What?? Of course they would not be. The unitary executive doctrine reigns supreme in conservative minds, now and forever.
I can’t believe I could tyoe that with a straight face.
I got that line from an MIT grad I used to know. I gather it was a way to tease Harvard students, who think they’re at the best university in the world, to say they’re at the second best university in town.
And, a judge has granted the temporary restraining order, blocking the implementation. (Not a gift link.)
The article isn’t terribly interesting, beyond documenting the court order. But it does contain this charming quote from the white house:
A White House spokeswoman, Abigail Jackson, responded to the lawsuit with a statement.
“If only Harvard cared this much about ending the scourge of anti-American, antisemitic, pro-terrorist agitators on their campus they wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with. Harvard should spend their time and resources on creating a safe campus environment instead of filing frivolous lawsuits,” the statement said.
So now it’s the Right that wants campuses to be “safe spaces”? 
For especially speshul values of “safe”.
The onslaught is so unrelenting. But every once in a while a statement by an administration official will just be so unnecessarily nasty, petty, and insulting that I really wonder what sort of person wishes their government to express themselves. in that manner.
Up until now, most politicians could do really nasty things without saying the childish, boorish part out loud. Who do these folk appeal to other than fans of professional wrestling?
So embarrassing.
I knew Harvard would sue, and although the Trumpsters will undoubtedly challenge the ruling, I’m sure Harvard will prevail. (This is with respect to blocking international students from attending Harvard.)
I think I heard someone on CBC Radio mention that Prime Minister Carney’s son is attending Harvard. I guess he’ll have to be thrown out, too. Good thing Trump is getting rid of all the dangerous radical furriners!
There seems to be a standard pattern of deflection that they use. When Caroline Leavitt was asked why Trump was imposing punishing tariffs on Canada for no good reason, she replied that Canada should be worried instead about the plague of fentanyl deaths in the US. 
The current criminal regime will lose in court. That doesn’t mean the regime will obey the court.
The regime may well win in the end by simply ignoring the court and counting on whichever flunky maintains the database of approved and disapproved colleges will follow the orders telling them to mark Harvard as “disapproved” or they’ll be fired.
That is indeed a very real risk. Ultimately it’s up to Congress to act, and the question is just how reckless will Trump need to be before they do. From the current evidence, there don’t seem to be any bounds.
And white south Africans
The point isn’t to win. The point is to impose a chilling effect.
This is a notice to other potential targets that the Trump administration will attack you. And you will have to spend millions of dollars defending yourself even if you end up winning.
So when a Trump official asks you to do something, you should quietly comply rather than arguing for your rights.
My bolding in the above quote.
I’m puzzled by your inclusion of Pinker in your list of racist scumbags. I haven’t read everything he has written or heard everything he has said but I am unaware of anything that would put him in that category. His Op-Ed in the NYT today is a strong defense of Harvard although it does mention issues he feels are problematic.
So am I. There is absolutely no way that Pinker could be so characterized. It can only come from a serious misunderstanding of things he’s said, which are often nuanced, such as in that excellent and thoughtful op-ed you linked to. BTW, thanks for the gift link.
The case against him argues that he’s not a virulent racist in the Trump mold, but rather more of a patronizing, paternalistic racist, like, “just calm down and trust those of us who support European enlightenment and you’ll all be better off.” I think it’s a bit of a reach, but at the same time he’s expressed skepticism about how violently racist the police are as an institution, in a kind of annoyingly condescending “just asking questions” style. I personally think he has some ivory-tower blind spots but also that the accusers are overstating their case somewhat.
Here’s an article representing his attackers:
And here’s the defense:
It’s not open-and-shut either way, basically.
As suggested by one of his books, The Better Angels of our Nature, Pinker is inherently an optimist about the human condition. I can see how that pisses off would-be revolutionaries. I still think he’s often misunderstood, sometimes perhaps willfully so.
Yeah, like I said, I think it’s more about blind spots than malicious intent. It’s a subtle thing, and his accusers may have a kernel of a point but, again, they overstate their case.
Pinker having blind spots is a long way from him being a “racist scumbag” as the poster I was responding to characterized him.
Indeed. There are grounds to criticize his thinking, but it’s wrong to include him on that list.