People go to Harvard because they want a prestigious career, not because they have an insatiable palate for knowledge that somehow in 2025 they can't satisfy in any other way.

"Harvard's not a real school, therefore these actions are justified"

Even if you were right about Harvard not being a real school (which is a strange thing to claim), your conclusion still doesn't follow.

Separately, is there a name for this debating technique? I would like to call it "baiting the assertion".

You claim A => B where, in fact, A does not imply B. To distract attention from the faulty logic, however, you pick a highly divisive A. That makes people argue about whether A is correct.

Here's an example: "Ukraine provoked Russia therefore we should send 0 aid to Ukraine"

(I have seen this argument both in the US and non-US discourses.)

When this argument is presented, people feel compelled to argue whether Ukraine did or did not provoke Russia. However, this hides the fact that _even if Ukraine did provoke Russia_, if might still make sense to provide aid: - due to humanitarian concerns - because you think the Russian response (even if provoked) is not commensurate - because you think the EU should present a united front - etc

However, saying things like "even if you are right <rest of argument>" is a difficult thing to do when A is a very divisive (or glaringly incorrect) statement, which is why this is a common troll argument.

Thank you for this comment. It got me into researching more about the rhetoric types and think about all the people I've come across who make similar arguments.

> They are literally just fighting for basic academic freedoms.

Such as?

Freedom of speech and assembly.

Visas and academic accreditation shouldn't be leverage against speech the government disagrees with, they should be granted and removed according to a predictable and unbiased process.

Really all government actions should follow a predictable and unbiased process, a.k.a "The Law".

> Really all government actions should follow a predictable and unbiased process, a.k.a "The Law".

What law do these deportations violate?

I don't see any way that can be a good faith question.

But in case it is, the bevy of judgments on this issue is recommended reading.

Just, throwing this out there, but it seems a distinct possibility that this Administration doesn't hold the same regard towards "Rule of Law" as did previous Administrations.

I'm not altogether certain I'd rely on "Rule of Law" to save anyone in the current environment.

Kristi Noem doesn't know what Habeas Corpus is; she defined it as "the constitutional right of the president to protect America from terrorists" or some such nonsense,so - ya think?

Kristi Noem knows exactly what Habeas Corpus is.

Possibly after she had it explained to her in front of the millions of viewers watching her demonstrate a frankly unbelievable lack of basic knowledge for someone in her position.

But then such things are expected with the current kakistocracy.

That's not just a possibility, that's cold hard fact that's been proven repeatedly in just the last few months.

To have international students be part of the university and contributing to its research?

Immigration policy being enforced is not an infringement of academic freedom.

When it's targeted solely at one institute for the purpose of hampering it's academic activities as retribution? You're being deliberately obtuse here.

Assembly and speech.

When are you alleging that the Trump administration infringed upon these freedoms?

I'm not sure if you're being serious.

You are aware that ICE has started arresting people whose only crime is political speech, right?

> I'm not sure if you're being serious.

I am.

> You are aware that ICE has started arresting people whose only crime is political speech, right?

I’m aware that people are asserting that this has happened. I haven’t seen any evidence that it has; this is why I am asking for specific allegations.

Here's your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C3%...

Could you tell me what was she was arrested for, if not speech?

Allowing students to (allegedly) be harassed on the basis of their race is what is under contention, not the broader notion of academic freedom.

That's the excuse being used, sure.

Harvard really tarnished it's reputation when the president, under oath, said that calls for the genocide of Jews would comply with their code of conduct "depending on the context". The president did end up resigning a year ago, though they have a lot of work to do to come back from that.

While what the Trump admin is doing is wrong, Harvard has given them ample cover for their actions. It would be intellectually lazy to assert, even implicitly, that Harvard has no responsibility over the current state of affairs.

They don't, because the Trump admins actions are completely unwarranted, and completely overkill, and in no way can be defended or supported.

That Harvard still has work to do is basically an entirely irrelevant point.

As a person of Jewish descent I am sickened by the way this administration is twisting the definition of antisemitism to mean things that have nothing to do with antisemitism. Antisemitism is real: devaluing it into bullshit is going to lead to the deaths of millions.