←back to thread

Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

(mathstodon.xyz)
280 points dargscisyhp | 1 comments | 02 Aug 25 06:28 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mehulashah ◴[02 Aug 25 09:19 UTC] No.44765977[source]▶
This is a tragedy. Our pre-eminence as a scientific and industrial powerhouse that really began post WWII is now disintegrating because of the actions of a few. The funding being pulled from Terence Tao and his institute without due process is not the start, it's merely one casualty among many that began at the start of this administration. This is like cutting one's nose to spite one's face.
replies(4): >>44766103 #>>44766166 #>>44769856 #>>44770046 #
austhrow743 ◴[02 Aug 25 09:54 UTC] No.44766166[source]▶
Punishing urban intellectuals for being urban intellectuals appears to be a common theme in a lot of right wing American messaging and the Republican Party won the popular vote.

You can’t put this on a few. It’s the genuine desire of the American voter.

replies(5): >>44766323 #>>44766345 #>>44766451 #>>44766476 #>>44766941 #
qcnguy ◴[02 Aug 25 10:47 UTC] No.44766476[source]▶
The administration's stated reason is bias and anti-semitism, are you claiming that this is the definition of urban intellectual? If so how do you defend it? If not, how do you define it?
replies(2): >>44766568 #>>44766596 #
Eisenstein ◴[02 Aug 25 11:02 UTC] No.44766568[source]▶
Why do we assume that the administration is acting in good faith when all evidence has shown otherwise?
replies(2): >>44767010 #>>44768131 #
qcnguy ◴[02 Aug 25 14:57 UTC] No.44768131[source]▶
Because the stated rationale is logical, predictable and matches what the colleges have been doing. This outcome was widely predicted years in advance and would be happening even if Trump had never been born.
replies(1): >>44777052 #
1. Eisenstein ◴[03 Aug 25 15:03 UTC] No.44777052[source]▶
Even if were to accept those things as true, stating things which are true is not the only indication of good faith. It is a widely used tactic to use rules only followed by one side against that side. Example (feel free to replace "I" with "my supporters" here): If I believed that anything I did in my interest was acceptable, but you believed that you were bound to work in the interest of the public, then I could claim that you giving your son a government job was corrupt and you would be bound to defend that, whereas if you claimed giving my son-in-law and my daughter government jobs was corrupt I would just ignore you.