It would seem that Berkeley didn't come up with these names on their own, they were a part of complaints that the government demanded info on?
breadwinner 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
JumpCrisscross 2 days ago [-]
> doesn't this smell like fascism?
Not really. Religion and race are protected classes. The analogue would be a police force in the South refusing to provide names of officers with a track record of racial discrimination complaints.
Whether this is authoritarian depends on what comes next.
2 days ago [-]
fzeroracer 2 days ago [-]
>Not really. Religion and race are protected classes.
Which conveniently, isn't what the Supreme Court seems to actually believe given that they signed off on racial discrimination being A-OK as long as it's by the feds. So I think it's more than fair to say that this is authoritarian before we even see what comes next given that the feds and the Supreme Court are moving in lockstep.
JumpCrisscross 2 days ago [-]
> given that they signed off on racial discrimination being A-OK as long as it's by the feds
Nope. They lifted a stay. In the short run, the practical effect is similar. In the long run, different. If one can’t grasp the difference, one cannot argue for the rule of law.
> it's more than fair to say that this is authoritarian before we even see what comes next given that the feds and the Supreme Court are moving in lockstep
Yes, if the executive acts as an authoritarian and the courts sign off on it, it will be authoritarian.
fzeroracer 2 days ago [-]
> Nope. They lifted a stay. In the short run, the practical effect is similar. In the long run, different. If one can’t grasp the difference, one cannot argue for the rule of law.
They're the same thing. Multiple lawyers have argued it's the same thing. The supreme court itself in their explanation has argued that it's OK to racially discriminate against some people. The dissent explicitly calls this as taking away constitutional rights.
Einstein and Hannah Arendt would also be on this list. They were staunch anti-fascists
bn-l 2 days ago [-]
isn’t it intolerable to be controlled by that awful, murderous, black hole of country? How do you put up with this?
isaacremuant 2 days ago [-]
The same institution that pretends to have "such a strong protest culture".
The suppression of free speech is quite funny to see, from those who claim to be such proponents of it. Of course, it's not free speech when it bothers my political sensibilities, it's only free speech when I'm the one being censored, not when I do the censoring.
splatter9859 2 days ago [-]
Sad to see such a great and distinguished institution 'bend the knee' to the Pumpkin Spice Palpatine in this manner.
UC Berkeley used to have such fight in it.
OGEnthusiast 2 days ago [-]
The alternative seems to be that the Trump admin directs the State Dept to revoke all student visas from UC Berkeley, and they lose half their student body (and a good number of faculty) overnight.
splatter9859 2 days ago [-]
Which is, of course, flat out unacceptable on many levels.
However; it seems to me some of these institutions could band together and pool resources both legal, financial, and otherwise to give something of a stronger defense than one alone.
Rock and a hard place certainly.
But there has to be something that can be done, albeit even in the United States broken systems of law, both constitutional and otherwise, to fight off this assault. Anything other than bending the knee and enabling further assaults on higher-education and/or the US democracy.
rs186 2 days ago [-]
It could be done, but I guess many these institutions think it's futile, especially given Supreme Court's recent stances. Harvard stands out and have secured a temporary win, but who knows what happens in 3 months. I am not optimistic.
I stopped believing in constitution for a while now. If the interpretation of it depends on who sits on the bench, it means it's nothing more than a piece of paper with some words on it.
cmxch 1 days ago [-]
Harvard’s arrogance and insularity will not prevail in the long term.
At some point, they will fall.
tastyface 2 days ago [-]
What, you think they’re going to stop here? They’re going to keep pushing and pushing and pushing — then revoke the visas anyway out of spite.
Don’t give an inch and litigate. That is the only path forward.
nielsbot 2 days ago [-]
In other words: fascism will never be appeased.
staticautomatic 2 days ago [-]
They started dying quite some time ago, at least as early as when they hired John Yoo.
api 1 days ago [-]
All major universities public and private are heavily dependent on federal dollars in numerous ways.
The Fed has tremendous financial and regulatory power over any institution of any size.
Large corporations have been bending the knee for the same reasons. I highly doubt Tim Cook is a huge Trump fan but he was right there to kiss ass on day one. That’s because Trump could, with the stroke of a pen, decimate Apple’s business by destroying its global supply chain.
Actual conservatives and actual libertarians were warning about growing Federal power for decades and decades and they had a point. Nobody listened of course.
2 days ago [-]
Rendered at 22:00:40 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2025-09-13/ty-article/.premi...
https://archive.is/GITHJ
Not really. Religion and race are protected classes. The analogue would be a police force in the South refusing to provide names of officers with a track record of racial discrimination complaints.
Whether this is authoritarian depends on what comes next.
Which conveniently, isn't what the Supreme Court seems to actually believe given that they signed off on racial discrimination being A-OK as long as it's by the feds. So I think it's more than fair to say that this is authoritarian before we even see what comes next given that the feds and the Supreme Court are moving in lockstep.
Nope. They lifted a stay. In the short run, the practical effect is similar. In the long run, different. If one can’t grasp the difference, one cannot argue for the rule of law.
> it's more than fair to say that this is authoritarian before we even see what comes next given that the feds and the Supreme Court are moving in lockstep
Yes, if the executive acts as an authoritarian and the courts sign off on it, it will be authoritarian.
They're the same thing. Multiple lawyers have argued it's the same thing. The supreme court itself in their explanation has argued that it's OK to racially discriminate against some people. The dissent explicitly calls this as taking away constitutional rights.
Orwell would say, that depends:
https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/e...
(He also gave names of leftists to government when they asked)
https://www.openculture.com/2024/11/umberto-ecos-list-of-the...
The suppression of free speech is quite funny to see, from those who claim to be such proponents of it. Of course, it's not free speech when it bothers my political sensibilities, it's only free speech when I'm the one being censored, not when I do the censoring.
UC Berkeley used to have such fight in it.
However; it seems to me some of these institutions could band together and pool resources both legal, financial, and otherwise to give something of a stronger defense than one alone.
Rock and a hard place certainly.
But there has to be something that can be done, albeit even in the United States broken systems of law, both constitutional and otherwise, to fight off this assault. Anything other than bending the knee and enabling further assaults on higher-education and/or the US democracy.
I stopped believing in constitution for a while now. If the interpretation of it depends on who sits on the bench, it means it's nothing more than a piece of paper with some words on it.
At some point, they will fall.
Don’t give an inch and litigate. That is the only path forward.
The Fed has tremendous financial and regulatory power over any institution of any size.
Large corporations have been bending the knee for the same reasons. I highly doubt Tim Cook is a huge Trump fan but he was right there to kiss ass on day one. That’s because Trump could, with the stroke of a pen, decimate Apple’s business by destroying its global supply chain.
Actual conservatives and actual libertarians were warning about growing Federal power for decades and decades and they had a point. Nobody listened of course.