope they reach as many young minds as possible.
You live in Puerto Rico, and you really have no idea if the Trump administration has had an overall positive or negative impact on PR? OK. ... Maybe name 5 positive things that the Trump administration (either term) has done for the most-populous of the American territories, filled with more than 3 million American citizens, akin to the 51st state but actually with way more U.S. citizens than several states, including Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, the Dakotas, Delaware, and several more. ... You tagged your zipcode comment to an article about a Trump administration effort to kick *all* foreign students out of Harvard, which sort of implies that you approve of this action and the tone of the editorial, doesn't it? So, do you approve of it? If not, now's probably a good time to say it.