A Harvard University professor has been indicted and charged with making false statements to federal authorities about his participation in a Chinese-run program that seeks to lure scientists to China to advance the communist nation’s “scientific development, economic prosperity, and national security,” the Department of Justice <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-indicted-false-statement-charges">announced</a> Tuesday.
Dr. Charles Lieber, 61, was arrested on January 28 and indicted this week, the DOJ statement said.
“According to charging documents, since 2008, Dr. Lieber has served as the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group at Harvard University, specializing in the area of nanoscience. Lieber’s research at the Lieber Research Group has been funded by more than $15 million in research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD).  Among other things, these grants required the disclosure of all sources of research support, potential financial conflicts of interest and all foreign collaboration,” the DOJ stated.
Lieber’s attorney, Marc Mukasey, told The Associated Press that Lieber didn’t do anything wrong.
&#8220;He is the victim in this case, not the perpetrator,&#8221; Mukasey said. &#8220;But he&#8217;s also a fighter — he always has been — so we&#8217;re not taking this lying down,” Mukasey said. “We&#8217;re fighting back. And when justice is done, Charlie&#8217;s good name will be restored and the scientific community again will be able to benefit from his intellect and passion.&#8221;
The DOJ, meanwhile, alleges that starting in 2011 – and without Harvard’s knowledge – Lieber joined Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) as a “Strategic Scientist.” Between 2012 and 2015, the DOJ alleges, Lieber was paid up to $50,000 a month, living expenses of up to $158,000, and was given $1.5 million to “establish a research lab at WUT.” In exchange for all this, the DOJ alleges, Lieber was a “contractual participant in China’s Thousand Talents Plan,” which Bloomberg <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-12/china-s-thousand-talents-program-finally-gets-the-u-s-s-attention">reported</a> last year worried U.S. officials because the program “economic espionage and theft of intellectual property.” The DOJ added that China often rewards “individuals for stealing proprietary information.”
“It is alleged that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied to federal authorities about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and his affiliation with WUT. On or about April 24, 2018, during an interview with federal investigators, it is alleged that Lieber falsely stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but that he ‘wasn’t sure’ how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard about whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China’s Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber allegedly caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber ‘had no formal association with WUT’ after 2012, that ‘WUT continued to falsely exaggerate’ his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber ‘is not and has never been a participant in’ China’s Thousand Talents Plan,” the DOJ stated.
Lieber faces up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $250,000 fine.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

China

Harvard Professor Indicted For Allegedly Lying About Ties To Wuhan University Program Aimed At Advancing China’s Science And Technological Development

Harvard

Technology

A non-peer reviewed Harvard Medical School (HMS) study has posited it is possible the coronavirus COVID-19 first appeared in Wuhan, China, much earlier than November 2019, as previously supposed. The study opined that the virus, which was first reported to the WHO in late December 2019, may have appeared first in August 2019.
The <a href="https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/42669767">study</a> examined hospital traffic and search engine data in Wuhan, checking satellite images of parking lots at six hospitals in Wuhan against similar images from other time periods. Those patterns were compared to searches on the Chinese search engine Baidu for “cough” and “diarrhea,” between April 2017 and May 2020. The study also examined hospital occupancies and found that they increased from August 2019 to December 2019.
The study stated, “Increased hospital traffic and symptom search data in Wuhan preceded the documented start of the pandemic in December 2019. While we cannot confirm if the increased volume was directly related to the new virus, our evidence supports other recent work showing that emergence happened before identification at the Huanan seafood market … In August, we identify a unique increase in searches for diarrhea which was neither seen in previous flu seasons or mirrored in the cough search data.”
“The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lists both a cough and diarrhea as <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html">potential symptoms</a> of Covid-19,” <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/coronavirus-may-have-been-spreading-in-china-in-august-harvard-study.html">CNBC</a> reported.
The study continued, “This symptom search increase is then followed by a rise in hospital parking lot traffic in October and November, as well as a rise in searches for cough. While we cannot conclude the reason for this increase, we hypothesize that broad community transmission may have led to more acute cases requiring medical attention, resulting in higher viral loads and worse symptoms.”
<a href="https://pjmedia.com/trending/missouri-sues-china-for-sinister-campaign-of-deception-that-helped-spread-coronavirus/">PJ Media</a> noted in April, “According to unpublished, unconfirmed Chinese government reports seen by the South China Morning Post, the first recorded case of the coronavirus dates to November 17, 2019, weeks before The Lancet&#8216;s claim that the first recorded case came on December 1. By December 8, the SCMP documents recorded between 1 and 5 new cases. By December 27, the SCMP documents showed 181 confirmed cases, and a friend of coronavirus whistleblower Dr. Li Wenliang recalled that his medical department first reported the new outbreak to the Wuhan Center for Disease Control on the 27th.”
In late May, the Chinese state-run Global Times <a href="https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189599.shtml#.Xs2M_AwgpIM.twitter">reported</a> that the virus did not originate in a seafood market in Wuhan, writing:
<blockquote>The Huanan seafood market is more like a victim of COVID-19 rather than the origin of the novel coronavirus, Gao Fu, director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and member of the National Committee of the 13th Chinese People&#8217;s Political Consultative Conference, told the media on Monday.
Gao said he had gone to Wuhan to collect samples for COVID-19 researchers in early January, but no viruses were detected in the animal samples. Viruses were only found in environmental samples, including sewage.</blockquote>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

2019 Calendar

Non-Peer Reviewed Harvard Study Surmises Virus May Have Started In China Last August

Wuhan

Furious at coronavirus overreach, Elon Musk has taken the so-called “red pill,” prompting right-wingers to claim him as a conservative and left-wingers to call him a Nazi.
So which is it?
The “red pill” refers to The Matrix: take the blue pill, persist in illusion; take the red pill, see reality as it is. Taking the red pill means rejecting the officially approved narrative.
Musk, like Joe Rogan and other independent voices, isn’t a typical conservative Republican. But he appears to be trending rightward because a dishonest press has forced the people to choose between what they’ve been told and their own lying eyes.
The press might have an easier time convincing people to believe their stories if they refrained from contradicting them the moment they thought the cameras turned off.
During last week’s White House press briefing, CNN reporter Kaitlin Collins wore an ostentatious face mask for the cameras, but she removed it the moment the briefing concluded.
Likewise, Jake Tapper excoriated “President Trump and his team” for “an unprecedented smear campaign against rivals” based on “bizarre conspiracy theories” without ever once acknowledging his own longtime role baselessly smearing Trump as a Russian stooge and Brett Kavanaugh as a gang rapist.
Beyond the media, the American Civil Liberties Union has dispelled any lingering illusions that the legal advocacy groups cares at all about civil liberties.
As Education Secretary Betsy Devos beefs up protections for the accused on college campuses, the ACLU has come out against due process. But the ACLU, founded by a communist who defended “liberty under the Soviets,” was from its inception “a communist front,” as the California Committee on Un-American Activities determined in 1943.
Despite the patriotic-sounding name, the ACLU has never sought to defend the American tradition of political freedom, and its latest attack on due process carries on the organization’s long, destructive legacy.
The news doesn’t report the news, the ACLU doesn’t defend civil rights, and now Harvard wants to ban education.
Specifically, Harvard professor and &#8220;renowned child welfare expert&#8221; Elizabeth Bartholet wants to ban homeschooling, which she views as conservative, Christian subversion that &#8220;poses a threat to children and society.&#8221;
Bartholet singles out Germany as a model of education policy because it effectively banned homeschooling altogether. She neglects elaborate on the history of that ban, which Hitler instituted in 1938. Quite the &#8220;red pill&#8221; indeed.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Elon Musk

KNOWLES: The Red Pill, The Laughable ACLU, & Harvard’s Education Ban

Betsy DeVos

Joe Rogan

A study from Harvard University linking pollution to coronavirus deaths has reinvigorated Democrats to attack the Trump administration’s environmental policies as per usual, but it has not been peer-reviewed yet, and the authors recently had to amend their conclusions to admit that there was a weaker association between deaths from coronavirus deaths and long-term soot exposure than they had posited earlier. The EPA pointed out that the study has not been peer-reviewed as yet.
Nevertheless, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2020/05/07/the-energy-202-a-harvard-study-tying-coronavirus-death-rates-to-pollution-is-causing-an-uproar-in-washington/5eb2eb6588e0fa42c41b3ba1/">The Washington Post</a> reports, Democratic politicians are using the findings of the study to harass the Trump administration. Former New York mayor and 2020 presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg cowrote an <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-05-04/how-trump-s-epa-is-making-covid-19-more-deadly">op-ed this week</a> with former EPA chief Gina McCarthy in which they cited the Harvard study, then stated, “Scientists are warning us that air pollution makes Covid-19, which strikes at the lungs, more deadly. Nonetheless, in the space of about a month, the president has repeatedly undermined rules limiting air pollution. Tens of thousands of Americans will die as a result … Despite this danger, the Trump administration has launched a series of attempts to make our air dirtier and harder to breathe.”
18 Senate Democrats cited the Harvard research in a <a href="https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/9/7/973e3f2f-2477-46d0-ba54-6afa9100d725/76E71BED1CB67BE1B3CBF8D5D137E08D.airpollutionletter-to-epa-4.14.2020-pdf-final.pdf">letter</a> on April 14 to administrator Andrew Wheeler, writing:
<blockquote>A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health suggests a link between more air pollution and higher mortality among COVID-19 patients. Yet despite this ongoing public health emergency, the EPA has taken steps in recent weeks that will increase air pollution, including rolling back auto emissions standards. Today, EPA announced its decision to maintain current national ambient air quality standards that EPA’s own scientists say fail to protect public health – and that research links with higher COVID-19 mortality. The Environmental Protection Agency should be taking actions that will further protect health during this crisis, not put more Americans at risk.</blockquote>
But Louis Anthony Cox, a consultant and member of the Environmental Protection Agency&#8217;s Science Advisory Board, fired back at the idea of citing the study, arguing,  “This is not a model that is ready for prime time,” adding, “This is bad science dressed up as policy-relevant science.” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/powerup/2020/04/22/powerup-on-50th-anniversary-of-earth-day-epa-head-says-climate-change-not-the-only-environmental-issue-that-we-face-as-a-planet/5e9f297e88e0fa101a7686bd/">stated bluntly</a>, “I think it&#8217;s premature to put too much weight on a study that hasn&#8217;t been finalized or peer reviewed yet.&#8221;
The EPA stated, “Drawing conclusions from a study without peer review and with insufficient data is irresponsible and paints a distorted scientific picture.”
One of the authors of the study, Francesca Dominici, agreed that the results of the study had limitations but insisted that other research teams had reached similar conclusions, saying, “Big policy regulation should be guided by consensus evidenceand the consensus evidence is out there in terms of how harmful” soot is.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Harvard Assesses Its Role In Innovation Economy

Harvard Study Says Pollution Affects Coronavirus. Democrats Pounce.

Coronavirus

Democrats

Environmentalism

Harvard University was all set to host a panel discussion on the Hong Kong protests until it realized the panel was set for the same time the university’s president was supposed to be attending a meet-and-greet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
The Washington Free Beacon <a href="https://freebeacon.com/national-security/harvard-canceled-human-rights-event-as-its-president-met-with-xi-jinping/">reported</a> that a former university scholar, Teng Biao, was the one who was set to host the panel discussion in 2015. Teng had been a fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s human rights center, and the panel was supposed to discuss human rights issues in China. As the Free Beacon reported, however, a vice dean at Harvard Law School ordered Biao to cancel the event, saying it would be “embarrassing” for the university due to the president’s meeting with Xi.
&#8220;He called me into his office and he told me that the Harvard president was meeting Chinese president Xi Jinping,&#8221; Teng told the Free Beacon. &#8220;It seems that for Harvard leaders, it was very embarrassing if we had a talk at Harvard about human rights issues in China when the Harvard president just came back from China after meeting with the Chinese president.&#8221;
The vice dean who told Teng to cancel the event was Professor William P. Alford, who was one of those involved in bringing Teng to Harvard in the first place, the Free Beacon reported. Teng, a human rights lawyer, fled China after he was kidnapped and tortured by government authorities for participating in the 2014 Hong Kong protests.
Alford told the Free Beacon that he did, in fact, tell Teng to postpone the event, but that he did so on his own and not at the insistence of the Harvard administration. Alford told the outlet that Teng was able to host other events while he worked for Harvard, but this particular panel discussion was never re-scheduled.
Why? Because holding a panel about human rights abuses in China would have hurt the university’s relationship with the communist nation.
&#8220;I did ask that an event Mr. Teng planned to hold to coincide with a meeting between this university&#8217;s President and the Chinese President be postponed until after her short Beijing visit because I thought that timing might have an impact on university activity there (regarding academic, scientific, humanitarian and rights matters),&#8221; Alford said. &#8220;As the person who first invited Mr. Teng to spend a year here, I felt some responsibility for whatever impact his undertakings might have for others at the university.&#8221;
As the Free Beacon reported, China partnered with Western universities, including Harvard, providing them money to train Chinese students who would then return to China. Because of its ties to China and the $93 million it has received from the communist nation since 2013, Harvard has stifled academic freedom and free speech when it comes to China.
&#8220;Academic freedom should be an important principle of Harvard or any universities,&#8221; Teng said. &#8220;I was shocked when I saw this obvious self-censorship by Harvard. The Chinese government&#8217;s increasing influence on American universities is really alarming.&#8221;
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Demonstration in Hong Kong

Harvard Cancels Hong Kong Protest Panel Because It Coincided With University President Meeting Xi

Hong Kong

<a href="https://cap.law.harvard.edu/faculty-and-staff/">Elizabeth Bartholet</a>, a Harvard law professor and director of the Harvard Law School’s Child Advocacy Program, recently published a paper in the <a href="https://arizonalawreview.org/homeschooling-parent-rights-absolutism-vs-child-rights-to-education-protection/">Arizona Law Review</a> decrying the supposed deleterious effects of homeschooling on children in America today.
Parsed of the legalese and academic conceits, Bartholet employs a very pernicious kind of subterfuge in her paper. What emerges behind all the verbiage is very much a blatant and uncritical attack on conservative and religious values.
In exacting and exhausting fashion given the length of the paper, Bartholet offers the typical progressive, authoritarian hubris disguised as necessary democratic measures for a just society. In a recent piece on Bartholet’s claims, <a href="https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/05/right-now-risks-homeschooling">Harvard Magazine</a> states:
“Homeschooling, [Bartholet] says, not only violates children’s right to a ‘meaningful education’ and their right to be protected from potential child abuse, but may keep them from contributing positively to a democratic society.”
However, later in the very same piece for Harvard Magazine, the real and terrible motivation is revealed in the form of fearmongering and demagoguery:
“But surveys of homeschoolers show that a majority of such families (by some estimates, up to 90 percent) are driven by conservative Christian beliefs, and seek to remove their children from mainstream culture. Bartholet notes that some of these parents are ‘extreme religious ideologues’ who question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy.”
Notice how Bartholet lumps religious values and conservatism with white supremacy alongside misogyny as though they’re somehow synonymous with one another. Of course, she gives mainstream culture and science their typical dogmatic place.
According to Bartholet and other like-minded progressives, to call science into question automatically relegates one into being some knuckle-dragging homunculus rather than someone who might possibly be aware of the works of, say, <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/">Thomas Kuhn</a> or <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/">Karl Popper</a>. And we are obligated to denounce what often typifies mainstream culture considering <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/10-year-old-boy-dressed-drag-pictured-naked-amanda-prestigiacomo">the excesses and abuses</a> it excuses as enlightened and egalitarian these days.
Worse, Bartholet – again, a Harvard Law professor – views the Constitution as an antiquated and outdated document in desperate need of revision to tow her myopic, progressive line of thinking. In <a href="https://arizonalawreview.org/pdf/62-1/62arizlrev1.pdf">her very own words</a>, Bartholet writes:
“The U.S. Constitution with its negative rights structure is an anomaly, outdated and inadequate by the standards of the rest of the world… The U.S. Constitution’s focus on negative rights represents an older western constitutional tradition, ‘increasingly out of step with emerging constitutional norms &#8230;in the rest of the world.’”
Here we get to the crux of the matter, and where Bartholet’s argument goes off the progressive rails. Her laborious arguments against homeschooling are not rooted in the Constitution or legal precedence. They’re explicitly rooted in inane, progressive tropes.
Deep in her 80-page paper, Bartholet tries to bolster her attack on the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) by drawing from a feminist blogger for support:
“‘Love, Joy, Feminism’ blogger Libby Anne argues that HSLDA has been complicit in aiding child maltreatment in four key ways: (1) it works to minimize the reporting of child maltreatment; (2) it works to impede the investigation of child maltreatment cases; (3) it opposes restrictions on excessive corporal punishment; and (4) it opposes any homeschooling regulation that might provide a check on maltreatment.”
Is Libby Anne some unheralded scholar of the Constitution or even a lawyer? Nope. She’s literally just some <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/">random feminist blogger</a>. That Bartholet is even able to publish a paper in an academic legal journal with such an unqualified source beggars belief.
The likes of Bartholet are attempting to limit homeschooling to further inculcate our children with exceedingly progressive values, and it’s nothing short of madness. This madness, though, is pervasive and growing. Religious and conservative values are not only being cast aside, they’re also being vilified into oblivion. Sad to say but yet another culture war looms on the American horizon.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">subscriber</a>.

Studying

KHAN: The Impending Progressive War On Homeschooling Our Children

Homeschool

Progressivism

An upcoming Harvard <a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailycaller.com/2020/04/09/harvard-event-educational-deprivation-parents-homeschool-elizabeth-bartholet">summit</a> on the dangers of homeschooling will feature lectures and discussions led by various Ivy League professors, bureaucrats, and doctors. The point of the whole event is basically that parents have no business teaching things to their kids. Based on the published agenda for the summit, there doesn’t appear to be much of an emphasis on intellectual diversity. For example, a debate titled “Reform Proposals” will have one side making the case for greater regulatory oversight of homeschoolers and the other side making the case for an outright ban of the practice. The idea that parents should be free to educate their children without government agencies breathing down their neck is not being considered.
As it happens, that debate is set to be moderated by Professor James Dwyer, who will also be delivering the opening and closing remarks on the first and last days of the event, respectively. To give you an idea of where the distinguished professor is coming from, he has <a href="https://twitter.com/deangeliscorey/status/1252285110101172224?s=21">stated</a> that parenthood itself only exists because the government allows it to. In his words: “The reason the parent-child relationship exists is because the State confers legal parenthood.”
Dwyer believes that the assortment of bureaucracies comprising the government are “the ultimate guarantor of a child’s wellbeing.” In fact, says Dwyer, the State “empowers the parents” to do things like “take them home” and “make decisions,” or indeed to “do anything.” We should remember here that Dwyer is not some crazed lunatic on a park bench somewhere. He may be a crazed lunatic, but rather than rambling on a park bench, he is a tenured member of the faculty at a prestigious American law school. And he is not alone in his extreme hostility to parental rights, as the Harvard summit makes clear.
Of course, he’s entirely wrong. As a parent, my relationship with my children exists, first, because I conceived them and raised them. Our relationship is based in our biological ties to each other, and more importantly in the bonds of familial love. Nobody on Earth is more dedicated to my children’s health and safety than me and my wife. Nobody is more desperate to protect them than we are, and nobody would be more devastated if any harm came to them. Nobody loves them more than we do. Nobody knows them or understands them better than we do. This is both the reason why we, not the State, are the “ultimate guarantors” of their wellbeing, and why we, not the State, are in a position to be their most effective educators. The parent-child relationship is far more fundamental and important and powerful than the government-citizen relationship, if the latter can even be described as a relationship (it can’t).
There are exceptions, obviously. Parents who abuse their children can and should lose their parental rights, and the government in those cases can and should step in. But that makes the government a regrettable Plan B, not “the ultimate guarantor” or the foundation and source of all parental rights.
Dwyer’s views may seem radical — and they are — but they are also shared, on some level, by everyone who opposes homeschooling. To claim that all children should be required to attend public school is to claim that the government has a right to our children. Our children are wards of the State, and our job is only to keep them alive on nights and weekends until they can be returned to where they rightfully belong. This is why all parents, whether they homeschool or not, should be advocates and defenders of the right to homeschool. Because if you don’t have the right as a parent to educate your own children, you don’t have rights as a parent at all.

Homeschooling

WALSH: Harvard Anti-Homeschool Summit Set To Feature Speaker Who Believes ‘The State Confers Parenthood’

Harvard University has rescinded the $9 million it received from the CARES Act Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund. The move comes just one day after President Trump told the school to &#8220;pay it back.&#8221;
&#8220;The prestigious university had received nearly $9 million in federal funds through one of the government&#8217;s relief programs doled out through the Department of Education, but the allocation drew backlash from Trump,&#8221; reports <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/harvard-wont-seek-or-accept-federal-stimulus-money-after-calls-from-trump-to-return-cash">Fox News</a>. &#8220;Harvard has denied ever applying for or receiving any funds through (Paycheck Protection Program) PPP, and has clarified that the type of funding it received was given to most other U.S. colleges and universities, to be used for direct financial assistance to students and to cover costs incurred by the schools due to the coronavirus.&#8221;
On Tuesday, President Trump <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-ask-harvard-to-return-coronavirus-relief-money">accused Harvard</a> of receiving money from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and ordered the school to pay it back.
“Harvard is going to pay back the money. They shouldn’t be taking it,” Trump said Tuesday. “I’m not going to mention any other names, but when I saw Harvard — they have one of the largest endowments anywhere in the country, maybe in the world. They’re going to pay back the money.&#8221;
In a statement shortly thereafter, Harvard denied taking funds from the Paycheck Protection Program.
“Like most colleges and universities, Harvard has been allocated funds as part of the CARES Act Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund,” the university said.
When the lockdowns began in March, Harvard gave its employees 30 days with paid leave and benefits. Harvard then extended its policy to May due to its $40 billion endowment.
&#8220;We have previously said that Harvard, like other institutions, will face significant financial challenges due to the pandemic and economic crisis it has caused,&#8221; Harvard spokesman Jason Newton said in a statement Wednesday on the school&#8217;s decision to return the funds. &#8220;We are also concerned, however, that the intense focus by politicians and others on Harvard in connection with this program may undermine participation in a relief effort that Congress created and the President signed into law for the purpose of helping students and institutions whose financial challenges in the coming months may be most severe.&#8221;
&#8220;As a result of this, and the evolving guidance being issued around use of the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund, Harvard has decided not to seek or accept the funds allocated to it by statute,&#8221; he added.
Both Stanford University and Princeton University announced on Wednesday that the schools will not be receiving any of the $14 billion allocated in the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund.
The PPP has come under severe fire in recent days for its alleged mismanagement due to large restaurant chains and big businesses receiving funds that were meant for small businesses. Though the SBA loan program was limited to companies with fewer than 500 employees, exceptions were granted to restaurants and hotel chains that have fewer than 500 employees per location, which allowed companies like Ruth&#8217;s Chris Steakhouse and Shake Shack to receive $10 million a piece. After enough backlash, Shake Shack <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/shake-shack-returning-its-ppp-loan-heres-why-randy-garutti/?trackingId=J9PsRh6eSGejkxlVkMuMiw%3D%3D">rescinded the money</a>.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">subscriber</a>.

U.S. Colleges Brace for a Devastating Summer And Fall

Harvard Rescinds Stimulus Millions After Trump Tells Them To Pay It Back

COVID-19

Donald Trump

In a shocking essay for Harvard Magazine, a professor of law and director of Harvard Law School&#8217;s child advocacy legal clinic, claims homeschooling is a threat to children&#8217;s rights, a method of promoting white supremacy, and a drain on democratic society &#8212; and even goes so far as to suggest a national &#8220;presumptive ban&#8221; on the practice.
Harvard is playing host to a &#8220;homeschooling summit,&#8221; slated to take place (at least digitally) June 18-19, according to the <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/09/harvard-event-educational-deprivation-parents-homeschool-elizabeth-bartholet/">Daily Caller News Foundation</a>. But Harvard&#8217;s concern isn&#8217;t so much whether homeschooling is a viable, cost-effective, and comfortable method of education for many Americans, but rather whether homeschooling is (and homeschooled children are) a ticking time bomb.
The summit brings together a number of &#8220;experts&#8221; from across the spectrum to discuss the &#8220;problems of educational deprivation and child maltreatment that too often occur under the guise of homeschooling, in a legal environment of minimal or no oversight.&#8221;
Prof. Elizabeth Bartholet is leading the charge against those who actively resist public schools and she believes that the generation currently being homeschooled is an eventual, if not active, breeding ground for racism, sexism, and isolationism.
“Many homeschool precisely because they want to isolate their children from ideas and values central to public education and to our democracy. Many promote racial segregation and female subservience. Many question science. Many are determined to keep their children from exposure to views that might enable autonomous choice about their future lives,” she claims.
In the essay for Harvard Magazine, Bartholet goes one step further, arguing not just that homeschooling is, itself, problematic, but that it should be snuffed out as a practice by the heavy hand of American government.
&#8220;Homeschooling, she says, not only violates children’s right to a &#8216;meaningful education&#8217; and their right to be protected from potential child abuse, but may keep them from contributing positively to a democratic society,&#8221; the article&#8217;s author reports.
“We have an essentially unregulated regime in the area of homeschooling,” Bartholet claims in the piece. Although every state has basic educational standards (that most homeschooling families not only meet but exceed), she believes that &#8220;if you look at the legal regime governing homeschooling, there are very few requirements that parents do anything.”
And her assumption, of course, is not that homeschoolers represent a wide swath of American families, but are, instead, largely uneducated themselves and looking to keep their children in the dark: “That means, effectively, that people can homeschool who’ve never gone to school themselves, who don’t read or write themselves.”
Worse still, Bartholet seems to argue, it&#8217;s possible these homeschoolers are&#8230;religious.
&#8220;[S]urveys of homeschoolers show that a majority of such families (by some estimates, up to 90 percent) are driven by conservative Christian beliefs, and seek to remove their children from mainstream culture,&#8221; Harvard Magazine warns. &#8220;Bartholet notes that some of these parents are ‘extreme religious ideologues’ who question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy.&#8221;
No doubt Bartholet believes that all religious ideologies are somewhat suspect.
Public schools, which can be breeding grounds of inefficiency, and often struggle to educate children on an individual level, Bartholet says, are places of miracles. Children who attend public school &#8220;grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints.&#8221;
The central argument seems to be that children should be wards of the state, and that the state &#8212; not individual parents &#8212; should be charged with deciding what is best.
There is likely reason for concern, at least as far as the liberal educational establishment is concerned. The coronavirus lockdowns have exposed millions of parents not just to the concept of homeschooling, but to the curriculum of public schools &#8212; and perhaps in ways that might make them think twice about returning their children to a government-run educational system.

School bus

Harvard Professor Wants A ‘Presumptive Ban‘ On Homeschooling, Claims It Promotes White Supremacy

Education

A new pre-print study by a team of Harvard researchers concludes that the idea of a single prolonged lockdown — which many are calling for in the U.S. — is not the most effective or sustainable way to curb the coronavirus epidemic. A more viable, long-term approach is to carry out a series of shorter &#8220;intermittent&#8221; lockdowns triggered by certain medical care capacity thresholds.
A team of researchers from Harvard&#8217;s T.H. Chan School of Public Health posted the study, titled &#8220;<a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20041079v1" data-component="externalLink">Social distancing strategies for curbing the COVID-19 epidemic</a>,&#8221; Tuesday on the medRxive pre-print server. The study, as underscored by <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/harvard-researchers-social-distancing-during-covid-19-may-have-to-be-turned-on-and-off-like-a-spigot/">ZDNet</a>’s Tiernan Ray, is yet to be peer-reviewed.
The study&#8217;s key finding is that multiple, more targeted social distancing measures would be more effective than one prolonged &#8220;lockdown.&#8221;
That approach, as Ray explains, would balance the &#8220;herd immunity&#8221; strategy with the social distancing strategy, allowing society at large to build up immunity while occasionally imposing more drastic social distancing measures, like &#8220;stay-at-home&#8221; orders, to protect the health care system from being overwhelmed when it reaches certain predetermined thresholds.
&#8220;The SARS-CoV-2 [the virus that causes COVID-19] pandemic is straining healthcare resources worldwide, prompting social distancing measures to reduce transmission intensity,&#8221; reads the abstract of the study, written by Harvard&#8217;s Stephen Iissler, Christine Tedijanto, Marc Lipsitch, and Yonatan Grad. &#8220;The amount of social distancing needed to curb the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in the context of seasonally varying transmission remains unclear.&#8221;
&#8220;Using a mathematical model, we assessed that one-time interventions will be insufficient to maintain COVID-19 prevalence within the critical care capacity of the United States,&#8221; the researchers explain. &#8220;Seasonal variation in transmission will facilitate epidemic control during the summer months but could lead to an intense resurgence in the autumn.&#8221;
The optimal approach, the study concludes, is &#8220;intermittent distancing&#8221;: &#8220;Intermittent distancing measures can maintain control of the epidemic, but without other interventions, these measures may be necessary into 2022. Increasing critical care capacity could reduce the duration of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic while ensuring that critically ill patients receive appropriate care.&#8221;
What determines when distancing measures should be imposed? The researchers advise that the trigger point should be at maximum 37.5 cases per 10,000 adult people in the population.
&#8220;That threshold, they estimate, would keep the number of patients needing critical care at 0.89 persons for every 10,000 people in the population, which should be adequate to not overwhelm the health care system,&#8221; Ray explains.
&#8220;Widespread surveillance will be required to time the distancing measures correctly and avoid overshooting critical care capacity,&#8221; the researchers write. The best way to monitor infection rates are blood tests to determine who has contracted the virus and who has already developed immunity to it, they suggest.
The researchers used the classic epidemiological model known as &#8220;SEIR,&#8221; which takes into account how many people in a community are &#8220;susceptible,&#8221; &#8220;exposed,&#8221; &#8220;infectious,&#8221; and &#8220;recovered,&#8221; which, Ray notes, is &#8220;a statistical technique, and so it&#8217;s important to remember that it&#8217;s not a guarantee of future trends, it&#8217;s a way to model what might happen.&#8221;
Read the <a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20041079v1">full study here</a>.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nobel-laureate-why-coronavirus-crisis-may-be-over-sooner-than-you-think">Nobel Laureate: Why Coronavirus Crisis May Be Over Sooner Than Many Think</a>
&nbsp;

The Campus of Harvard University

Harvard Researchers: One Long Lockdown Is Not The Right Approach

Harvard economist Ken Rogoff told PBS NewsHour on Thursday that the United States is going to need a multi-trillion dollar spending bill to get the economy going again after the devastation caused by the coronavirus that originated in China.
&#8220;It is really hard to think of a historical parallel,&#8221; Rogoff said. &#8220;I have talked about this with my co-author, Carmen Reinhart, and we have to go back to 1918-1919, the Spanish influenza epidemic, which killed, you know, millions and millions of people, to think of something like this worldwide.&#8221;
&#8220;We&#8217;re being occupied. We&#8217;re hiding in our houses. We&#8217;re told not to leave,&#8221; Rogoff continued. &#8220;We&#8217;re having a sudden stop in economic activity. We are going to see a recession, at least in the short term, the likes of which we have not seen at least going back to World War II.&#8221;
In terms of what Congress needs to do to protect the economy, Rogoff said, &#8220;I think their response here to protect the healthy part of the economy needs to be just massive. &#8230; $1 trillion is just a starter package on what&#8217;s going to end up needing to be done here.&#8221;
&#8220;If you&#8217;re shutting down a $23 trillion economy for two months or three months, the expenses are just massive, workers losing their jobs, businesses going out of business. You can&#8217;t allow that to happen too far,&#8221; Rogoff continued. &#8220;I mean, there&#8217;s never been a concern about our government&#8217;s defaulting. The concern is being able to borrow massively when you need to. That&#8217;s the whole point of saving for a rainy day. When it rains, you want to really open up the floodgates.&#8221;
&#8220;And, here, I just — there&#8217;s no limit. We&#8217;re in a war. You have to win the war. I would have no problem with the government debt magically going up $5 trillion in the blink of an eye, if we could get out of this in two or three months healthily,&#8221; Rogoff concluded. &#8220;This is an emergency. You&#8217;re not worrying about your credit standing right away. I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s going to be a problem. And you know what? If we have inflation at the end of this, so what, if that is what we needed to do to win this war. We&#8217;re trying to protect the American people, protect our interests, protect the future.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Economist Ken Rogoff on whether the U.S. has ever experienced a crisis like this one" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Exb1EwqSOA4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
TRANSCRIPT:
<blockquote>Judy Woodruff:
As the economic fallout from the coronavirus outbreak continues, businesses across the county are being crippled by closings and layoffs.
The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits surged last week to a 2.5-year high.
For a look at how this economic downturn compares to others, Paul Solman sat down with Harvard University economist Ken Rogoff. His book &#8220;This Time Is Different&#8221; examines the history of financial crises.
It&#8217;s part of our regular series, Making Sense.
Paul Solman:
Is this time different?
Kenneth Rogoff:
Well, this is something extraordinary we&#8217;re facing.
It is really hard to think of a historical parallel. I have talked about this with my co-author, Carmen Reinhart, and we have to go back to 1918-1919, the Spanish influenza epidemic, which killed, you know, millions and millions of people, to think of something like this worldwide.
And it&#8217;s not exactly the same. It was after World War I, when things were pretty bad already.
Paul Solman:
Is this a war?
Kenneth Rogoff:
I think so.
I really feel like it&#8217;s an alien invasion. We&#8217;re being occupied. We&#8217;re hiding in our houses. We&#8217;re told not to leave. We&#8217;re having a sudden stop in economic activity. We are going to see a recession, at least in the short term, the likes of which we have not seen at least going back to World War II.
Paul Solman:
In terms of the U.S. economy, the global economy, how bad could it get?
Kenneth Rogoff:
Well, we don&#8217;t know how long we&#8217;re going to be in lockdown. When will there be antivirals? How soon will there be a vaccine?
We just don&#8217;t know how the crisis will unfold. We&#8217;re still in the war, and until we come out the other end, it&#8217;s hard to know.
But I think what we do know is, the short-term drop in output and quite possibly in employment could be worse than 2008.
Paul Solman:
Is there any chance that we won&#8217;t come out of it in a year or two?
Kenneth Rogoff:
If the virus can be conquered, and we can reach a stable situation, I&#8217;m very optimistic that we will be able to do that.
But it will be different for different countries. Italy&#8217;s in trouble. I mean, they have big pension problems, big debt problems, growth problems going into this. Emerging markets are in trouble. We&#8217;re actually already seeing emerging markets start to fold under the weight of this.
I don&#8217;t know where China will be. That&#8217;s a big question mark. I mean, everybody thinks China did great, China&#8217;s conquered this. Not their economy. If they&#8217;re lucky, getting people back to work in the manufacturing sector, but who&#8217;s going to buy the stuff once they start manufacturing? The rest of the world&#8217;s in recession.
Paul Solman:
Are Congress, the president and the Fed responding appropriately?
Kenneth Rogoff:
Let&#8217;s say they&#8217;re moving forcefully in the right direction.
I think their response here to protect the healthy part of the economy needs to be just massive.
Paul Solman:
More massive than what they&#8217;re doing now?
Kenneth Rogoff:
Oh — oh, $1 trillion is just a starter package on what&#8217;s going to end up needing to be done here.
If you&#8217;re shutting down a $23 trillion economy for two months or three months, the expenses are just massive, workers losing their jobs, businesses going out of business. You can&#8217;t allow that to happen too far.
So, no, I think we will see many further packages of different types, not all like this one.
Paul Solman:
Bailing out the airlines, for example, the hotel industry, restaurants?
Kenneth Rogoff:
So, one of the tough things in this — and I don&#8217;t know how to make that judgment — is how much, who to bail out.
But, certainly, the hospitality industry, to some extent the airlines, they&#8217;re bystanders here. They didn&#8217;t create this. They weren&#8217;t flying too many routes and about to go bankrupt. So, I think you have to — first, really importantly, the health care sector.
We have to go in a military, wartime stance, if necessary taking over parts of the private sector for production of mass of respirators, building up facilities. That will calm people down. That will help things pass.
Then you have to help the directly affected people and sectors. And then the kind of bailout that they&#8217;re talking about with sending checks to individuals, that&#8217;s to protect the healthy parts of the economy.
All of these things need to be done. And the Fed has to come in and the Treasury to provide loans to corporates, to businesses, so they don&#8217;t go bankrupt, so that we have businesses when we come out of this.
Paul Solman:
You are someone who&#8217;s worried about governments taking on too much debt. That&#8217;s now not a consideration anymore?
Kenneth Rogoff:
No, absolutely not.
I mean, there&#8217;s never been a concern about our government&#8217;s defaulting. The concern is being able to borrow massively when you need to. That&#8217;s the whole point of saving for a rainy day. When it rains, you want to really open up the floodgates.
And, here, I just — there&#8217;s no limit. We&#8217;re in a war. You have to win the war. I would have no problem with the government debt magically going up $5 trillion in the blink of an eye, if we could get out of this in two or three months healthily.
This is an emergency. You&#8217;re not worrying about your credit standing right away. I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s going to a problem. And you know what? If we have inflation at the end of this, so what, if that is what we needed to do to win this war. We&#8217;re trying to protect the American people, protect our interests, protect the future.
This is really — think like World War II, World War I. It&#8217;s this — tiny little viruses invading us, but you know, make no mistake, this is like a war, an alien invasion.
Judy Woodruff:
Sobering.
Once again, that was Paul Solman talking to Harvard economist Ken Rogoff.</blockquote>

Opening Day Of The World Economic Forum (WEF) 2017

Harvard Economist: ‘We’re In A War. You Have To Win The War.’

The Department of Justice on Tuesday filed <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1252046/download">an amicus brief</a> in support of an organization suing Harvard and alleging their raced-based admissions process violates federal civil rights law and Supreme Court precedent.
The DOJ released <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-amicus-brief-explaining-harvard-s-race-based-admissions-process">a statement</a> announcing its amicus brief, saying Harvard accepts federal money and must adhere to civil rights laws.
“Race discrimination hurts people and is never benign,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division. “Unconstitutionally partitioning Americans into racial and ethnic blocs harms all involved by fostering stereotypes, bitterness, and division among the American people. The Department of Justice will continue to fight against illegal race discrimination.”
At issue is the accusation from Students for Fair Admissions, an education organization representing students and parents, that Harvard discriminates against Asian-American applicants during the application process. SFA has sued Harvard, and a district judge has denied Harvard’s attempts to get the lawsuit dismissed.
“Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants’ race in certain limited circumstances, the district court’s factual findings demonstrated that Harvard’s use of race is anything but limited. The district court concluded that ‘more than one third of the admitted Hispanics and more than half of the admitted African Americans, would most likely not be admitted in the absence of Harvard’s race-conscious admissions process,’” the DOJ statement said. “And these race-based bonuses come at a significant cost to Asian-American applicants, who collectively suffer a substantial penalty under Harvard’s race-based admissions regime. Nevertheless, the district court concluded that Harvard’s use of race in the admissions process did not violate federal law or Supreme Court precedent.”
“The United States’ amicus brief explains that the evidence at trial showed ‘that Harvard actively engages in racial balancing that Supreme Court precedent flatly forbids,’” the DOJ continued. “The evidence also demonstrated that Harvard’s admissions officers consistently score Asian American applicants lower on the so-called ‘personal rating.’ ‘In other words,’ the brief explains, ‘Harvard’s admissions officers tended to evaluate Asian Americans, as compared to members of other racial groups, as having less integrity, being less confident, constituting less-qualified leaders, and so on.’ ‘That disparity,’ the brief points out, ‘is undisputed, and unexplained.’ For these and other reasons, the United States urged the appellate court to reverse the district court’s judgment.”
Here’s how Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans: First, admissions officers assign a numerical rating to each applicant, from 1 to 4. The numerical ratings refer to the academic, extracurricular, athletic, and personal ratings for each applicant. As the DOJ said in its brief, “Throughout the admissions cycle, admissions leaders closely monitor the racial composition of the applicant pool and tentatively admitted students and compare them to the previous year’s racial composition.”
The kick comes from the “personal rating,” where admissions officers used race as a factor in their rating, though officers testified they didn’t use race. Statistics showed that Asian-Americans had lower personal ratings, and that if those ratings were removed, the makeup of Harvard’s incoming freshman classes would be significantly different. It was argued in court that race was indeed a factor in the “personal ratings” for incoming applicants.

Harvard Admissions scandal

DOJ: ‘Harvard’s Race-Based Admissions Process Violates Federal Civil-Rights Law’

Racism

Federal law enforcement officials arrested a top Harvard scientist on Tuesday for allegedly lying to the U.S. government about his involvement in a massive Chinese program that authorities say is responsible for stealing proprietary information from U.S. institutions.
Authorities arrested Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, chair of the department of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard University, on charges of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement.
The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/us/charles-lieber-harvard.html">reported</a> that Lieber &#8220;was named a University Professor, Harvard’s highest faculty rank, one of only 26 professors to hold that status,&#8221; and that &#8220;he earned the National Institutes of Health Director’s Pioneer Award for inventing syringe-injectable mesh electronics that can integrate with the brain&#8221; in 2017.
&#8220;According to court documents, since 2008, Dr. Lieber who has served as the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group at Harvard University, which specialized in the area of nanoscience, has received more than $15,000,000 in grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD),&#8221; The Department of Justice said in a statement. &#8220;These grants require the disclosure of significant foreign financial conflicts of interest, including financial support from foreign governments or foreign entities.&#8221;
&#8220;Unbeknownst to Harvard University beginning in 2011, Lieber became a &#8216;Strategic Scientist&#8217; at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) in China and was a contractual participant in China’s Thousand Talents Plan from in or about 2012 to 2017,&#8221; the statement said. &#8220;China’s Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China’s scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information.&#8221;
Prosecutors say that Lieber was paid $50,000 per month and given $150,000 a year for living expenses by China&#8217;s communist government. He was also given $1.5 million to build a laboratory in Wuhan.
&#8220;The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT,&#8221; the statement concluded. &#8220;On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he &#8216;wasn’t sure&#8217; how China categorized him.  In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China’s Thousand Talents Plan.  Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber &#8216;had no formal association with WUT&#8217; after 2012, that &#8216;WUT continued to falsely exaggerate&#8217; his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber &#8216;is not and has never been a participant in&#8217; China’s Thousand Talents Plan.&#8221;
Federal law enforcement officials have urged American institutions &#8220;to develop protocols for monitoring students and visiting scholars from Chinese state-affiliated research institutions, as U.S. suspicion toward China spreads to academia,&#8221; NPR <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/06/28/728659124/fbi-urges-universities-to-monitor-some-chinese-students-and-scholars-in-the-u-s">reported</a> last year. &#8220;Since last year, FBI officials have visited at least 10 members of the Association of American Universities, a group of 62 research universities, with an unclassified list of Chinese research institutions and companies.&#8221;

A Harvard University logo appears on a sweatshirt on display

Top Harvard Professor Arrested For Lying To Feds About Involvement In Chinese Spy Program, Prosecutors Say

Department of Justice

Before French architect and engineer Pierre Charles L&#8217;Enfant was selected to design America&#8217;s capital city, he described his vision to Congress in 1784, saying he hoped &#8220;to give an idea of the greatness of the empire as well as to engrave in every mind that sense of respect that is due to a place which is the seat of supreme sovereignty.&#8221;
Millions of tourists from around the world come to Washington, D.C., each year to see that &#8220;seat of supreme sovereignty.&#8221;
But Harvard researchers have a new plan for America&#8217;s capital: Break the city into 127 new states. By doing so, the Electoral College established by the Founding Fathers would be rendered moot.
In a <a href="https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/01/pack-the-union-a-proposal-to-admit-new-states-for-the-purpose-of-amending-the-constitution-to-ensure-equal-representation/">piece titled</a> &#8220;Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation,&#8221; the writers aren&#8217;t exactly fair and balanced.
&#8220;For most of the twenty-first century, the world’s oldest surviving democracy has been led by a chief executive who received fewer votes than his opponent in an election for the position. The first of these executives started a war based on false pretenses that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The second — a serial abuser of women who hired as his campaign manager a lobbyist for violent dictatorships — authorized an immigration policy that forcibly separated migrant children from their families and indefinitely detained them in facilities described as &#8216;concentration camps,&#8217; &#8221; they write.
Then they lay out their proposal.
<blockquote>To create a system where every vote counts equally, the Constitution must be amended. To do this, Congress should pass legislation reducing the size of Washington, D.C., to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District’s 127 neighborhoods as states. These states — which could be added with a simple congressional majority — would add enough votes in Congress to ratify four amendments: (1) a transfer of the Senate’s power to a body that represents citizens equally; (2) an expansion of the House so that all citizens are represented in equal-sized districts; (3) a replacement of the Electoral College with a popular vote; and (4) a modification of the Constitution’s amendment process that would ensure future amendments are ratified by states representing most Americans.
Radical as this proposal may sound, it is no more radical than a nominally democratic system of government that gives citizens widely disproportionate voting power depending on where they live. The people should not tolerate a system that is manifestly unfair; they should instead fight fire with fire, and use the unfair provisions of the Constitution to create a better system.</blockquote>
The researchers claim Washington, D.C., is the only area in the United States that can legally be broken up into states and note that every proposed subdivision &#8220;voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party in the 2016 election.&#8221;
The anonymous writers, also say &#8220;the Democratic caucus in Congress could be confident that new states created within the District would elect like-minded delegations to Congress.&#8221;
They target the Electoral College, which they think is unfair. &#8220;More than ten percent of Presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote, in large part because the system presently operates in a manner inconceivable to its creators.&#8221;
To revamp the system, constitutional amendments would be needed. &#8220;An &#8216;easier&#8217; way to amend the Constitution would be for Congress to admit a large number of new states whose congressional representatives would reliably ally with the existing majority in sufficient numbers to propose and ratify new amendments fixing the problem of unequal representation,&#8221; the researchers write.
In conclusion, the document states:
<blockquote>The current system of representation allows for a minority population to impose its will on a majority in a way that is deeply undemocratic. It permits the disenfranchisement of some citizens and the overrepresentation of others, and it allows a party receiving fewer votes than its opposition to control each branch of the government. It does not have to be this way.
If it was acceptable to remedy some of the Constitution’s original injustices by excluding states from the amendment process, perhaps it is worthwhile to address those remaining by creating new ones. Perhaps it is also worthwhile to dream big about what kind of change is possible. It should not be a radical proposition for the Constitution to treat citizens’ votes equally — the United States was founded on the proposition that all are created equal.
Those who still believe that should do what generations of great Americans have always done and take up the hard work of realizing that promise.</blockquote>

Washington D.C. Map

Harvard Releases Proposal To Divide Washington, D.C., Into 127 New States To Eliminate Electoral College

Electoral College

Washington D.C.

More than five months after his death behind bars, Jeffrey Epstein continues to spark controversy — and legal battles. On Monday, Lawrence Lessig, a prominent law professor at Harvard University, filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts against The New York Times for publishing what he describes as &#8220;clickbait defamation&#8221; against him in an Epstein-focused story.
On Sept. 14, just over a month after Epstein was found dead in his prison cell by self-strangulation after being charged with sex trafficking of minors, The New York Times published a story on Epstein&#8217;s donations to M.I.T. titled, &#8220;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/business/lessig-epstein-ito-mit.html">A Harvard Professor Doubles Down: If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret.</a>&#8221; The story, which offers &#8220;a conversation with Lawrence Lessig about Jeffrey Epstein, M.I.T. and reputation laundering,&#8221; begins:
<blockquote>
It is hard to defend soliciting donations from the <a class="css-1g7m0tk" title="" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-investigation.html">convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein</a>. But Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, has been trying.
Mr. Lessig is a friend of Joichi Ito, who <a class="css-1g7m0tk" title="" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/business/mit-media-lab-jeffrey-epstein-joichi-ito.html">resigned</a> as the director of the M.I.T. Media Lab, as well as from the boards of The New York Times Company and other organizations, after it was revealed that he had courted money from Mr. Epstein and worked to hide it. Mr. Ito also traveled twice to <a class="css-1g7m0tk" title="" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/business/jeffrey-epstein-island.html">Mr. Epstein’s Caribbean island home</a>.
</blockquote>
The Times then provides a summary of Lessig&#8217;s &#8220;doubling down&#8221; on his supposed defense of taking money from Epstein:
<blockquote>
Mr. Lessig signed a letter in support of Mr. Ito, and then published <a class="css-1g7m0tk" title="" href="https://medium.com/@lessig/on-joi-and-mit-3cb422fe5ae7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a 3,500-word essay</a> on the subject. He argued that in an ideal world, no institution should take money from people like Mr. Epstein, but that in reality, much of the money that props up universities and other elite institutions comes from troubling sources.
Mr. Lessig suggested that donors to places like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology could be organized in four buckets, ranging from “people like Tom Hanks or Taylor Swift — people who are wealthy and whose wealth comes from nothing but doing good” — to “entities and people whose wealth comes from clearly wrongful or harmful or immoral behavior.” Mr. Lessig, who noted that he was a childhood victim of sexual abuse, also argued that the act of veiling Mr. Epstein’s contributions was good, because it avoided “whitewashing” his reputation.
</blockquote>
Now, as reported by <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/13/harvard-law-professor-sues-new-york-times-over-jeffrey-epstein-story/4457147002/">USA Today</a>, Lessig is accusing the Times of deliberately distorting what he said about donations from the likes of Epstein, publishing a &#8220;sensationalized, false and defamatory &#8216;clickbait&#8217; headline and lede&#8221; that presents the &#8220;direct opposite&#8221; of what he actually argued.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today I sued the <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a>: <a href="https://t.co/tXEXgzcD9w">https://t.co/tXEXgzcD9w</a>
&mdash; Lessig (@lessig) <a href="https://twitter.com/lessig/status/1216746210226135041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 13, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Lessig&#8217;s lawsuit states that &#8220;within hours&#8221; of the publication of the story, the professor &#8220;became associated with the notoriety surrounding the Epstein scandal, and the community that quietly or silently tolerated such monstrosity.&#8221; The story, Lessig contends, is a clear case of defamation, as he explains at length in a blogpost on <a href="https://medium.com/@lessig/on-suing-the-times-9f66f3dd9063">Medium</a> posted Monday.
The Times&#8217; title and lede for the article on his discussion about the Epstein donation scandal, Lessig writes in the blogpost, &#8220;are false.&#8221; After pointing out passages from his original post, including where he states clearly that &#8220;it was a mistake to take this money, even if anonymous,&#8221; Lessig writes:
<blockquote>
My essay was clearly not “defend[ing] soliciting donations” from Epstein. My essay said—repeatedly—that such soliciting was a “mistake.” And more importantly, it was a mistake because of the kind of harm it would trigger in both victims and women generally. &#8230; I did not defend taking money from Epstein. I didn’t say it was ok to take money from Epstein “if in secret.” I said it was wrong to take Epstein’s money, “even if anonymous.” The assertion—in the tweeted headline and lede—to the contrary is thus flatly false.
</blockquote>
&#8220;I love the Times,&#8221; Lessig writes. &#8220;I know that journalism is hard, and deadlines are short. So I when I asked the Times to correct these two false and defamatory statements, I fully expected they would, and I fully expected that would be the end of it. And I so I was astonished when they not only refused to fix the mistake, but doubled down on the absurdity of their justifications.&#8221;
The Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/01/13/us/ap-us-times-lawsuit-epstein-1st-ld-writethru.html">responded</a> Monday to Lessig&#8217;s lawsuit by declaring that it will defend against his claim &#8220;vigorously.&#8221;
“When Professor Lessig contacted The Times to complain about the story, senior editors reviewed his complaint and were satisfied that the story accurately reflected his statements,&#8221; said Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha. &#8220;We plan to defend against the claim vigorously.”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/alleged-epstein-suicide-attempt-footage-no-longer-exists-after-jail-saves-wrong-video">Alleged Epstein Suicide Attempt Footage ‘No Longer Exists’ After Jail Saves Wrong Video</a>

Jeffrey Epstein

Harvard Professor Sues New York Times Over Epstein Story; NYT Responds

New York Times

On Monday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about an Ivy League football game interrupted by college climate activists, as well as the Democratic response to the interruption. Video and partial transcript below: 
Yale has already divested partially from fossil fuels, but its chief investment officer, David Swensen, said that overhauling the university&#8217;s investment portfolio would be foolish because, quote, “we would all die” if fossil fuel production stopped. 
It&#8217;s true. He said, “every one of us in the room is a consumer.” Also true. The whole thing is idiotic, and the fact that Yale authorities went along with it, the fact that Yale let these kids stop the game for an hour to be obnoxious — it&#8217;s pretty ridiculous on its face. But this is what we do now. As we’ll see in a second, the Left loves disrupting cultural events to push stupid politics. 
So Bernie Sanders was super happy with all this. Well, first of all, Bernie went dancing over the weekend. I just have to play this tape because Bernie dancing is always a sight to behold. Here is the geriatric socialist cutting the rug, tripping the light &#8230; at one of his campaign stops. It is a thing that actually happened. 
My favorite is when he sort of loses the beat, and things start to get very awkward. So that&#8217;s going to happen any second — there we go, now he is just like, “I don&#8217;t even know why I am here.” Man, Bernie just cutting loose from 1932, good stuff. 
Well, he tweeted support for these idiot protesters. He tweeted out that he was very happy with them. He tweeted, “When people come together to stand up for justice, we win.” You&#8217;re gonna have to explain how people win because a bunch of people stopped a football game. 
“Congratulations to the young people demanding a sustainable future for our planet. We are with you in this fight.” By the way, all those young people, you know what they can do today? They can give up those Harvard and Yale scholarships for third-world people who wish to come here, and not engage in fossil fuel use the rest of their lives. They can do that. Or alternatively, they can pretend that they are very virtuous while they go down there and selfie themselves with their iPhones created with the use of fossil fuels. 
Julian Castro, the most irrelevant of all possible Democratic candidates, said “From the March for Our Lives, to worldwide Climate Strikes, students and young people are leading the charge to protect their futures. I&#8217;m inspired by their efforts to hold their universities to a higher standard.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
From the March for Our Lives, to worldwide Climate Strikes, students and young people are leading the charge to protect their futures.
I’m inspired by their efforts to hold their universities to a higher standard. <a href="https://t.co/tbskzCRvSa">https://t.co/tbskzCRvSa</a>
— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) <a href="https://twitter.com/JulianCastro/status/1198358707635195904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
Are you inspired, or are you just pandering to young people who don&#8217;t know what they&#8217;re talking about? 
Tom Steyer, who has blown something like three hundred — last I heard, it was like a couple hundred — million dollars on his quixotic presidential campaign, and currently has 0% support: He says, “These students have it right — nobody wins when we&#8217;re complicit in climate injustice. Institutions like Harvard and Yale must be leaders in the fight to address the climate crisis.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
These students have it right—nobody wins when we’re complicit in climate injustice. Institutions like Harvard and Yale must be leaders in the fight to address the climate crisis. <a href="https://t.co/ZEpugkfmjv">https://t.co/ZEpugkfmjv</a>
— Tom Steyer (@TomSteyer) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomSteyer/status/1198360365664329728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
Really? I mean, they&#8217;re doing all the research. Then you&#8217;ve got AOC, with her massively impressive degree from [Boston University] in economics, tweets, “Activism disrupts the present to change the future,” with an emoji of a globe. Wow, she used a globe emoji guys, she&#8217;s serious. That&#8217;s a globe emoji, you know what that means? That means that she&#8217;s thought this one through.
Activism disrupts the present to change the future. Any other nostrums and truisms you&#8217;d like to dump on us here. AOC, absolute genius. I mean, things. This sort of stuff is why it&#8217;s almost impossible to take many climate change activists seriously. They don&#8217;t provide solutions.
I did a speech in Boston — actually, this one was at Baylor University last week, speech at Baylor University, I spent probably 15 minutes talking about climate change. I talked about possible solutions, and one of the things that I talked about is the fact that, according to the Left, there&#8217;s no need for a solution. This is all about yelling at the problem. Just yell at the problem and it&#8217;s going to go away. So if you show up at a Yale-Harvard football game, and you yell at the problem, then magically it gets better. 
But this is what so many on the radical Left desire. They don&#8217;t want solutions, they just want to yell about problems, and then they want to claim that they&#8217;re victims when people point out that what they are doing is dumb. If you point out that this was a dumb protest that delayed a football game and nearly led Yale to lose its Ivy League championship, which — you know, look, in the grand scheme of things, is that a big deal? No. 
But there are players on the field: It&#8217;s a football game. It&#8217;s not time for your climate activism. If you wanna do climate activism, sit outside the stadium, you&#8217;ll get plenty of attention. But by disrupting, and then being cheered on by Democrats, this is the same kind of garbage that students were doing in the 1960s, taking over universities and the authorities were basically sitting there allowing people who are disrupting to prop their feet up on the desks and take over administrations. You wonder why more and more Americans look skeptically at college? This would be the reason. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. 
</a><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

Harvard and Yale Students Protest for Divestment at Football Game

SHAPIRO: A Climate Activist Tantrum Stops A Football Game. Democrats Cheer.

Climate Change

Global Warming

Yale

Ten days after being detained at Boston Logan International Airport and deported back to the Middle East, a 17-year-old Palestinian student from Tyre, Lebanon, was readmitted into the U.S. and allowed to begin his undergraduate education at Harvard University this week.
As reported by <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/8/27/incoming-freshman-deported/#.XWTG5epzJI0.twitter">The Harvard Crimson</a>, Ismail Ajjawi, a member of Harvard&#8217;s 2023 class, was determined to be &#8220;inadmissible&#8221; by immigration authorities a few days before the start of the semester after he was detained for several hours at Logan International, had his cell phone and computer temporarily confiscated for review, and was questioned about his friends&#8217; social media activity and his political and religious beliefs, according to the student.
Upon arriving to the airport, Ajjawi and several other international students were questioned by immigration officials, the Crimson reported. &#8220;While the other students were allowed to leave, Ajjawi alleges an immigration officer continued to question him about his religion and religious practices in Lebanon,&#8221; according to the campus paper. &#8220;The same officer then asked him to unlock his phone and laptop, and left to search them for roughly five hours, Ajjawi alleges.&#8221;
&#8220;When I asked every time to have my phone back so I could tell them about the situation, the officer refused and told me to sit back in [my] position and not move at all,&#8221; Ajjawi told the Crimson. &#8220;After the 5 hours ended, she called me into a room, and she started screaming at me. She said that she found people posting political points of view that oppose the US on my friend[s] list. I responded that I have no business with such posts and that I didn&#8217;t like, [s]hare or comment on them and told her that I shouldn&#8217;t be held responsible for what others post. I have no single post on my timeline discussing politics.&#8221;
What exactly the posts in question said is unclear.
While the State Department would not offer comment on the case, citing the confidentiality of visa records, a Customs and Border Patrol spokesperson told the paper that Ajjawi was deported because he was found to be &#8220;inadmissible.&#8221;
&#8220;Applicants must demonstrate they are admissible into the U.S. by overcoming ALL grounds of inadmissibility including health-related grounds, criminality, security reasons, public charge, labor certification, illegal entrants and immigration violations, documentation requirements, and miscellaneous grounds,&#8221; the spokesperson said in a statement to the Crimson. &#8220;This individual was deemed inadmissible to the United States based on information discovered during the CBP inspection.”
The deportation of Ajjawi was met with pushback from the university and the Harvard community, as well as the student and faculty rights group, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). &#8220;Ajjawi&#8217;s allegations, if accurate, represent a threat to academic freedom, one that should be taken seriously by those who care about protecting expressive freedoms in the United States,&#8221; FIRE&#8217;s Director of Targeted Advocacy Sarah McLaughlin said in a statement to The Daily Wire.
Ajjawi&#8217;s family expressed relief that the situation has been resolved and thanked the group that helped him get into Harvard, <a href="https://www.amideast.org/about-amideast">AMIDEAST</a>. &#8220;The last ten days have been difficult and anxiety filled, but we are most grateful for the thousands of messages of support and particularly the work of AMIDEAST,&#8221; the family&#8217;s statement reads, as reported by the <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/9/3/harvard-student-turned-away-arrives/">Crimson</a>. &#8220;We hope now that everyone can respect our and Ismail’s privacy and he can now simply focus on settling into College and his important class work.&#8221;
FIRE also expressed relief that Ajjawi had been admitted. &#8220;Given the serious chilling effect viewpoint-based decision-making creates, we hope that other cases like Ajjawi&#8217;s will receive similar attention and scrutiny,&#8221; the organization said.

Lawrence S. Bacow Sworn In As New Harvard President

UPDATE: Palestinian Student Deported After Being Questioned About Friends’ Social Media Posts Arrives At Harvard

Immigration

Lebanon

Palestinians

A 17-year-old Palestinian student from Tyre, Lebanon, who was supposed to start classes this week at Harvard University, was abruptly deported Friday night after officials detained him at Boston&#8217;s international airport. After questioning the student and examining his cell phone and computer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) says they determined that he was &#8220;inadmissible&#8221; to the country. The student, who is getting legal help from the university and a non-profit to try to get readmitted to the U.S., says he was specifically questioned about social media posts by some of his friends.
According to <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/8/27/incoming-freshman-deported/#.XWTG5epzJI0.twitter">The Harvard Crimson</a>, the student, Ismail Ajjawi, who was supposed to be a member of Harvard&#8217;s 2023 class, says that shortly after arriving at Boston Logan International Airport on Friday, officials detained him and asked for access to his cell phone and his computer, both of which they took for review for several hours. Ajjawi sent a written statement to The Harvard Crimson about what he said took place on Friday.
&#8220;Upon arrival, Ajjawi faced questioning from immigration officials along with several other international students,&#8221; the campus paper reports. &#8220;While the other students were allowed to leave, Ajjawi alleges an immigration officer continued to question him about his religion and religious practices in Lebanon. The same officer then asked him to unlock his phone and laptop, and left to search them for roughly five hours, Ajjawi alleges.&#8221;
The student says that after reviewing his devices, the officer returned to &#8220;scream&#8221; at him about the social media posts of his friends.
&#8220;When I asked every time to have my phone back so I could tell them about the situation, the officer refused and told me to sit back in [my] position and not move at all,&#8221; the student claims. &#8220;After the 5 hours ended, she called me into a room, and she started screaming at me. She said that she found people posting political points of view that oppose the US on my friend[s] list.&#8221;
&#8220;I responded that I have no business with such posts and that I didn&#8217;t like, [s]hare or comment on them and told her that I shouldn&#8217;t be held responsible for what others post,&#8221; Ajjawi told the paper. &#8220;I have no single post on my timeline discussing politics.&#8221;
The student says that after being questioned about his friends&#8217; social media activity, the officer gave him back his devices but canceled his visa and told him that he would be deported.
Asked for comment on Ajjawi&#8217;s deportation, a State Department official told The Harvard Crimson that visa records are confidential. A CBP spokesperson, however, informed the paper that Ajjawi was deported because he was found to be &#8220;inadmissible.&#8221; The spokesperson offered a general explanation of the way the agency determines admissibility.
&#8220;Applicants must demonstrate they are admissible into the U.S. by overcoming ALL grounds of inadmissibility including health-related grounds, criminality, security reasons, public charge, labor certification, illegal entrants and immigration violations, documentation requirements, and miscellaneous grounds,&#8221; the spokesperson wrote in a statement reported by the Crimson. &#8220;This individual was deemed inadmissible to the United States based on information discovered during the CBP inspection.”
The paper notes that both the university&#8217;s immigration lawyers and the nonprofit that provided Ajjawi a scholarship, AMIDEAST, are working with the federal government to try to get the student admitted into the country.
<a href="https://www.amideast.org/about-amideast">AMIDEAST</a> is a nonprofit founded in 1951 focused on international education and training for residents of the Middle East and North Africa. The group describes its mission as seeking &#8220;to create hope, opportunity, and mutual understanding among people in the Middle East, North Africa, and the United States through life-changing opportunities for education and cultural exchanges.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51331/update-palestinian-student-deported-after-being-james-barrett">UPDATE: Palestinian Student Deported After Being Questioned About Friends’ Social Media Posts Arrives At Harvard</a>
H/T <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/department-of-homeland-security/458956-harvard-freshman-deported-after">The Hill</a>

Logan International

Report: Palestinian Harvard Student Deported After Officials Detain Him At Airport

Middle East

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) responded to his former Harvard Law School constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe on Sunday after Tribe claimed that white supremacists opposed abortion over the fear it would reduce the white population.
“My old con law prof, sadly, being deeply deceptive,” Cruz replied. “Abortion targets in particular minority women.”
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">1/2 My old con law prof, sadly, being deeply deceptive. Abortion targets in particular minority women. More than 1/2 of African-American babies, tragically, are aborted. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a vehement advocate of eugenics. <a href="https://t.co/Lx0T7XBLUy">https://t.co/Lx0T7XBLUy</a> <a href="https://t.co/PjFR9loFnV">https://t.co/PjFR9loFnV</a>
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1160685658924560384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Cruz’s remarks were in response to Tribe’s contention that white supremacists advocate for the protection of life because “they fear it’ll reduce the number of white infants and thus contribute to what they fear as non-white ‘replacement.’”
“Never underestimate the way these issues and agendas are linked,” Tribe further warned on Twitter. “This turns ‘intersectionality’ on its head.”
Cruz, however, rebuffed Tribe’s claim and further educated the noted left-wing professor on the history of the so-called abortion rights movement in America.
“Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a vehement advocate of eugenics,” he explained. The Texas senator then provided an excerpt from a letter Sanger wrote in 1939. In the letter, Sanger outlines her plan to reach out to black leaders, particularly ministers, in order to help dispel any suspicion within black communities that she was, in fact, advocating for race-based eugenics.
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,” the letter read.
Cruz also circulated additional background of Sanger’s infamous letter, and urged individuals to read the full context.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Yes, PLEASE read full context. In 1926, Sanger spoke at a KKK rally in NJ. Her publications include: &#8220;Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics&#8221; (Jun 1920); &#8220;The Purpose of Eugenics&#8221; (Dec 1924); &#8220;Birth Control &amp; Positive Eugenics&#8221; (July 1925) &amp; &#8220;Birth Control: The True Eugenics&#8221; (Aug 1928). <a href="https://t.co/oTDdfH1c96">https://t.co/oTDdfH1c96</a>
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1160694181175746560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
“In 1926, Sanger spoke at a KKK rally in [New Jersey],” the Texas senator said. “Her publications include ‘Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics’ (June 1920); ‘The Purpose of Eugenics’ (Dec 1924); ‘Birth Control [and] Positive Eugenics’ (July 1925) [and] ‘Birth Control: The True Eugenics’ (Aug 1928).”
Cruz initially stated that more than half of African-American babies are aborted, but quickly corrected himself, noting that nearly half are aborted.
“A slight correction,” Cruz said. “Although some cities (eg NYC) see over 50% abortion rates (in 2012-16 black mothers terminated 136,426 pregnancies [and] gave birth to 118,127 babies), nationally the total is just over 40%.”
“Still tragically high,” he added.
Tribe later attempted to clarify his initial statement, claiming that his remarks were misinterpreted.
“Some have misread this to stay that all those who oppose abortion are White Supremacists!” he <a href="https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1160915552052887552?s=20">tweeted</a>. “Learn to read, folks!”
“I neither said nor believe any such thing,” he continued. “Some X are Y doesn’t translate to all Y are X. Duh.”
Cruz also rebuked a photograph circulating around the internet that falsely showed Sanger speaking to a crowd of hooded Ku Klux Klan members.
“This particular photo is an internet fabrication,” Cruz said. “What is TRUE is that in 1926 Sanger addressed the Women’s Auxiliary of the KKK in Silver Lake, [New Jersey] (she admits this in her autobiography).”
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">This particular photo is an Internet fabrication. What is TRUE is that in 1926 Sanger addressed the Women’s Auxiliary of the KKK in Silver Lake, NJ (as she admits in her autobiography). Also, I’m pretty sure that guy in the front row is the guy from Ralph Northam’s yearbook&#8230;. <a href="https://t.co/lugY9kQim5">https://t.co/lugY9kQim5</a>
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1160931668569600001?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
“Also, I’m pretty sure that guy in the front row is the guy from Ralph Northam’s yearbook,” he added, taking a dig at the embattled Virginia governor.

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz Educates His Former Law Professor On Abortion After Professor Makes Claim About White Supremacy

Abortion

White Supremacy

Harvard Law professor Bruce Hay’s nightmare began on March 7, 2015 — though at the time he had no idea what he was in for.
In a <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2019/07/bruce-hay-paternity-trap-maria-pia-shuman-mischa-haider.html">lengthy but captivating article</a> for New York Magazine’s The Cut, Kera Bolonik exhaustingly detailed Hay’s ordeal back in late July. She reported that Hay had met a woman named Maria-Pia Shuman in a hardware store. Shuman, who had a French accent, told Hay he was attractive and the two struck up a friendship that eventually led to sex. Weeks later, Shuman claimed she was pregnant with Hay’s baby.
The two continued their friendship and Hay became friends with Shuman’s friend, Mischa Haider, a trans woman with mental health issues. Hay was legally divorced from his wife, Jennifer Zacks, but lived with her and their children.
The baby was born in January 2016, but Hay wasn’t allowed to be present during the delivery. Shuman and Haider had been harassing Hay to leave his ex-wife for some time by that point. The harassment escalated. They claimed, according to The Cut, that Hay’s refusal to leave his ex-wife amounted to abuse. Shuman claimed he was “exploiting and manipulating” Haider and that “there should be criminal legal and administrative consequences for your behavior.” They threatened to report him for “raping” Shuman. Haider claimed they would file a complaint with Harvard over his alleged behavior and would accuse him of attempting to “extort” Shuman “for 1 million dollars.”
Hay tried to defuse the situation, but the women continued to escalate it. Eventually, the pair invited Hay to Paris for Bastille Day weekend and even gave him a check for $3,000 for his expenses. Shuman also said she had a surprise for him and needed his computer password, which he handed over since he had provided her with his passwords previously. Shuman told The Cut she never had Hay’s passwords.
At the same time, Hay was helping Shuman and Haider move. The three went to Quebec instead of Paris while the move was to take place. When they returned, all the belongings had been moved out of Hay’s house and the belongings of Shuman and Haider replaced them. Shuman had allegedly used Hay’s password to send emails agreeing to a lease of his home to her and Haider. Hay had signed what he believed were documents for storage units on Shuman’s behalf. Now they had a lease agreement with him and said the $3,000 check was a security deposit.
Hay and his ex-wife went to court and got their house back. Shuman and Haider then filed restraining orders against Hay — which were denied — and sue him for fraud over the house lease, since Hay’s name was no longer on the deed. Haider also filed a formal complaint with Harvard. He has been suspended from teaching while the investigation takes place.
In The Cut’s initial article, three other men had their encounters and legal battles with Shuman and Haider detailed — “Richard Roe,” “John Poe,” and “John Doe.” All three had similar stories. Each had sex with Shuman and told they were the father of her baby, even though the chances were nearly impossible (the men either wore a condom, didn’t ejaculate, or both). The other men had hired lawyers far earlier than Hay and were able to get Shuman and Haider off their backs.
Now, The Cut has published <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2019/08/bruce-hay-paternity-trap-maria-pia-shuman-mischa-haider-follow-up.html">a follow-up story</a>, speaking to six more men who had encounters with a woman believed to be Shuman. One man said the French woman approached them while he was moving into a new apartment with the help of his friend. The woman just walked up to them and propositioned them for sex. The men declined and she got into the back seat of a black car believed to be driven by Haider. Another man said he met Shuman after she approached him in a Starbucks and told him he was attractive. The two planned to meet, but she changed the plans and asked him to pretend to be the father of her child while relatives visited. He declined but she kept contacting him and chastised him for not “politely” declining her ruse. Months later she asked him for sex.
Another man said Shuman approached him, told him he was attractive, and implied they should have sex. When he and his friends were discussing the encounter, another friend arrived and said the same thing had happened to him just a few days earlier. The men called her to confront her but she yelled and hung up. Moments later, she sent one of them a friend request on Facebook, even though he didn’t tell her his name. Another person then called them, who the men believe was Haider. The person berated them and called them “misogynistic pigs” and “pieces-of-shit men.” It was a common theme from Haider and Shuman, who had railed against the patriarchy to Hay.
A friend of Shuman’s contacted The Cut to say Shuman actually had an English accent, though she was half-French (on her mother’s side). She said Shuman abandoned her friends after meeting Haider and the two seemed to enjoy picking up men and discarding them.
“I remember she said, ‘I love corrupting these really Waspy Bostonian guys.’ The impression I got was, if she picked up a guy, told him he was really hot, went back and slept with him and then discarded him, she felt like, ‘I’m in control, I’m so powerful, I used him, I tossed him aside,’” the friend told The Cut. “She liked the idea of corrupting what looked like these innocent, nice guys.”

Menu

Harvard

Harvard Professor Indicted For Allegedly Lying About Ties To Wuhan University Program Aimed At Advancing China’s Science And Technological Development

Non-Peer Reviewed Harvard Study Surmises Virus May Have Started In China Last August

KNOWLES: The Red Pill, The Laughable ACLU, & Harvard’s Education Ban

Harvard Study Says Pollution Affects Coronavirus. Democrats Pounce.

Harvard Cancels Hong Kong Protest Panel Because It Coincided With University President Meeting Xi

KHAN: The Impending Progressive War On Homeschooling Our Children

WALSH: Harvard Anti-Homeschool Summit Set To Feature Speaker Who Believes ‘The State Confers Parenthood’

Harvard Rescinds Stimulus Millions After Trump Tells Them To Pay It Back

Harvard Professor Wants A ‘Presumptive Ban‘ On Homeschooling, Claims It Promotes White Supremacy

Harvard Researchers: One Long Lockdown Is Not The Right Approach

Harvard Economist: ‘We’re In A War. You Have To Win The War.’

DOJ: ‘Harvard’s Race-Based Admissions Process Violates Federal Civil-Rights Law’

Top Harvard Professor Arrested For Lying To Feds About Involvement In Chinese Spy Program, Prosecutors Say

Harvard Releases Proposal To Divide Washington, D.C., Into 127 New States To Eliminate Electoral College

Harvard Professor Sues New York Times Over Epstein Story; NYT Responds

SHAPIRO: A Climate Activist Tantrum Stops A Football Game. Democrats Cheer.

UPDATE: Palestinian Student Deported After Being Questioned About Friends’ Social Media Posts Arrives At Harvard

Report: Palestinian Harvard Student Deported After Officials Detain Him At Airport

Ted Cruz Educates His Former Law Professor On Abortion After Professor Makes Claim About White Supremacy

Harvard Professor’s Fling Turned Into A Nightmare Of False Allegations And Fraud. He’s Not The Only Victim.

Menu

Harvard

Harvard Professor Indicted For Allegedly Lying About Ties To Wuhan University Program Aimed At Advancing China’s Science And Technological Development

Non-Peer Reviewed Harvard Study Surmises Virus May Have Started In China Last August

KNOWLES: The Red Pill, The Laughable ACLU, & Harvard’s Education Ban

Harvard Study Says Pollution Affects Coronavirus. Democrats Pounce.

Harvard Cancels Hong Kong Protest Panel Because It Coincided With University President Meeting Xi

KHAN: The Impending Progressive War On Homeschooling Our Children

WALSH: Harvard Anti-Homeschool Summit Set To Feature Speaker Who Believes ‘The State Confers Parenthood’

Harvard Rescinds Stimulus Millions After Trump Tells Them To Pay It Back

Harvard Professor Wants A ‘Presumptive Ban‘ On Homeschooling, Claims It Promotes White Supremacy

Harvard Researchers: One Long Lockdown Is Not The Right Approach

Harvard Economist: ‘We’re In A War. You Have To Win The War.’

DOJ: ‘Harvard’s Race-Based Admissions Process Violates Federal Civil-Rights Law’

Top Harvard Professor Arrested For Lying To Feds About Involvement In Chinese Spy Program, Prosecutors Say

Harvard Releases Proposal To Divide Washington, D.C., Into 127 New States To Eliminate Electoral College

Harvard Professor Sues New York Times Over Epstein Story; NYT Responds

SHAPIRO: A Climate Activist Tantrum Stops A Football Game. Democrats Cheer.

UPDATE: Palestinian Student Deported After Being Questioned About Friends’ Social Media Posts Arrives At Harvard

Report: Palestinian Harvard Student Deported After Officials Detain Him At Airport

Ted Cruz Educates His Former Law Professor On Abortion After Professor Makes Claim About White Supremacy

Harvard Professor’s Fling Turned Into A Nightmare Of False Allegations And Fraud. He’s Not The Only Victim.

Don't miss a beat of our coverage.