Earlier this month, the New York Post published a recent report that ranked Harvard as the very worst college campus in America for free speech. The article details the annual rankings by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a non-profit seeking to protect speech rights in America. FIRE’s annual report on freedom of speech at college campuses uses a variety of methods to rank 254 colleges nationwide, including the school’s free speech policies, whether community members have been disciplined or targeted, if administrators ever stand up to defend free speech, and a student survey with over 55,000 participants. These and other factors are used to calculate a “score” for each school, ranking the speech climates across varying campuses.
Harvard, the world’s most renowned academic institution, <a href="https://www.thefire.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scored the worst</a> out of every school with a zero out of a <a href="https://rankings.thefire.org/rank" target="_blank" rel="noopener">100-point scale</a>. The second to last? University of Pennsylvania with a score of 11.13. While Harvard is not exactly known for being the most conducive school for free speech in America, is it really the worst?
Freedom of speech on college campuses has become such a common topic in the news that it feels like a catchphrase. As such, the question of what it really means for a campus to facilitate discourse has become rather lucrative. Of course, a student or faculty member at Harvard can say or write anything they wish, but few members of the community are quite so naïve. In the past year, nine professors and researchers faced demands to be fired because of something they had said or written, and seven out of those nine faced professional consequences (FIRE).
I have found infringement on my speech at Harvard to be more about what I am expected to say than what I cannot say. Of course, the list of things you are better off avoiding in conversation is extensive, but the choice to do so or not is free. Words and actions come with consequences, so many people self-censor simply because they do not wish to argue or be casually labeled with an overused descriptor.
Here, the lack of freedom of speech relates less to what I shouldn’t say, and more to what I must say. This side of freedom pertains to those things which we are expected to say, regardless of whether we wish to or not. So-called affirmations of identity, belief, and other people’s choices are expected to be shared. Requiring students to share personal pronouns is not free speech, it is compelled speech. While any person is free to share what they wish to be called, others should also be free not to participate.
Whenever I am asked my pronouns, what I wish I could answer with is nothing. Why am I forced to subscribe — with action — to someone else’s personal beliefs, or be accused as a hater or bigot? I do not hate these people’s beliefs, nor I do not care what you believe you are, I just do not share the same opinion and do not believe I should be required to exercise my speech in accordance.
To reverse the example, I personally choose not to curse, but I do not force others not to — they are free to speak as they wish. It doesn’t offend me either. I am confident in my own position, so I am unaffected by the positions of others. Why would their choice offend me? It doesn’t physically harm me, and it doesn’t rob me of my own rights to speak, live, or worship freely. If everyone forced their own beliefs on each other, who could possibly speak? When some voices are amplified and others are forced to participate, speech is no longer free.
The most visible imposition on speech at Harvard is against controversial speakers. The people who wish to judge the morality of intellectual speakers to such an extent as to violently protest them are so self-righteous that they value exclusively their own opinions. These are the same people who fight the loudest for social equity. A proclaimed conviction for justice and equality is exposed as a deeper belief that only one set of beliefs is acceptable, and all others should be forcibly suppressed.
One of the most damning pieces of evidence is that 27% of students in the bottom five ranked schools of FIRE’s report believe it is acceptable to use violence to stop campus speech, and 45% say that it is acceptable to block other students from attending a speech. By the numbers alone, this is glaring evidence that students do not believe that others should have the freedom to speak or listen how they wish.
I recently passed a sign in Harvard Square that asked, “How tightly should hateful speech be regulated on campus?” My response is, who exactly defines subjects and speakers who are hateful? One member of the community might consider a pro-life speaker to be hateful, while another might view a pro-choice activist as hateful. Isn’t that the whole point of free speech and thought? One person should not get to decide who and what is morally superior and worthy of being heard, rather, the community gets to show its support through attendance.
Finally, the most embarrassing and predictable part of the entire FIRE report is that the Harvard Administration has proven it will not stand up and defend free speech on its campus. It was penalized for such a lack of action in the scoring system. By ignoring the issue at hand, Harvard assumes that protecting free speech is no longer relevant — proof of just how much of a reality speech suppression has become. For an institution that holds such intellectual power, earned through the claims of true exploratory research and diversity of thought, it proves over and over that this is a fallacious shell. Its intentions are clear — indoctrinate rather than educate; force scientific conclusions that support political narratives; and silence anyone whose intellect and voice stand in the way of these goals. 
Elsie Halvorsen is a senior at Harvard College, class of 2024.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Massachusetts Universities After US Supreme Court Rejects Use of Race In Admissions

New College Rankings Show Free Speech Is No Longer Relevant At Harvard

College

Free Speech

Harvard

Opinion

Readers Pass

Universities

Joe Biden, who had a history of plagiarism already, reportedly plagiarized again in an article he initially wrote for the Harvard Journal on Legislation in 2000 — and the editors covered for him by fixing the article before they published it.
Roger Severino, a vice president at the Heritage Foundation, revealed the story on X, noting how “brazen” Biden was since he had been caught plagiarizing before. As a student at Syracuse Law School in 1965, Biden <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">plagiarized</a> five pages from a law review journal. In 1987, Biden dropped out of the presidential race after he was caught in his closing remarks at a Democratic primary debate plagiarizing a speech from Neil Kinnock, the former leader of Britain’s Labour Party.
Severino told <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/video/6336780523112" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fox News</a> that the court opinion Biden plagiarized from was probably the dissenting opinion authored by Judge Diana Jane Gribbon Motz of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
“My first assignment as a junior editor at the Harvard Journal on Legislation (1999-2000) was to cite check an article submitted by one Sen. Joseph R. Biden. I was shocked by the plagiarism I discovered,” Severino wrote in a <a href="https://twitter.com/RogerSeverino_/status/1698679942605627495" target="_blank" rel="noopener">thread</a> on X.
“Because I was interested in the article’s topic (civil rights) I read a bunch of the cited cases all the way through,” Severino continued. “That’s when I noticed that a certain turn of phrase in an opinion sounded oddly familiar even though it was my time reading it. So I turned back to Biden’s article, and there it was. He had lifted language straight out of a SCOTUS opinion, changed a couple words, and called them his own. There were no quote marks and no footnote or anything else attributing the court as the source.”
“I then read the piece through again and multiple other phrases sounded familiar. Turns out they too were plagiarized from opinions. I believe this merited rejecting the article outright for plagiarism so I emailed the lead editor and presented the indisputable proof,” he wrote. “Instead of thanking me for protecting the integrity of the Journal, they covered for Biden. They ‘fixed’ the plagiarism by adding proper attributions and acted like the whole incident never happened.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1694187778286000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1ns8RXbw95xuC2oVVw8b7b">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“But this was no innocent mistake, where Biden ‘forgot’ a quote mark or two which would be bad enough,” Severino recalled. “Instead, he engaged in ‘mosaic plagiarism’ which entails taking a quote and swapping some words with synonyms to make the plagiarism harder to detect. This indicates what’s known in law as ‘consciousness of guilt.’”
“Worse still, Biden was *already* known to have plagiarized before this article crossed my desk yet was brazen enough to try it again,” Severino concluded.

Joe Biden

Biden Plagiarized Again In 2000. Harvard Journal Covered It Up: Report

Executive

Plagiarism

Ever since the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in Dobbs, America&#8217;s longstanding <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/abortion">abortion</a> debate has taken on a new tone.
The battle has moved to the states and in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington, voters are no longer asking whether there&#8217;s a right to abortion in the Constitution — the court has made it quite clear that there isn&#8217;t — but rather if their state should allow women to abort their children. 
The Left, of course, is fighting harder than ever. Planned Parenthood has even launched an <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/08/22/1195142490/planned-parenthood-abortion-wisconsin-campaign-2024-gop-republican-trump-pence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ad campaign</a> aimed at fighting abortion limits on the ballot in the 2024 elections. Another tactic the Left has employed is to pair racial justice with abortion access, suggesting in <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/05/14/1098306203/abortion-is-also-about-racial-justice-experts-and-advocates-say" target="_blank" rel="noopener">popular articles</a> and even <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2209737" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scientific studies</a> that those who care about the wellbeing of racial minorities should vote for pro-abortion measures.
Mildred Jefferson, the first African American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, would beg to differ. As she put in a 1977 debate with Nicki Nichols Gamble, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts: 
<blockquote>“The abortionists have accomplished what perhaps 200 years of lynchings did not do; destroying an entire generation and crippling another.” </blockquote>
The truth that Dr. Jefferson understood and that younger generations need to know is that the abortion movement was founded as a eugenics project. Eugenics is the “science” behind the idea that there is a hierarchical ordering of the races, and it goes hand-in-hand with some of the most unethical medical practices that are part of American history.
Take the case of J. Marion Sims. He has been called the father of modern gynecology. In recent years, however, he has been rightly called out because <a href="https://www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves" target="_blank" rel="noopener">his research</a> was conducted on enslaved black women without anesthesia. It took decades, but the truth finally came out.
Today, in the midst of our abortion debates, Gen Z also needs to know the truth about Planned Parenthood. 
Despite being presented as a compassionate progressive leader, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was also a vicious racist. Although pro-abortion advocates have defended her for years as a product of her time (the same defense used with Sims), the truth is that Sanger was a radical, even for 1930s America. Indeed, her purpose in founding Planned Parenthood and her mission in life was to destroy the black race. As she wrote in a <a href="https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1939 letter to Clarence Gamble</a>: 
<blockquote>“We don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the [African American] minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”</blockquote>
Clarence Gamble spent his life and family fortune promoting eugenics. He passed his beliefs on to his son Richard Gamble, as well as his son’s wife, the aforementioned Nicki Nichols Gamble who debated Dr. Jefferson in 1977 and was even so bold as to suggest on air that abortion helps low-income women.
Then, and for the rest of her life, Dr. Jefferson stood up to the racist abortionists targeting her community and fought tenaciously for the lives of black babies. She went on to help form and lead Massachusetts Citizens for Life and found the Right to Life Crusade, Inc. She is a hero, deserves her place in history, and most importantly, needs to be remembered today.
Public pressure for change can make a difference. In 2018, for instance, the New York City Public Design Commission voted unanimously to remove Sims’ statue from its prominent location in Central Park. Likewise, in 2020 Planned Parenthood of Greater New York removed Margaret Sanger’s name from its building.
And yet, the business of Sanger’s Planned Parenthood — “exterminate[ing] the Negro population”— continues. In 2016, more black babies were <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-talk-about-the-black-abortion-rate-1531263697" target="_blank" rel="noopener">killed by abortion</a> than were born in New York City. This is no accident, of course. 
Ramona Treviño, a former manager of a Planned Parenthood clinic, <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/249604/reversing-roe-hispanic-pro-life-leader-ramona-trevino" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in 2021 that her former employer targets Hispanics and African Americans. Indeed, at a director’s meeting, she even discovered Planned Parenthood has abortion quotas.
So, simply removing Sanger’s name from the building is insufficient. Dr. Jefferson wouldn’t have been satisfied by the Left’s attempts to erase history. And we shouldn’t be either.
Listen to her words from 2003: 
<blockquote>“I am at once a physician, a citizen and a woman, and I am not willing to stand aside and allow this concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged and the planned have the right to live.”</blockquote>
It is time for America to put an end to Sanger’s institution of eugenics. It won’t be easy — Planned Parenthood is a well-funded force. But it wasn’t easy for Mildred Jefferson either.
As legislation on abortion continues to be on the ballot in statehouses across the counties, those who fight for life would do well to remember her example. Although the Left may label standing up for life as racist, fascist, right-wing extremism, the truth is that it’s simply the right thing to do.
Raychel Namiotka is a Digital Workplace Analyst for Information Technology at The Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

US-POLITICS-JUSTICE-RIGHTS-ABORTION

Why We Must Expose Planned Parenthood’s Racist Roots

Abortion

Margaret Sanger

New York City

Planned Parenthood

Pro-Life Movement

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/harvard" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Harvard</a> is the worst university in America when it comes to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/free-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">free speech</a>, according to an annual report released Wednesday by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). 
The <a href="https://rankings.thefire.org/rank" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> ranked 248 college campuses nationwide, analyzing factors from speech codes to reactions to guest speakers. It included a survey of roughly 55,000 college students. Harvard, one of the nation’s top law schools, scored a zero out of 100, the lowest score ever recorded, according to FIRE. 
“Each year, the climate on college campuses grows more inhospitable to free speech,” <a href="https://www.thefire.org/news/new-2024-college-free-speech-rankings-show-alarming-81-success-rate-deplatforming-attempts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> FIRE Director of Polling and Analytics Sean Stevens. “Some of the most prestigious universities in our country have the most repressive administrations. Students should know that a college degree at certain schools may come at the expense of their free speech rights.”
Harvard’s speech climate was ranked as “abysmal” after FIRE surveyed more than 200 students about their experience at the Ivy League School. One student from the class of 2023 reportedly <a href="https://rankings.thefire.org/rank">said</a> that they were required to start every class stating their pronouns, while another said they were afraid to be open about their opinions. 
“I often avoid posting controversial takes on social media tied to my name because I am afraid that they might be misconstrued by my classmates or admin,” a student from the class of 2024 reportedly said. 
Other schools joining Harvard at the bottom of the free speech rankings included the University of Texas (Austin), Dartmouth College, Duquesne University, Northwestern University, Skidmore College, Fordham University, Georgetown University, the University of South Carolina, and the University of Pennsylvania.
According to the survey, up to 72% of all students surveyed said conservative speakers should not be welcome on campus. Stanford University, where a Trump-appointed judge was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/stanford-president-law-school-dean-apologize-to-judge-after-verbal-assault-on-campus" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shouted down</a> by students earlier this year while attempting to deliver a speech on campus, ranked 207 out of 248 overall, and 237 for disruptive conduct. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
The best schools, according to the survey, were Michigan Technological University, Auburn University, the University of New Hampshire, Oregon State University, Florida State University, the University of Virginia, Texas A&amp;M University, George Mason University, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and the University of Colorado Boulder. 
“We are very pleased to see that a number of university presidents are taking the issue of freedom of speech and academic freedom seriously by signing on to free speech initiatives,” said FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. “However, they have a long way to go toward restoring public trust. After all, an environment in which you can actually get in trouble for the ‘wrong’ academic opinion is not one that can be depended upon to produce reliable knowledge. It’s especially disturbing that some of the worst performing institutions are among America’s most influential schools, including Harvard, Georgetown, Northwestern and Dartmouth.”

Dunster House dormitory with clock tower, Harvard University

‘Abysmal’: Harvard Places Dead Last In Annual College Free Speech Rankings

Harvard Places Dead Last In Annual College Free Speech Rankings

Education

Stanford University

U.S.

The Biden administration released new guidance on Monday for higher education institutions to legally consider a student&#8217;s race during admission in the wake of the U.S. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-issues-landmark-ruling-on-affirmative-action-at-universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court ban on affirmative action</a>.
&#8220;This is a moment of great urgency in higher education,&#8221; Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/white-house-promotes-paths-to-college-diversity-after-gutting-of-affirmative-action/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> reporters Monday morning.
Just before the nation&#8217;s highest court broke for recesses at the end of June, SCOTUS issued a landmark ruling that said race-based admissions programs at Harvard University violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the University of North Carolina programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Students for Fair Admissions sued the elite schools, accusing them of unfairly factoring race into their admissions processes, pointing to the high test scores of rejected Asian-American and white applicants. The group argued that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination by schools that receive federal funding. In the other case, the group accused the UNC of violating the 14th Amendment&#8217;s equal protection clause by considering race in its admissions process.
&#8220;We know what has happened at colleges when individual states have banned affirmative action in the past,&#8221; Cardona reportedly said during a press call on Monday. &#8220;Fewer students of color applied, and fewer students of color were admitted. We cannot afford that kind of backpedaling on a national scale.&#8221;
The decision now profoundly affects the admissions processes at universities across the country. But despite the nation&#8217;s highest court eliminating universities&#8217; ability to accept applicants based on race, some have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/universities-react-to-scotus-affirmative-action-ruling-harvard-vows-to-find-loophole" target="_blank" rel="noopener">indicated</a> that they would search for a loophole in the ruling.
&#8220;Although this decision changes the landscape for admissions in higher education, it should not be used as an excuse to turn away from long-standing efforts to make those institutions more inclusive,&#8221; associate attorney general Vanita Gupta <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2023/08/14/biden-administration-issues-guidance-affirmative-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> said at a news conference. &#8220;Race can be relevant to a person&#8217;s life or a lived experience, and may impact one&#8217;s development motivations, academic interests or personal or professional aspirations. That impact can still be considered.&#8221;
The Department of Education and the Department of Justice published <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocr-questionsandanswers-tvi-20230814.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">guidance</a> outlining available legal resources for colleges and universities to take other steps to achieve a diverse student body based on a range of factors, including race and ethnicity.
According to the question and answer portion of the document, federal officials said the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision &#8220;does not require institutions to ignore race when identifying prospective students for outreach and recruitment, provided that their outreach and recruitment programs do not provide targeted groups of prospective students preference in the admissions process.&#8221;
Some examples federal officials detailed include offering affinity clubs with race-related themes, considering how an applicant&#8217;s race has shaped personal experiences, and re-evaluating admissions preferences for students with legacy status or donor affiliation.
&#8220;With respect to admissions practices themselves, especially for the upcoming cycle, the Departments encourage colleges and universities to review their policies to ensure they identify and reward those attributes that they most value, such as hard work, achievement, intellectual curiosity, potential and determination,&#8221; the administration wrote in the &#8220;Dear Colleague&#8221; <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20230814.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a>.
Attorney General Merrick Garland told the Associated Press in a <a href="https://apnews.com/article/affirmative-action-college-admissions-race-e8566608a1b9ce4efc7db6de41759ad1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a>, &#8220;Ensuring access to higher education for students from different backgrounds is one of the most powerful tools we have to prepare graduates to lead an increasingly diverse nation and make real our country&#8217;s promise of opportunity for all.&#8221;
Students for Fair Admissions has not responded to requests for comment.

US President Joe Biden White House Reproductive Healthcare Access

Biden Administration Issues Racial Diversity Guidance For College Admissions Post SCOTUS Affirmative Action Ban

Affirmative Action

Biden Administration

Department of Education

Department of Justice

Supreme Court

Columbia Law School removed a questionable admission requirement for transfer students on Monday after <a href="https://freebeacon.com/campus/columbia-law-school-said-it-would-require-applicants-to-submit-video-statements-in-the-wake-of-affirmative-action-ban-then-it-backtracked/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Washington Free Beacon</a> inquired that the application process appeared to have a portion used to bypass the U.S. Supreme Court ban on affirmative action.
Just before SCOTUS broke for recesses at the end of June, a landmark ruling from the court said race-based admissions programs at Harvard University violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the University of North Carolina programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The decision now profoundly affects the admissions processes at universities across the country.
But despite the nation&#8217;s highest court eliminating universities&#8217; ability to accept applicants based on race, some have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/universities-react-to-scotus-affirmative-action-ruling-harvard-vows-to-find-loophole" target="_blank" rel="noopener">indicated</a> that they would search for a loophole in the ruling.
On Monday morning, Columbia Law School&#8217;s admissions page reportedly said all transfer applicants must submit a 90-second video statement addressing random questions &#8220;to provide the Admissions Committee with additional insight into their personal strengths,&#8221; according to the Free Beacon.
But the video statements from transfer applicants only appeared on the law school&#8217;s website after the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action policies.
Columbia&#8217;s decision &#8220;has all the hallmarks of a willful effort to evade the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,&#8221; Edward Blum, the founder of the nonprofit legal advocacy organization Students for Fair Admissions, told the Free Beacon. &#8220;What is a 90-second video supposed to legitimately convey that a written statement could not?&#8221;
Blum&#8217;s organization took the legal challenge to the nation&#8217;s highest court after accusing the so-called elite universities of unfairly factoring race into their admissions processes. The group pointed to the high test scores of rejected Asian American and white applicants. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Harvard and UNC.
Following the Free Beacon&#8217;s report, a law school spokesman claimed the application&#8217;s video statement component — which was first introduced before the Supreme Court ruling in a pilot program — had been a misunderstanding. By 6:00 p.m. on Monday, officials removed the portion from the school&#8217;s website.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;Video statements will not be required as part of the Fall 2024 J.D. application when it becomes available in September,&#8221; the law school told the Free Beacon in a statement. &#8220;It was inadvertently listed on the Law School&#8217;s website and has since been corrected.&#8221;
Campus Reform, a watchdog group, reported that some colleges have drummed up other ways to inquire about a students&#8217; race, including Sarah Lawrence College in New York, which asks applicants how the SCOTUS ruling has personally affected them, according to the <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/08/01/columbia-university-claims-video-requirement-on-application-was-an-accident/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York Post</a>.
&nbsp;

Sumpreme Court Rules Affirmative Action Is Unconstitutional In Landmark Decision

Columbia Law School Removes Application Requirement From Website After Report Exposes ‘Willful Effort To Evade’ Affirmative Action Ban

Columbia Law School Removes Application Requirement From Website After Report Exposes 'Willful Effort To Evade' Affirmative Action Ban: Report

SCOTUS

University of North Carolina

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/fbi" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FBI</a> said that it discovered 40 skulls and other human bones during a raid on a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/kentucky" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kentucky</a> man’s residence in connection to the alleged trafficking of human remains <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woman-demands-harvard-return-her-mothers-remains-after-dads-body-parts-allegedly-sold-on-black-market" target="_blank" rel="noopener">linked to Harvard Medical School</a>.
The FBI made the grisly discovery when it raided the residence of James Nott in Mount Washington, Kentucky, on Tuesday, and found spinal cords, femurs, and hip bones, in addition to the skulls, <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/only-dead-friends-kentucky-man-235413366.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to the Courier-Journal. 
According to investigators, Nott said “only my dead friends,” were home when asked by FBI agents present at the raid. Investigators said that the human bones were used as decorations throughout the residence, which was raided in connection to an alleged international and domestic body part trafficking scheme linked to Harvard and an Arkansas mortuary. 
Nott is accused of using a fake name to sell human remains that he obtained from around the world. He allegedly used the name of a 19th-century serial killer, “William Burke,” to sell the bones on Facebook. 
After the raid, Nott was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. &#8220;The felon in possession of a firearm offense charged in today’s complaint, arose from a federal search warrant executed at Nott’s residence today, in connection with a search for firearms and trafficked human remains,&#8221; the Department of Justice said in a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdky/pr/bullitt-county-man-arrested-and-charged-possession-firearm-convicted-felon?fbclid=IwAR36zPI0JxWPgjjyLIBWDS0mHRC7rhIRf_Pbj8_jvffNJiK9OB4gN547DZU" target="_blank" rel="noopener">press release</a>. 
The <a href="https://www.kmov.com/app/2023/07/13/fbi-finds-stolen-human-remains-used-decorations-ky-mans-home/?utm_source=fark&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_content=link&amp;ICID=ref_fark" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criminal complaint</a> against Nott says that law enforcement officers viewed his Facebook page and saw him “post human remains for sale on Facebook as recently as June 23.” 
The raid <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woman-demands-harvard-return-her-mothers-remains-after-dads-body-parts-allegedly-sold-on-black-market" target="_blank" rel="noopener">comes after</a> federal prosecutors said that several people stole and sold human remains, including brains and skin, from Harvard Medical School’s morgue. A grand jury indicted Cedric Lodge, 55, the morgue manager, and his wife in the criminal plot, which lasted from 2018 to earlier this year, according to a criminal complaint.
A Harvard Medical School bag was found at Nott’s residence, investigators said. 
Lodge is accused of taking some of the remains that were supposed to be cremated to his Goffstown, New Hampshire, home and selling them to people in other states. 
A total of eight people have so far been <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12296585/FBI-raid-uncovers-40-skulls-hip-bones-spinal-cords-linked-Harvard-body-trafficking-scandal.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">charged</a> in the case, spanning several states. Nott was accused of coordinating sales of remains with Jeremy Pauley, of Pennsylvania. 
“Some crimes defy understanding,” <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/pr/six-charged-trafficking-stolen-human-remains" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> United States Attorney Gerard M. Karam. “The theft and trafficking of human remains strikes at the very essence of what makes us human. It is particularly egregious that so many of the victims here volunteered to allow their remains to be used to educate medical professionals and advance the interests of science and healing. For them and their families to be taken advantage of in the name of profit is appalling. With these charges, we are seeking to secure some measure of justice for all these victims.&#8221;

Screen Shot 2023-07-14 at 12.03.46 PM

40 Skulls Found In Kentucky Residence In Connection To Human Remains Trafficking Scheme: FBI

Crime

Kentucky

If you’re a Harvard student signed up to take an introductory coding course this fall, an AI chatbot might be one of your instructors. 
Beginning in the fall semester, one of Harvard University’s flagship coding courses, CS50: Introduction to Computer Science, will implement artificial intelligence in the instruction of its students, The Harvard Crimson <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/6/21/cs50-artificial-intelligence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. The chatbot will assist students, but a professor will still be the main instructor in the course.
“Our own hope is that, through AI, we can eventually approximate a 1:1 teacher:student ratio for every student in CS50, as by providing them with software-based tools that, 24/7, can support their learning at a pace and in a style that works best for them individually,” Professor David Malan, who instructs CS50, told the newspaper.
The AI chatbot will answer questions, assist in finding bugs in students’ code, and explain coding error messages, Malan told the paper. The chatbot will be “similar in spirit” to ChatGPT and help both professors and students, the New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/06/30/harvard-to-roll-out-ai-professors-in-flagship-coding-class-for-fall-semester/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reports</a>. Instead of simply handing the answer to students, Malan insists the tech will be “leading students toward an answer” and won’t give “outright solutions.” 
The answers the chatbot gives students can also be reviewed by human course staff, the newspaper says. This feature is in its beta testing stage during the summer course. 
Malan conceded that artificial intelligence does make cheating easier and more anonymous for students, but says that using technology to cheat is nothing new. “Better, then, to weave all the more emphasis on ethics into a course so that students learn, through guidance, how to navigate these new waters,” Malan said. 
The course has always implemented software, Malan says, but the addition of artificial intelligence is an “evolution of that tradition.” Not everyone thinks this evolution is a good thing, though. Martin Rand, co-founder and CEO of software company PactumAI, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/ivy-league-university-teach-students-ai-chatbot-fall-evolution-tradition" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> of the downsides of the new development at Harvard. 
&#8220;I would say the dangers are that we have to consider that these are statistical models. These will come up with most probable answers and high probability can also mean mediocrity,” Rand told Fox in an interview. “So professors need to be there to provide exceptionalism, and I think Harvard has taken the right approach in providing this only to introductory courses.&#8221;
Malan said he doesn’t expect the chatbot to be without issues in the fall semester, telling the Crimson that it will “underperform or even err.” 
“We’ll make clear to students that they should always think critically when taking in information as input, be it from humans or software,” Malan said, adding that the technology will continue to improve with student and faculty feedback.

Harvard University Campus

AI Chatbot To Help Teach Intro Course At Harvard This Fall

Artificial Intelligence

Computer

Civil rights activists angered by the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-issues-landmark-ruling-on-affirmative-action-at-universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">striking down</a> affirmative action in college admissions are suing Harvard over legacy admissions, arguing the practice gives mostly white children of wealthy alumni an advantage over minorities. 
After the high court ruled against the race-based admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina last week, Lawyers for Civil Rights, a Boston nonprofit, filed a lawsuit Monday on behalf of the black and Latino communities in New England, alleging Harvard’s legacy admissions violate the Civil Rights Act, the Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/article/legacy-admissions-affirmative-action-colleges-4a4e1191274e91e695e0631ff5156875">reported</a>.  
“Why are we rewarding children for privileges and advantages accrued by prior generations?” said Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, the executive director at Lawyers for Civil Rights. “Your family’s last name and the size of your bank account are not a measure of merit, and should have no bearing on the college admissions process.”
From 2014-2019, Harvard had an <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/5/25/legacy-admissions-sffa-commencement/">acceptance rate</a> of 6% but enrolled 33% of legacy applicants and nearly 47% of applicants who were children of faculty or staff. Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons defended the long-lasting practice in March, saying legacy status gives students a “slight tip” in the admissions process.  
Those who supported affirmative action argued that the race-based admissions policy helped counterbalance the Ivy League school’s legacy admissions, which critics say gives preference to the wealthy elite. A bipartisan chorus of politicians, including President Joe Biden and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), have called for an end to legacy admissions after the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action. 
Biden urged universities to rethink legacy admissions, <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/legacy-college-admissions-under-scrutiny-again-after-supreme-court-ruling-on-affirmative-action">arguing</a> that they “expand privilege instead of opportunity.” 
During an appearance on Fox News, Sen. Scott <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4074428-tim-scott-calls-on-universities-to-end-legacy-admissions/">criticized</a> admissions policies that he says give “preferential treatment” to certain people.
“I think the question is how do you continue to create a culture where education is the goal for every single part of our community?” Scott asked. “One of the things that Harvard could do to make that even better is to eliminate any legacy programs where they have preferential treatment for legacy kids, not allow for the professors — their kids to come to Harvard as well.”
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch also targeted legacy admissions in a concurring opinion after voting with conservatives against affirmative action, <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/6/30/legacy-scrutiny-sffa-harvard/">saying</a> the process “undoubtedly benefit[s] white and wealthy applicants the most.”
“Its preferences for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty are no help to applicants who cannot boast of their parents’ good fortune or trips to the alumni tent all their lives,” Gorsuch wrote.

Harvard Affirmative Action Protest

Harvard Sued Over Legacy Admissions After Activists Angered By Affirmative Action Ruling

Courts

Despite scenes of protest and statements of disapproval from the leadership of colleges and universities across the country, the majority of Americans are supportive of the recent Supreme Court decision restricting race-based college admissions. 
According to a new ABC News/Ipsos <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/americans-split-recent-supreme-court-decisions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">poll</a> conducted after the High Court’s decision on Thursday, 52% of Americans believe the ruling against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action policies was the right one. On the other hand, 32% of Americans disapprove of the decision, while 16% are unsure, ABC News <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-approve-supreme-court-decision-restricting-race-college/story?id=100580375" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. 
The poll found that the vast majority of Republicans, 75%, and most independents, 58%, agree with Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett on race-based admissions. Just 26% of Democrats feel the same way, according to the poll. 
Broken down along racial lines, most white people, 60%, think the decision was the right one, while 58% of Asians agree. Among Hispanics, 40% approve and 40% disapprove, and 52% of black people disapprove of the Court&#8217;s decision. 
However, the poll found that roughly two-thirds of Americans believe Asian and white students have a “fair chance” of admission into the college of their choice, while that number is 50% for Hispanic students and 47% for black students, according to ABC. 
“Most white Americans believe that people of all racial backgrounds have a fair chance to get into the college of their choice,” the Ipsos <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/americans-split-recent-supreme-court-decisions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">page</a> revealing the results said. “Compare that to Black Americans, most of whom believe that Black people have an unfair disadvantage. Similarly, a significant minority of Latino Americans believes people of their ethnic group have an unfair disadvantage.”
On Thursday, the Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-issues-landmark-ruling-on-affirmative-action-at-universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> that the race-based admissions programs at Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The court voted six to three in the University of North Carolina case and six to two in the Harvard case. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Harvard graduate and former Harvard board member, recused herself from the Harvard case.
Hundreds of universities that consider race in admissions and scholarship decisions will now have to find non-race-related ways to replace affirmative action.
The poll also discovered that more Americans than not support the Supreme Court striking down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan last week. Forty-five percent of Americans back the Court’s decision, while 40% believe the president had the authority to forgive federally-subsidized student loans. 
Additionally, 43% of Americans believe the Supreme Court made the right call in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-christian-graphic-designer-who-refused-to-work-on-same-sex-weddings" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> ruled that</a> Lorie Smith could not be forced by state civil rights law to design websites that run counter to her sincerely-held religious beliefs. Forty-two percent of Americans believe that was the wrong decision, and 14% said they didn’t know, the poll found. 
Mairead Elordi contributed to this report.

Most Americans Support Supreme Court Decision On Affirmative Action: Poll

In the immediate aftermath of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. Supreme Court</a> ending affirmative action in higher education on Thursday, colleges across the country rushed to explain how they will &#8220;comply&#8221; with the law while still ensuring that future accepted classes have the preferred racial makeup.
In short, colleges are going to get a lot more creative in the way that they racially discriminate against whites and Asians.
For example, the University of North Carolina Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Carolina+remains+firmly+committed+to+bringing+together+talented+students+with+different+perspectives+and+life+experiences+and+continues+to+make+an+affordable%2C+high-quality+education+accessible+to+the+people+of+North+Carolina+and+beyond.&amp;rlz=1C5GCEM_enUS998US998&amp;oq=Carolina+remains+firmly+committed+to+bringing+together+talented+students+with+different+perspectives+and+life+experiences+and+continues+to+make+an+affordable%2C+high-quality+education+accessible+to+the+people+of+North+Carolina+and+beyond.&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57.156j0j4&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">explained</a>, “Carolina remains firmly committed to bringing together talented students with different perspectives and life experiences and continues to make an affordable, high-quality education accessible to the people of North Carolina and beyond.”
“While not the outcome we hoped for, we will carefully review the Supreme Court’s decision and take any steps necessary to comply with the law,” Guskiewicz added, echoing many other schools across the country.
But for conservatives hoping that means that the Tar Heels and other institutes of learning are going to adopt color-blind policies and accept based on merit and character — then you haven&#8217;t been paying attention to how the Left operates.
As explained by The Federalist founder Sean Davis, &#8220;Bolshevik madrassas masquerading as universities will eliminate admissions criteria that highlight differences in intelligence and ability &#8212; GPA, test scores, and academic achievements will no longer be evaluated.&#8221;
Indeed, many under-grad and post-grad schools have begun eliminating standardized testing, as <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2022/11/15/more-than-80-of-four-year-colleges-wont-require-standardized--tests-for-fall-2023-admissions/?sh=30c226d87fb9" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one example</a>.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;Universities will claim a new, holistic approach to applicant evaluation so they can discriminate based on identity, but without obvious academic comparisons that make it easy to prove they&#8217;re discriminating against qualified candidates because of their race,&#8221; he explained.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
What comes next? Not merit-based university admissions. Instead, we&#39;ll see the opposite.
Bolshevik madrassas masquerading as universities will eliminate admissions criteria that highlight differences in intelligence and ability &#8212; GPA, test scores, and academic achievements will… <a href="https://t.co/tzwdvyU7Rs">https://t.co/tzwdvyU7Rs</a>
&mdash; Sean Davis (@seanmdav) <a href="https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1674423323097456641?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In fact, though, universities already are pretty creative at racial discrimination.
On Thursday, activist Chris Rufo tweeted, &#8220;Berkeley Law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky explains how he has secretly enacted a policy of racial discrimination in faculty hiring—which is illegal in California.&#8221;
&#8220;If I&#8217;m ever deposed, I&#8217;m going to deny I said this to you,&#8221; Chemerinsky said while explaining the unspoken agreement amongst his colleagues to enact &#8220;unstated affirmative action.&#8221;
&#8220;What if the college or university doesn&#8217;t tell anybody that, doesn&#8217;t make any public statements &#8230; about how it uses race in admissions?&#8221; he posited to a group.
His ultimate lesson was that if you&#8217;re choosing a candidate for a job or a spot in an incoming class because they will add &#8220;diversity,&#8221; don&#8217;t ever actually say that motive out loud.
&#8220;You can think it, you can vote it,&#8221; he <a href="https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1674548940522549248." target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>, but saying it out loud could open the university up to legal issues.
So, colleges in the years to come will follow a similar route. And, as pointed out by The Blaze&#8217;s Auron MacIntyre, must be met with legal action from conservatives.
&#8220;This ruling means nothing if conservatives aren&#8217;t suing these institutions into oblivion, if Republican DOJs and AGs aren&#8217;t hitting them relentlessly,&#8221; he tweeted. &#8220;If conservatives just point and sputter as universities circumvent the ruling it will be entirely empty.&#8221;
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1awozwy r-18u37iz r-1wbh5a2 r-dnmrzs">
<div class="css-901oao r-1awozwy r-18jsvk2 r-6koalj r-1qd0xha r-a023e6 r-b88u0q r-rjixqe r-bcqeeo r-1udh08x r-3s2u2q r-qvutc0" dir="ltr">MacIntyre also <a href="https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1674426766562316288?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">correctly noted</a> that it&#8217;s unlikely that the GOP will be up to that task. (Party leaders will probably send some strongly worded letters though&#8230;So we got that going for us, which is nice.)
That means that this form of racism will continue. It won&#8217;t be called affirmative action though.The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
</div>
</div>

Harcard affirmative action

Higher Education Will Still Racially Discriminate — But It’ll Be More Creative

Higher Education Will Still Racially Discriminate — But It'll Be More Creative

Racism

Chief Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-roberts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Roberts</a> delivered a scathing response to the liberal justices in Thursday&#8217;s Affirmative Action decision, accusing them of burying a power grab in the dissents penned by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, with Justice Elena Kagan concurring.
Roberts <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23864238-affirmative-action-ruling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">addressed the dissent</a> on page 46 of his opinion, saying that the Justices had divorced the case from the context in a concerted effort to make the Court the arbiter of which race[s] were entitled to preferential treatment.
&#8220;The principal dissent wrenches our case law from its context, going to lengths to ignore the parts of that law it does not like. The serious reservations that Bakke, Grutter, and Fisher had about racial preferences go unrecognized,&#8221; Roberts began. &#8220;The unambiguous requirements of the Equal Protection Clause — &#8216;the most rigid,&#8217; &#8216;searching&#8217; scrutiny it entails — go without note.&#8221;
&#8220;And the repeated demands that race-based admissions programs must end go overlooked — contorted, worse still, into a demand that such programs never stop,&#8221; Roberts continued. &#8220;Most troubling of all is what the dissent must make these omissions to defend: a judiciary that picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin. While the dissent would certainly not permit university programs that discriminated against black and Latino applicants, it is perfectly willing to let the programs here continue. In its view, this Court is supposed to tell state actors when they have picked the right races to benefit. Separate but equal is &#8216;inherently unequal,&#8217; said Brown. 347 U. S., at 495 (emphasis added). It depends, says the dissent.&#8221;
The Chief Justice went on to attack the liberal justices&#8217; apparent attempt to reserve for the Court the power to choose which race[s] deserve such beneficial treatment, saying it was so egregious that it mirrored decisions rendered before the &#8220;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/books/review/the-second-founding-eric-foner.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Second Founding</a>&#8221; &#8212; when the post-Civil-War-era 14th Amendment and the included Equal Protection Clause put an end to the Court&#8217;s freedom to do so.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;That is a remarkable view of the judicial role—remarkably wrong,&#8221; Roberts said. &#8220;Lost in the false pretense of judicial humility that the dissent espouses is a claim to power so radical, so destructive, that it required a Second Founding to undo. &#8216;Justice Harlan knew better,&#8217; one of the dissents decrees. &#8230; Indeed he did: &#8216;[I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.&#8217; Plessy, 163 U. S., at 559 (Harlan, J., dissenting).&#8221;

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Group Photo

Chief Justice Roberts Accuses Liberal Justices Of Power Grab In Affirmative Action Opinion

Clarence Thomas

John Roberts

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Menu