But Not Schiff or Porter – Both Harvard Law (Thank You Michelle Steel): 74 Members of Congress Demand Harvard President Gay Resign in Letter to Governing Board Members

More than 70 members of Congress demanded Harvard President Claudine Gay’s resignation in a letter addressed to University governing board members Friday evening.

The letter, which was led by Rep. Elise M. Stefanik ’06 and largely signed by Republicans, calls for the resignation of Gay, MIT President Sally A. Kornbluth and University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill. The letter comes three days after Gay’s testimony during a House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing about antisemitism on college campuses prompted a wave of backlash.

“Given this moment of crisis, we demand that your boards immediately remove each of these presidents from their positions and that you provide an actionable plan to ensure that Jewish and Israeli students, teachers, and faculty are safe on your campuses,” the letter stated.

“Anything less than these steps will be seen as your endorsement of what Presidents Gay, Magill, and Kornbluth said to Congress and an act of complicity in their antisemitic posture,” the letter added.

Gay faced fierce criticism for not unequivocally stating that calls for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s policies on bullying and harassment. Gay attempted to clarify her remarks in a statement released on Wednesday and then apologized for the impact her testimony had during an interview with The Crimson on Thursday.

“These desperate attempts to try and save their jobs by condemning genocide are too little too late,” the letter stated. “It should not take public backlash nor 24 hours of reflection to realize that calling for genocide is unacceptable.”

A University spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Click here to read the full article in the Harvard Crimson

Neither liberty nor justice for all

Recently, Harvard political theorist Danielle Allen wrote in the Washington Post of “The most important phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance” — “with liberty and justice for all.”


Allen recognized that justice required “equality before the law” and that freedom exists “only when it is for everyone.” But she confused democracy, as in progressives “build[ing] a distributed majority across the country, as is needed for electoral college victory,” with liberty, which is very different. Similarly, she replaced the traditional meaning of justice (“Giving each his own,” according to Cicero) with a version of “social justice” inconsistent with it. And her two primary examples — rights to education and health care — were inconsistent with both liberty for all and justice for all.

Americans cannot have both liberty and such social justice, under whose aegis one can assert rights to be provided education and health care, not to mention food, housing, etc. Positive rights to receive such things, absent an obligation to earn them, must violate others’ liberty, because a government must take citizens’ resources without their consent to fund them. Providing such government benefits for some forcibly violates others’ rights to themselves and their property.

The only justice that can be “for all” involves defending negative rights — prohibitions laid out against others, especially the government, to prevent unwanted intrusions — not rights to be given things. Further, only such justice can be reconciled with liberty “for all.” That is why negative rights are what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, were intended to protect. But those foundational freedoms continue to be eroded by the ongoing search to invent ever-more positive rights.

Echoing John Locke, The Declaration of Independence asserts that all have unalienable rights, including liberty, and that our government’s central purpose is to defend those negative rights. Each citizen can enjoy them without infringing on anyone else’s rights, because they impose on others only the obligation not to invade or interfere. But when the government creates new positive rights, extracting the resources to pay for them necessarily takes away others’ unalienable rights, which people recognize as theft except when the government does it.

Almost all of Americans’ rights laid out in the Constitution are protections against government abuse. The preamble makes that clear, as does the enumeration of the limited powers granted to the federal government. That is reinforced by explicit descriptions of some powers not given, particularly in the Bill of Rights, whose negative rights Justice Hugo Black called the “Thou Shalt Nots.” Even the Bill of Rights’ central positive right–to a jury trial–is largely to defend innocent citizens’ negative rights against being railroaded by government. And the 9th and 10th Amendments leave no doubt that all rights not expressly delegated to the federal government (including health care and education) are retained by the states or the people.

Liberty means I rule myself, protected by my negative rights, and voluntary agreements are the means of resolving conflict. In contrast, assigning positive rights to others means someone else rules over the choices and resources taken from me. But since no one has the right to rob me, they cannot delegate such a right to the government to force me to provide resources it wishes to give to others, even if by majority vote. For our government to remain within its delegated authority, reflecting the consent of the governed expressed in “the highest law of the land,” it can only enforce negative rights.

Our country was founded on unalienable rights, not rights granted by Washington. That means government has no legitimate power to take them away. However, as people have discovered ever-more things they want others to pay for, and manipulated the language of rights to create popular support, our government has increasingly turned to violating the rights it was instituted to defend. And there is no way to square such coercive “social justice” with “liberty and justice for all.”

Gary M. Galles is a Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, an Adjunct Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a member of the Foundation for Economic Education Faculty Network. His books include “Lines of Liberty” (2016), “Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies” (2014) and “Apostle of Peace” (2013).

Ivy League Faculty, Staff Funnel Millions To Dem Campaigns

Eight universities make for a small athletic conference, but Ivy League campuses are financial and political powerhouses for Democratic candidates and campaigns.

Administrators and professors have funneled seven times more cash to federal Democratic candidates and causes than to Republicans since 1990, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of OpenSecrets.org data.

Employees at the eight prestigious schools donated $25.3 million to Democrats over the last 25 years compared with $3.5 million to Republicans, reinforcing the notion that America’s universities lean heavily left.

Cornell University faculty and staff are the most one-sided in their contributions, giving $2.1 million to Democrats versus $118,000 to Republicans in that time period. Yale University employees skewed left nearly as much as Cornell employees, giving $2.6 million to Democrats versus $173,000 to Republicans.

harvardBut Harvard University faculty and staff out-shine their competitors by donating more to Democrats than anyone else — $9.4 million total, versus $1.3 million to Republicans.

Dartmouth College faculty and staff came closest to being balanced in their political donations, but still donated twice as much to Democrats as Republicans — $618,900 versus $309,000.

Total donations from Ivy League faculty and staff may be much higher, as federal law doesn’t require donors to name their employers.

Others funneled far more cash to Democrats than Republicans over the last 25 years, too.

Follow Kathryn on Twitter, or email her at katie@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation