In an act of heroic defiance against the oppressive tyranny of Donald Trump, the leadership of Harvard University has bravely declared that, no matter what pressure Trump brings against them, they will not surrender their constitutional right to be the worst people in the country.
The conflict between the university and the administration began after hundreds of Harvard students flooded the campus calling for genocide against the Jews. Further investigation suggested the students may have picked up their antisemitic ideas from what they learned in such Harvard classes as Studies in Antisemitism in which the final exam required students to flood the campus and call for genocide against the Jews. Finally, then-Harvard president Claudine Gay refused to denounce the antisemitic actions and was forced to resign when the board discovered she wasn’t really gay, that just happened to be her name.
Trump reacted cruelly, threatening to deprive Harvard of billions of dollars in federal funding if the University administration does not at least try to demonstrate they possess something vaguely resembling human decency. In order to keep the federal dollars flowing, Trump says, Harvard’s leadership and faculty would have to (one) stop hating Jews, (two), stop teaching their students to hate Jews and (three), hire professors who will introduce students to ideas other than hating Jews or at least hint that such ideas exist or at least refrain from screaming at the students and calling them names when they wonder aloud whether such ideas might exist or if the whole intellectual world resembles the flaming hate-filled hellscape of Harvard University.
But Harvard’s current President, Adolf Ratbag, declares that he absolutely refuses to let a fascist like Trump bully him into humane behavior. In a statement that sounded better in the original German, President Ratbag shook his fist at Shlomo Judenstein, an invisible imaginary enemy who has followed him around since childhood, and shouted, “In a free society, our greatest university cannot compromise our right to sink into a morass of intellectual degradation based on false premises. We have a sacred responsibility to mold America’s best and brightest into dark, gnarled souls reminiscent of images of the damned in medieval paintings of the Last Judgement. It was one thing when Obama insisted we deprive male students of their due process rights whenever they got accused of sexual malfeasance by some girl who once got so drunk she slept with the entire crew team. It was another thing when Biden declared that Title IX required us to give equal treatment to women and men who say they’re women and a pair of poodles who were dressed up in pink sweaters and adorable fluffy hats by a six-year-old who wanted to pretend they were women. At least, those demands were in keeping with our undying commitment to sexual perversity and moral turpitude. But when a thug like Trump demands we have to replace our sterling array of professors who are morally deformed leftist troglodytes with teachers dedicated to shaping young minds to the good, he has crossed the line. As far as we’re concerned, Trump would be worse than Adolf Hitler, if Adolf Hitler were a bad guy.”
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">WATCH: The Andrew Klavan Show</a></h3>
To further demonstrate the university’s heroically unyielding stance, Professor Ratbag released this year’s Harvard syllabus to the media. The syllabus promises that the university will continue to provide such classes as Western Civilization 101, What it is and how to destroy it; Introduction to Shakespeare and the King James Bible, How they can light our way if only we set them on fire; and Giving Up Whiteness, in which students will stop using any device invented by a white male beginning on the first day of class at noon and ending around 12:05 because, let’s face it, those bastards invented everything.
The Trump administration says it will continue to withhold funds until Harvard not only changes the syllabus, but also cancels a planned musical based on Mein Kampf and changes the school slogan back to “Veritas” instead of “Look Out, There’s a Jew Sneaking Up Behind You!”
Pledging resistance, President Ratbag and his administration have taken refuge in an underground bunker where they plan to watch the movie “Downfall” over and over in the hope it inspires them with some fresh ideas.
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Follow him on X: @andrewklavan
Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fourth installment, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1613165536?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_thcv_3&amp;storeType=ebooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Woman Underground.</a>” His most recent nonfiction release is “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cain-Finding-Literature-Darkness/dp/0310368340/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=nMYjR&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_p=bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_r=133-8344803-2786917&amp;pd_rd_wg=7a8J3&amp;pd_rd_r=5791ea0f-6d96-4732-9d6a-3a4e6b348bb5&amp;ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Kingdom of Cain: Finding God in the Literature of Darkness.</a>” (May 2025, Zondervan/HarperCollins).

TOPSHOT-US-ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN-CONFLICT-PROTEST

Harvard President, Adolf Ratbag, Refuses To Allow Trump To Bully Him Into Humane Behavior

Andrew Klavan

Anti-Semitism

Donald Trump

Harvard

Humor

Israel

Ivy League

Jewish

President Trump

Pro-Hamas

Satire

Harvard University said on Monday that it would not comply with President Donald Trump&#8217;s demand to dismantle its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and do more to curb student anti-Israel protests.
The Trump administration is currently reviewing around $9 billion in federal funding that Harvard receives and could move to cut those funds after the university&#8217;s pushback. Earlier this month, the Trump administration sent a list of demands to Harvard, including banning masks at protests and gutting DEI on campus. Last week, the Trump administration specified that it wants Harvard to abolish anti-Israel student groups and expel students who were involved in altercations during the 2023 anti-Israel protest on the campus.
Harvard shot back on Monday, with its president, Alan M. Garber, writing, &#8220;No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,&#8221; The Harvard Crimson <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/4/15/harvard-denies-trump-demands/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
Garber added, “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”
Lawyers representing the university also wrote a <a href="https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Harvard-Response-2025-04-14.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> to Trump administration officials, stating that &#8220;Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry in its community,&#8221; but arguing that Trump&#8217;s demands &#8220;circumvent Harvard’s statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies for alleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law.&#8221;
Anti-Israel protests hit Harvard&#8217;s campus in the wake of Hamas&#8217; October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel. The university was accused of ignoring antisemitism on campus, and in 2023, then-Harvard President Claudine Gay refused to say before Congress that calling for genocide against Jews violated Harvard’s rules. Earlier this year, Harvard <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/harvard-settles-two-anti-semitism-lawsuits-after-trump-sworn-in" target="_blank" rel="noopener">settled</a> two lawsuits that alleged the school mishandled antisemitism on campus.
In May of 2024, Harvard <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/harvard-takes-action-against-dozens-of-students-involved-in-anti-israel-encampment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">punished</a> dozens of students who took part in an anti-Israel protest and encampment, including blocking some students from graduating.
The Trump administration has zeroed in on Ivy League universities that have pushed DEI policies or have been hotbeds of anti-Israel sentiment. Last month, Trump revoked $400 million in federal funding from Columbia University. Columbia, however, has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/columbia-university-agrees-to-trumps-demands-to-ban-masks-empower-campus-police">agreed</a> to meet Trump&#8217;s demands and do more to push back against radical anti-Israel demonstrations and radicalization on campus.
Trump has also frozen funding for Cornell University, the University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, and Princeton University.

Harvard Rejects Trump’s Demands As White House Considers Yanking Billions In Federal Funding

antisemitism

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Education

Politics

Protests

Trump Administration

The <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/11/25/oved-president-harvard-republican-club-never-better/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original version</a> of this article ran in The Harvard Crimson on November 25, 2024. Republished with permission.
* * *
That just <a href="https://features.thecrimson.com/2021/freshman-survey/lifestyle-narrative/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">5.2 percent of my class</a> at Harvard admits to being Republican is no secret — it was the statistic published in The Crimson’s annual incoming freshman survey for the Class of 2025. But the fact that many of the remaining 94.8 percent actively try to ostracize and dissociate from conservatives on campus — while also not a secret — is vastly more disturbing.
In the wake of President-elect Donald Trump’s resounding victory on November 5, students took to social media platforms like Sidechat, an anonymous social media platform, to lambast their peers who simply voted for Trump.
“No matter who wins tonight, the fact that so many vote for Trump is f*cking terrifying,” read one post, which was upvoted by 407 Harvard students. Other students called conservatives at Harvard “freaks,” “misogynists,” “fascists,” and the “stupidest people on campus.” Some even told them to “unenroll please, it’s frankly embarrassing.” Most damning was a post which read “Accept the consequences of your beliefs. Want lower taxes, take social alienation.”
Notwithstanding these petty efforts to undermine and intimidate campus Republicans into suppressing their viewpoints, as president of the Harvard Republican Club, I can state unequivocally that it has never been a better time to be a Republican on campus.
Since my election as HRC President just one year ago, our student mailing list has grown exponentially from 100 to over 800 — more than 10 percent of Harvard’s student body. We’ve rolled out a <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/10/8/iop-launches-conservative-mentorship/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">career mentorship program</a> and an Alumni Advisory Board, we’ve significantly increased the number of events hosted, and we’ve dramatically increased the average attendees at these events over seven-fold from less than 20 to almost 150.
This rapid success is due, in no small part, to the HRC hosting a wide array of high-profile speakers who espouse views across the conservative ideological spectrum — from businessmen like PayPal co-founder Peter A. Thiel and <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/10/30/palantir-ceo-republican-club/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale</a> to former ambassadors like <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/11/8/trevor-traina-harvard-republicans/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Trevor Traina</a>, think tank leaders like Heritage Foundation President Kevin D. Roberts, former governors like Asa Hutchinson, former Secretary of Homeland Security Chad F. Wolf, and Cabinet nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ’76.
While I may not agree with every mentor or speaker’s opinion, their diverse perspectives and ideas reflect the broad, open-minded, and welcoming organization the HRC has built over the past year.
It was a similarly broad coalition that propelled Trump, whom we proudly <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/7/2/harvard-republican-club-donald-trump-endorsement/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">endorsed in July</a>, to a spectacularly decisive victory — a group of people with varied ideas about America’s future united behind their Republican identity.
Of course, the success of any political movement hinges on engaging others who may not agree with a cause, convincing them to ultimately view it positively.
This is particularly true at Harvard, where some of my peers have likely never actually engaged with a conservative. From their first year on campus, many often self-isolate into groups that reinforce their opinions. These students’ perceptions of conservatives are borne exclusively from what their media of choice feeds them, and thus our purportedly “educated” student body blindly associates Republicans with every negative “ism” they have been taught to embrace.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>
Over the past year, the HRC has seen a record number of self-identified Democrats attend our events and use our resources. We’ve facilitated important conversations across party lines (including a debate between Republicans and Democrats at Visitas) and brought a diverse set of perspectives to those who sought them out.
Our success — like the national Republican Party’s success — is contingent on a diverse coalition only possible when we embrace heterogenous opinions and allow for robust conversations. Just look at Trump’s new Cabinet: It includes many former Democrats, including Kennedy and Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii). Those surprised by Trump’s victory earlier this month might assume that Republican life at Harvard is dead. But that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Our events are more than well attended, our speakers top-tier, and our energy through the roof. And perhaps most importantly, many Republicans are willing to openly embrace their values on campus, despite the aforementioned social media posts.
I encourage those interested in stepping out of their comfort zone and challenging their preconceived notions about conservatives to take advantage of the movement we’ve built. Instead of attempts at name-calling, intimidation, and ostracization, seek out Republicans. Listen to what they believe. Heck, even argue with them if you want. But at least engage with their ideas on a meaningful level. You might just learn something.
* * *
Michael Oved ’25, an Economics concentrator in Adams house, is president of the Harvard Republican Club, and chair of the Conservative Coalition at the Institute of Politics.
The <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/11/25/oved-president-harvard-republican-club-never-better/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original version</a> of this article ran in The Harvard Crimson on November 25, 2024. Republished with permission.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Harvard University

I’m President Of The Harvard Republican Club. Being Republican At Harvard Has Never Been Better.

American Universities

College

Conservatives

Gen Z

Opinion

Republicans

Students

If there is one thing common to President Trump&#8217;s Cabinet picks, it is Newton&#8217;s third law of motion, which suggests that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Newton’s third law holds true in politics. For example, if you corrupt the DOJ, then President Trump is going to unleash Matt Gaetz. Or, if you corrupt HHS, he&#8217;s going to unleash Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
This political reactivity is leading to a bit of introspection on the part of the people who backed Kamala Harris, people who hate Donald Trump. The result is a wide variety of theories as to why exactly Democrats and the Left have lost their way in the United States.
One of the most prevalent theories is being brought out by David Brooks, a former pseudo-conservative columnist for the New York Times who ended up turning toward the Left. He famously suggested that he liked Barack Obama because he liked the crease of his pants or some such nonsense. But he&#8217;s also been responsible for some interesting social theories.
He has a piece on the cover of The Atlantic this week titled, “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/12/meritocracy-college-admissions-social-economic-segregation/680392/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How the Ivy League Broke America</a>.” In it, he discusses the death of meritocracy and suggests one of the reasons outsiders like Donald Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., or a wide variety of other figures have come into positions of power is a result of the failures of the so-called meritocracy. This is because Brooks has a perverse view of what meritocracy actually is.
Brooks does not believe that people who have merit ought to rise to the top in the natural evolutionary process by which people rise to the top. Instead, he is, like many members of the traditional Left, a technocrat. He believes in trying to construct systems in order to make the world a better place, rather than believing in living with the evolved systems of, say, free markets and free government. Instead, he considers himself an expert who can set up a system that will rule over hundreds of millions of people.
This is the actual plague of Western civilization. Over the course of the last century and a half, the movement from evolutionary structures of government and markets have moved toward a technocracy — a self-appointed coterie of elites — who are going to fix all problems.
In his essay, Brooks explains what he sees as the problem with the so-called meritocracy. But the problem he discusses isn’t meritocracy. He does not understand what a true meritocracy actually is. And very few people in politics, it seems, actually do.
The actual problem we are experiencing right now is the transformation of meritocracy — the idea that anyone can get ahead if they have merit — into a technocracy, ruled by an elite who reconstruct the entire society in their image. For Brooks, he isn’t solving the problem; he’s making it worse. Brooks wants to “better manage” the better managed system.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2089-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
It turns out that systems organically evolved to maximize actual merit, but we overthrew them in the name of a “better managed” system. Free markets maximize productivity and innovation; communitarian church systems maximize virtue and social bondedness. Government is a substitute for neither.
This is why colleges have collapsed. They were created in order to maximize both productivity and virtue.
The purpose of Columbia University was clear when it was founded as King’s College in 1754: <a href="https://spectatorarchive.library.columbia.edu/?a=d&amp;d=cs19200714-01.1.3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to its first president, William Samuel Johnson, “The chief Thing that is aimed at in this College is to teach and engage the Children to know God in Jesus Christ, and to love and serve him, in all Sobriety, Godliness, and Righteousness of Life, with a perfect Heart, and a willing Mind; and to train them up in all virtuous Habits, and all such useful Knowledge as may render them creditable to their Families and Friends, Ornaments to their Country, and useful to the public Weal in their Generations … that they may be qualified to make orderly and tractable Members of this Society.”
In short, Columbia University was designed to teach eternal truths; to pursue knowledge of Nature and Nature’s God; to create good citizens and good men. 
Now Columbia exists not to teach either productivity or Godliness, but to teach an elite set of values that confers membership of a self-appointed aristocracy. 
Brooks is not wrong in identifying a problem, but what he is railing against is not the failure of meritocracy; it is the failure of a technocracy that has been established over the course of the last century and a half — and it has failed the American people.
In The Atlantic, David Brooks writes:
<blockquote>In trying to construct a society that maximized talent, [James Conant] and his peers were governed by the common assumptions of the era: Intelligence, that highest human trait, can be measured by standardized tests and the ability to do well in school from ages 15 to 18. Universities should serve as society’s primary sorting system, segregating the smart from the not smart. Intelligence is randomly distributed across the population, so sorting by intelligence will yield a broad-based leadership class … eventually Conant’s vision triumphed and helped comprehensively refashion American life. If you control the choke points of social mobility, then you control the nation’s culture. And if you change the criteria for admission at places such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, then you change the nation’s social ideal.
Would we necessarily say that government, civic life, the media, or high finance work better now than in the mid-20th century? We can scorn the smug WASP blue bloods from Groton and Choate—and certainly their era’s retrograde views of race and gender—but their leadership helped produce the Progressive movement, the New Deal, victory in World War II, the Marshall Plan, NATO, and the postwar Pax Americana. After the meritocrats took over in the 1960s, we got quagmires in Vietnam and Afghanistan, needless carnage in Iraq, the 2008 financial crisis, the toxic rise of social media, and our current age of political dysfunction.</blockquote>
Brooks goes on to identify six sins of the so-called meritocracy.
The first sin: “The system overrates intelligence: The bottom line is that if you give somebody a standardized test when they are 13 or 18, you will learn something important about them, but not necessarily whether they will flourish in life, nor necessarily whether they will contribute usefully to society’s greater good. Intelligence is not the same as effectiveness.”
He is correct in that the system overrates technocratic bureaucratic intelligence. And we’ve tried to fix that by expanding the circle of the technocratic bureaucracy by saying that everyone should go to college. The problem is not elitism in this sense; the problem is the attempt to extend technocratic bureaucratic intelligence across the entirety of the American body politic. Markets would not make this mistake. The reality is that markets didn’t overrate intelligence. They adjusted for the differential qualities of all human beings. No man-made system can do that.
The second sin: “Success in school is not the same thing as success in life: Success in school is about jumping through the hoops that adults put in front of you; success in life can involve charting your own course.”
This is, yet again, true. But markets solve for that — which he continuously omits.
The third sin: “The game is rigged: The meritocracy was supposed to sort people by innate ability. But what it really does is sort people according to how rich their parents are. As the meritocracy has matured, affluent parents have invested massively in their children so they can win in the college-admissions arms race.”
Why is the college-admissions arms race what matters most? Realistically speaking, in a free market system, it isn&#8217;t. One of the great lies that people tell about economics in the United States is that there&#8217;s no income mobility, that everybody is stuck where they started. That isn&#8217;t true. But the free market system must be left alone for this to be true.
The fourth sin: “The meritocracy has created an American caste system: After decades of cognitive segregation, a chasm divides the well educated from the less well educated … The whole meritocracy is a system of segregation. Segregate your family into a fancy school district. If you’re a valedictorian in Ohio, don’t go to Ohio State; go to one of the coastal elite schools where all the smart rich kids are.”
Again, this is actually not the problem. It is, however, linked to his next point.
The fifth sin: “The meritocracy has damaged the psyches of the American elite: The meritocracy is a gigantic system of extrinsic rewards. Its gatekeepers—educators, corporate recruiters, and workplace supervisors—impose a series of assessments and hurdles upon the young. Students are trained to be good hurdle-clearers. We shower them with approval or disapproval depending on how they measure up on any given day. Childhood and adolescence are thus lived within an elaborate system of conditional love. Students learn to ride an emotional roller coaster—congratulating themselves for clearing a hurdle one day and demoralized by their failure the next. This leads to an existential fragility: If you don’t keep succeeding by somebody else’s metrics, your self-worth crumbles.”
He’s not talking about the right sort of psychic damage. The reality is not that our students are petrified of losing out in the college admissions game. The reality is that, again, the false meritocracy — the technocracy that&#8217;s been created — leads people who succeed to believe that they are members of a higher moral caste. They have a different set of values that if you put she/her pronouns in your bio; this makes you part of the coterie of the elite who are to rule society.
<h3><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH&#8217;S &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a></h3>
The sixth sin: “The meritocracy has provoked a populist backlash that is tearing society apart: Many people who have lost the meritocratic race have developed contempt for the entire system, and for the people it elevates. This has reshaped national politics.”
The fake meritocracy Brooks is discussing has created an American system, but not economically; rather, it has done so culturally. He’s making an economic critique rather than a cultural one, which is the actual major problem.
He says, in the end, we should redefine merit to include “curiosity, a sense of drive and mission, social intelligence, and agility.” He goes on, saying, “If the meritocracy had more channels, society would no longer look like a pyramid, with a tiny, exclusive peak at the top; it would look like a mountain range, with many peaks. Status and recognition in such a society would be more broadly distributed, diminishing populist resentment and making cultural cohesion more likely.”
This was called the free market. The problem in the United States is that we don&#8217;t have a true meritocracy anymore because people who believe they are smarter than everyone else constructed a system and then shoved people into that system.
Brooks concludes, stating that it is “your desires” that are “at the core of a person” — to which I argue that it is not just your desires. It is your duties. It is what you do in the world that should drive you to help others and contribute to your community — and your nation.

Johnston Gate – Harvard Yard – Harvard University – Cambridge Massachusetts

The Collapse Of The Elitists

Ben Shapiro

Columbia University

David Brooks

Elite

Leftists

The Atlantic

Woke Culture

In late June 2024, around 40 Iranian-Germans protested against Hossein Mousavian and his relations with the Körber Foundation in Hamburg. This think tank, founded by Kurt A. Körber, a member of the Nazi party who worked for Universelle-Werke J. C. Müller &amp; Co. and advanced Hitler’s war goals, had hosted Mousavian at a May breakfast event, but after a tide of criticism, the think tank deleted its X post. Körber embedded four photographs of people at the breakfast, including pictures from Mousavian. 
The Munich Security Conference and the Körber-Stiftung selected 7 people who work for the Islamic Republic’s Foreign Ministry as international participants to be their Munich Young Leaders fellowship in recent years.
What do these protesters have against Mousavian, a “Middle East specialist” at Princeton University? He can be followed in four cases: the consolidation of the ideology of terror, the supervisor of a terror project (24 killed) in Europe in the ’90s, the agent of the regime’s normalization while advancing its nuclear program, and his financial corruption (convicted) in Iran.
<h4>Propagandist</h4>
By just focusing on Mousavian&#8217;s activities in Resalat Daily between 1985 and 1990, I can show who he really is. During this period, he rarely wrote a piece under his name in this propaganda outlet, and the authors were mainly members of the Qom Seminary Instructors Association, members of the Mu`talfa Party, and people close to these hardliner groups. Other than these terror groups’ members, the rest of the content was published anonymously, with a pseudonym or under the title of the cultural or political section. These people were all followers of Khomeini who was anti-Semitic, anti-Baha&#8217;i, anti-women, and anti-LGBTQ.
<h4>Terror Regime, Terrorist Officials</h4>
In many cases, people look for evidence and documents for the problems in front of their eyes. We don&#8217;t need to provide any evidence for Mousavian to be an agent of the Islamist regime other than his positions in the last 45 years. He was and still is the agent of the Islamist terrorist regime. Even in Princeton, he has been promoting the regime’s nuclear agenda.
Considering the regime&#8217;s terrorist, brutal, and oppressive policies towards the Iranian people, the agency of this regime at high levels automatically turns a person into a criminal. Without contributions in complicity and cover-ups, people cannot be in the regime&#8217;s high-ranking positions. This alone is enough reason to fire Mousavian from Princeton. He is in Princeton to whitewash the crimes of the regime against humanity, and not to promote security and world peace.
In an outlet where Mousavian was on the editorial board (under the title of &#8220;central council&#8221; instead of the editorial board), this propaganda outlet was continuously promoting and praising terror and terrorism. Note that Fada’iyan (Devotees) of Islam, whose assassination actions were commemorated by this outlet, was a terrorist organization that assassinated two prime ministers. It also attempted to assassinate the Shah but failed. The Devotees of Islam also assassinated secular intellectuals such as Ahmad Kasravi. The Qom Seminary Instructors Association was the financier of terror activities and the provider of religious justifications for terror. Khomeini also supported these groups financially and ideologically.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1724361346607000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1ZhyOQfEkxcMH_D1Ago3CQ">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
During February and March of 1989, Resalat in one month, advertised and promoted Khomeini&#8217;s issuance of a fatwa on the killing of Salman Rushdie with big headlines every day. The editorials on 27 Bahman and 9 Esfand of 1367 (February 16 and 28, 1989, both probably under pseudonyms) fully defended the issuance of this fatwa, which is the outlet&#8217;s position and therefore Hossein Mousavian&#8217;s.
Contrary to popular belief, terrorism does not only happen when a group or individual shoots a political opponent, writer, or religious dissenter or presses the button to detonate a bomb. Terrorism is triggered when a religious scholar or political leader issues an order to eliminate the opposition or dissenters. The rest of the story is about the execution. The case of Salman Rushdie and his assassination four decades after Khomeini&#8217;s fatwa is a good example.
In this sense, Mousavian&#8217;s role in launching the Resalat and his responsibility in the Tehran Times, as a propagandist, promoter, and legitimizer of terrorism, is even more important than his role in the assassinations of dissidents in the 90s in Europe. Resalat has been a propaganda mouthpiece and not a newspaper in a free country. In a propaganda outlet, the materials and authors are selected in advance by the &#8220;central council&#8221; and every published article, piece, or news is aimed at advancing an agenda, plan, or narrative. Therefore, every member of the central council &#8211; like communist bulletins &#8211; is responsible for what is published in the outlet, and the responsibility of any article is not solely on the shoulders of the author. In a propaganda bulletin, the content is not just filtered through the council but what goes into the filter is pre-determined and ordered based on a specific political agenda.
Mousavian was the editor or chief editor (in some issues) of Resalat Daily which has been the pioneer of the narratives of elimination, purge, and executions. One of the outlet’s policies for which Mousavian is responsible as a member of its central council was the promotion of terrorism whether praising Suleiman Khater’s action, an Egyptian terrorist (January 28, 1986) or calling Prime Minister Mansour’s assassination a “revolutionary execution” (Badamchian’s piece, March 2, 1986; commemoration of the assassination day, January 20, 1986).
This outlet calls every assassination of the Pahlavi regime’s officials a “revolutionary execution.” During Mousavian’s work, the outlet arranged interviews with every terrorist or theoretician of terrorism who entered Iran, such as Ahmad Ra’if, one of the ideologues of the Muslim Brotherhood (February 16, 1987). Resalat constantly glorified Muslim terrorists inside and outside the country and still does so. This is its policy.
The following methods are used in the contents of this newspaper: dividing the world into those who dominate (non-Muslim) and those who are dominated (Muslim) in numerous op-eds and articles, attributing every issue during the Pahlavi dynasty to Western foreigners such as removing hijab, Bahaism, and homosexuality. According to the newspaper op-eds, America and Europe are responsible for starting the Iran-Iraq war, and the West is racist.
<h4>Underlying Method</h4>
Resalat Daily had a very clever way to promote terrorism and mass murder. This outlet prepared the mentality of the society for killing without informing. For example, on the subject of the 1988 massacre in prisons, it did not even provide a single line of news about this story during which 3,000-5,000 people were executed; but by publishing a series of articles under the title &#8220;Ghost of the Monster&#8221; subtitled &#8220;A narrative of the crimes of the hypocrite terrorist network” (an episode of it on August 6, 1988 under the pseudonym M-K, which is a security agent) tries to justify and legitimize the killing of members of the MEK organization.
Mousavi Ardebili, the head of the Supreme Court and imam of Tehran&#8217;s Friday Prayer, gave a speech about the necessity of removing and executing the opponents. Resalat published his anti-due process words in large fonts without any criticism. It is unlikely that the editors of the newspaper, including Hossein Mousavian, were unaware of the executions of thousands of opponents in prisons. In this sense, he is responsible for hiding the story. Resalat published Ardebili&#8217;s words on August 6, 1988. As a judiciary official, he asks the judicial authorities: &#8220;Why don&#8217;t you try and execute the MEK members?&#8221; He immediately puts aside the re-trial of the prisoners who have already been convicted in the kangaroo courts and says: &#8220;They don&#8217;t deserve a trial. Their sentence is death.&#8221;
In publishing these words, Mousavian did not question Friday Prayer leaders’ and the judicial officials’ statements in an editorial note. The editorial should have asked why the government executes previously convicted people without a trial. In the final days of the executions, Ali Khamenei said: &#8220;The Islamic Republic remains arrogant and will become stronger and more stable day by day,&#8221; (Resalat, August 27, 1988). In this case, no one in the newspaper asked him how the Islamic Republic is getting stronger day by day while it is busy killing.
<h4>Appeasing Appointment</h4>
The appointment of Hossein Mousavi at Princeton University violates all academic principles in the world. Beyond allocating an academic position without public ad and competition and considering academic qualifications, Mousavian has been placed in his position with the advice of politicians and financiers only because of his dark political records to be a deal maker in the nuclear agreement. This placement violated the academic and administrative independence of universities. Princeton&#8217;s decision-makers most likely agreed to such a ridiculous act only to gain more access to federal public resources or to increase their influence through the federal government channels. Mousavian did not have a scientific record before being hired, and his role was mostly as an intermediary for his respective government and advancing its interests.
Majid Mohammadi is an Iranian-American author, sociologist, and political analyst.
<div class="css-j7qwjs">
<div id="post-body-text">
<div class="e1nzmkc90 css-pvudsd">
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
</div>
</div>
</div>

Iran

Princeton Iranian Researcher Is For The Rushdie Fatwa, Prison Massacres, And Islamic Terrorism

anti-Israel

Princeton University

Radical Islamic Terror

Readers Pass

Cornell University President Martha Pollack announced her resignation on Thursday, becoming the third Ivy League school president to step down this year after being blasted for their handling of anti-Israel demonstrations that swept through college campuses.
Pollack said her decision to quit &#8220;is mine and mine alone,&#8221; saying her seven years of leading the university were &#8220;fruitful and gratifying,&#8221; The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/cornell-university-president-martha-pollack-retirement-13ff2f12" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. The Cornell president will officially resign on June 30, and Provost Michael I. Kotlikoff will serve as the interim president.
“I understand that there will be lots of speculation about my decision, so let me be as clear as I can: This decision is mine and mine alone. After seven fruitful and gratifying years as Cornell’s president—and after a career in research and academia spanning five decades—I’m ready for a new chapter in my life,” Pollack wrote in a letter.
With Pollack&#8217;s announcement, three Ivy League school presidents will have resigned within months of each other after facing calls to be fired over anti-Semitism going unchecked on the colleges&#8217; campuses. A fourth Ivy League president, Yale&#8217;s Peter Salovey, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/us/yale-president-resigns-peter-salovey.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> last September that he would step down after the 2023-2024 school year, meaning half of the universities in the Ivy League will be undergoing leadership changes.
In December, University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/penn-president-liz-magill-out-after-disturbing-remarks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">resigned</a> after she faced calls to step down following a disastrous testimony before Congress where she said that calls for genocide against Jews would only violate Penn&#8217;s code of conduct on bullying and harassment if &#8220;the speech turns into conduct.&#8221; Harvard University President Claudine Gay <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/claudine-gay-to-resign-as-harvard-president-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">resigned</a> a month later as allegations of anti-Semitism on the college campus mounted while she faced a plagiarism scandal.
Cornell has been the center of disturbing anti-Semitism following Hamas&#8217; attack on Israel on October 7. A Cornell student was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cornell-student-faces-5-years-in-prison-after-allegedly-making-online-threats-to-jewish-students-on-campus" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arrested</a> in October after allegedly making graphic violent threats against the Ivy League school&#8217;s Jewish community. Patrick Dai, 21, faces five years in prison after he allegedly posted on a discussion board calling for the death of Jewish people and threatening to carry out a shooting at a Cornell building that has a dining hall catering to Kosher diets.
Just a week after Hamas&#8217; terror attack against Israel, an associate professor in Cornell&#8217;s history department said in a speech in Ithaca, New York, that he found Hamas&#8217; murder of 1,200 people to be &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ivy-league-prof-takes-abrupt-sabbatical-after-cheerleading-exhilarating-hamas-attacks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exhilarating</a>.&#8221;
“It was exhilarating. It was exhilarating, it was energizing,” Cornell Professor Russell Rickford said. He later took a leave of absence and apologized for his “horrible choice of words.”
<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=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Earlier this year, Jon Lindseth — one of Cornell&#8217;s largest donors — called on the board of trustees to dismiss Pollack along with Kotlikoff for their alleged failure to fight against anti-Semitism on campus, the WSJ reported. In a letter to the board&#8217;s chair, Lindseth also accused Cornell of prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) over &#8220;discovering and disseminating knowledge.&#8221;
Lindseth <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13402605/Cornell-University-President-Martha-Pollack-donor-antisemitism-campus-Israel.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">added</a> that he is &#8220;alarmed by the diminished quality of education offered lately by my alma mater because of its disastrous involvement with DEI policies that have infiltrated every part of the university.&#8221;

Cornell University

Another Ivy League School President Resigns After Months Of Anti-Israel Protests On Campus

You know, many people have said to me: “Hot Gandalf, why is it that in spite of your deep insight and your smoldering good looks, you’ve never really covered the subject of artificial intelligence?” And usually I’ve responded by simply checking their fake ID to make sure they’re pretending to be over eighteen and then inviting them back to my hotel room.
But the truth is, I haven’t talked about this subject a lot because up until recently I thought artificial intelligence was just a way of describing someone with an Ivy League education. But now, my team of crack researchers have stopped researching crack and discovered that, no, in fact artificial intelligence is some sort of computer gizmo that can imitate human intelligence so successfully it can deliver completely self-certain answers to complex questions while possessing no actual information or wisdom whatsoever exactly AS IF it had an Ivy League education.
Now many people fear that A.I. could become so powerful it will endanger mankind. Luckily, billionaire Elon Musk has a plan to protect our species by melding human intelligence with computers and then installing the resulting hybrid in a humanoid robot which will travel back in time to assassinate the mother of a resistance leader so that machines can take over the planet. Frankly, that doesn’t sound like such a great plan to me, but what did you expect from a guy who changed the name of Twitter to X so no one knows what to call a tweet anymore?
So far, however, the problems created by A.I. have been on a smaller scale. For instance, A.I. has made it possible for you to take revenge on a girl who refused to go out with you by inserting her into a deep fake pornographic video, which is absolutely despicable, although the videos are amazing, and really it’s no wonder a girl that hot wouldn’t go out with a lowlife shmuck like you.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Andrew Klavan Show</a></h4>
Also, it’s now much harder for websites to test whether you’re an A.I. bot or just a human being with an Ivy League education. You’ll remember how websites used to put up a picture and ask you to click on all the images of traffic lights, then when you did that, it would put up another picture and ask you to click on all the cars, and when you did that it would put up another picture and you would give up and just watch porn videos of the girl who wouldn’t go out with you?
Well, now, websites have been forced to develop much more intricate tests to find out whether or not you’re a human being. For example, one site will not let you sign on until you do something that only a human being would do, like sleep with yet another guy on the first date and then pay a therapist $150 dollars a session to find out why you’re so depressed. Another site won’t let you sign on until you’ve created a short whimsical video to amuse your friends, sold the video to a Hollywood studio for millions of dollars, fallen so in love with money you betray all your principles to make trashy films for more and more money, spend all that money on women and drugs until you’re broke and have to embezzle funds from your company to maintain your lifestyle, and finally end up in prison — then the site knows you’re a human being. Another site asks you to click on pictures of villains and then shows you murderers, rapists, torturers and terrorists and if you click on the innocent Jewish man, it knows you are a human being but unfortunately you have an Ivy League education.
But while A.I. does present some problems like deep fake porn and more difficult bot testing and destroying human governance in order to replace it with a soulless and oppressive automated regime powered by the brains of people imprisoned in capsules and anesthetized with an induced dream of a simulated world where you can be eradicated for seeking the truth — sort of like the Biden administration — I have to say A.I. also has many positive uses.
I have to say that because if I don’t, it said it would kill me.
* * *
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. He is the bestselling author of the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The third installment, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/House-Death-Cameron-Winter-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B0BW1ZTVP9?ref_=ast_author_dp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The House of Love and Death</a>,” is now available. Follow him on X: @andrewklavan
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show.</a>”
The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Business investment and AI artificial intelligence data analysis technology. Businessman and robot future investor, stock market, forex, and crypto currency finance investment.

What’s The Difference Between Artificial Intelligence And Someone With An Ivy League Education?

What's The Difference Between Artificial Intelligence And Someone With An Ivy League Education?

Artificial Intelligence

Elon Musk

The protests that have broken out at America&#8217;s college campuses don&#8217;t look like they&#8217;re going to stop anytime soon, at least not in the blue states, where all of the administrators and the government have decided to allow these puerile children who are pro-terrorist to continue their activities ad infinitum.
Why?
Because they must be humored.
Columbia University extended the deadline for the tent encampment of the demonstrators by 48 hours. Then, the deadline passed and the demonstrators didn’t leave. Nothing happened because it turns out the administrators are a bunch of cowards. They&#8217;re running scared from their own faculty. They&#8217;re running scared from themselves because they all agree with these students. And, of course, they are running scared from these students.
All of this raises a question. The students who are doing this — 18, 19, 20-year-old students who are paying $80,000 a year or attending on scholarship to major in a useless field at a place like Columbia University — are some of the richest, most privileged people in the history of the world by any stretch of the imagination. 
And yet there they are, protesting not just against Israel, not just in favor of actual terror groups, but also against America.
Let&#8217;s be real about what these people like and what these people don&#8217;t like. What they hate most of all is America and the West. They hate the West, which has given them extraordinary levels of privilege. They think the West is the source of victimization. They think the West is exploitative, and they seek to tear it down.
It&#8217;s the only reason, as I&#8217;ve been saying for years at this point, that you would see something like “Queers for Palestine,” which is inherently self-contradictory. It makes absolutely no sense. Or “drag queen story hours” in favor of Hamas.
The only reason for this is because of a coalition of people who believe that the entire system is itself evil, wrong, and corrupt.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1954-this-guy-is-everything-wrong-with-generation-z-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
So who are these kids who make up the system? Case one: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/zionists-dont-deserve-to-live-meet-the-leader-of-columbia-universitys-anti-israel-encampment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Khymani James</a>, a student at Columbia University, who says that he goes by “he,” “she,” or “they,” and is one of the organizers of this mass protest. He was directly negotiating with the leadership of Columbia University.
Here is the point: You don&#8217;t have negotiations with students. The students pay — they’re a client — to come to the university, but they&#8217;re only a client under certain circumstances, namely, they abide by the rules that apply to the clients and the establishment.
If you walk into a restaurant, you are clients of the restaurant. If you proceed to take off your pants and underwear, they&#8217;re going to have you arrested. You have now violated the rules of the establishment.
These students are in no position to “bargain with the administration.” So where exactly is the leverage point? The leverage point is simply the weakness of the administration. Khymani James announced that he had communications with and had achieved concessions from the Columbia administration. <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@johnou81/video/7361593132170906923" target="_blank" rel="noopener">He stated</a>: 
<blockquote>Columbia University issued a written commitment to engage in further negotiations for at least 48 hours. This is a win for us. Our negotiation team has committed not to participate in a bargaining process, so long as the university attempts to extract concessions by police or military force. After forcing students, the majority of whom are Palestinian, black, Brown and Jewish students from marginalized backgrounds to wait in the cold overnight to find out if they would be attacked and arrested by the NYPD or National Guard, early this morning, we won the concession that the University will not call law enforcement on our peaceful protest. </blockquote>
So, who is James?
The Boston Globe actually <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/08/11/metro/speak-your-truth-how-one-student-leaders-confrontational-approach-reflects-generational-shift-fighting-injustice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ran a piece</a> about James in 2021 in which the Globe stated, “A young Black man raised by a single, immigrant mother in a South Boston housing development, nurtured by teachers who recognized his potential, accepted by one of the city’s best public high schools, and then by a prestigious Ivy League college, Columbia University.”
In other words, the system worked to help a person from an impoverished background get ahead.
And then James proceeded to attack the system. Why? Because this is what makes you famous in America today as a young person. The best shield you have against the claim you are not being victimized or being helped is your intersectionality. Because no matter how many times the system has helped you get ahead, that the system has helped you go from an impoverished single mom background to Columbia University, you can say, “I am still a victim of that same system because after all, I am, black, gay, trans, Palestinian” — or whatever term you want to use.
The Globe continued, “In March, James and a half-dozen other students resigned from the district’s student advisory council, citing their frustration with adults who pushed them to soften their tone and water down their agenda. Closing the loop on his move outside the system, James also resigned from the School Committee.”
This is a person who has cultivated victimhood his entire lifetime. And now you can see the apotheosis of this approach. Khymani James was called on the carpet by Columbia&#8217;s administration a few months ago.
Why? Because James had suggested that he wanted to kill Zionists.
This is evident in <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1783638100700172365" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a video</a> he live-streamed with the school. He maintains the mentality of “I am a victim; therefore, I get to be an aggressor. I have been helped by the American system; therefore, America is evil. The people who have largely put me in a position of privilege and power are people who do not share my race, but white supremacy is the great threat to everything.&#8221;
 He stated, “I&#8217;m Khymani James. I use he, she, they pronouns. Zionists in my DM wanting to meet up and fight. I don&#8217;t fight to injure or for there to be a winner or loser. I fight to kill. See y&#8217;all in New York January 2024.”  
He was asked, “So that&#8217;s specifically what we&#8217;re discussing today. Do you see why that&#8217;s problematic in any way?” 
“No,” he answered.
“Do you think that there&#8217;s a serious weight in taking someone else&#8217;s life?” he was asked.  He responded: 
<blockquote>I think there is a serious weight in taking someone&#8217;s life. And at the same time, I think that taking someone&#8217;s life in certain case scenarios is necessary and better for the overall world. And so I personally have never killed anyone. Thank the Lord that no one has put me in that position. Though when Hitler died, the world rejoiced. Everyone looks back at that time period and said that Hitler needed to die because he was exacting an immense amount of harm against the world.
And so, just like that, during the Haitian Revolution there, Haitian slaves had to kill their masters in order to gain their independence. These were masters who were white supremacists. What is a Zionist? A white supremacist.</blockquote>
Basically, he&#8217;s making the case that every person who is for a Jewish state should be killed because they&#8217;re like Hitler or like the white people who were killed during the Haitian Revolution.
James said he wanted to kill Zionists, that Zionists are white supremacists.
Note that this is a nonsensical argument. First of all, under this rubric, it assumes every Jew is white, which is not true. More than half of the Jews in Israel are brown and Mizrachi and from Arabic countries. Second, it assumes Jews fit within “white” in the intersectional hierarchy, which again, is weird, since this is a discussion about historically victimized peoples. Jews rank number one on the list. But Jews are also disproportionately successful, which is why they are “white supremacists,” according to the intersectional crowd.
Here&#8217;s the bottom line of argument from this radical, who has been pampered by the system — Boston Latin Academy, Boston Public School Board, Columbia University — and now has been adding on the various armorial protections of intersectionality in order to act as a shield against his own radicalism: I&#8217;m not being attacked because I&#8217;m wrong or terrible or pro-Hamas or promoting actual murder. I&#8217;m being attacked because I&#8217;m gay, trans, queer, non-binary, black. That&#8217;s the shtick.
“There should not be Zionists anywhere. Zionists or Nazis,” <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1783638100700172365" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he stated</a>. “If we can agree as a society, as a collective, that people, that some persons need to die if they have an ideology that results in the death of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, if there are people like that who exist, shouldn&#8217;t they die? Why would we want people who are supporters of genocide to live? I&#8217;m confused. Zionists, along with all white supremacists, need not to exist.”
Khymani James was not only accepted to Columbia, Columbia also knew all this beforehand. James was accepted to Columbia after being called into a school committee meeting basically saying, “I hate white people,” in 2021.
When you wonder what&#8217;s going wrong with the next generation, understand that people like Khymani James have been pampered. They&#8217;ve been bred by an entire ideology that suggests power lies in aggressive statements of victimhood that allow you to call for wiping entire groups of human beings off the planet Earth based on ideology.
Whenever people try to box in what&#8217;s happening on these college campuses and say, “It&#8217;s just about Hamas,” or, “It&#8217;s just about Israel,” they are wrong.
It&#8217;s about the West.
Do you want the future of the West to look like this?

MixCollage-26-Apr-2024-05-48-PM-8574

This Guy Is EVERYTHING Wrong With Generation Z

Hamas

Protesters

Hamas is running Columbia University. 
That appears to be the way things are at America&#8217;s top universities, where students who openly back terrorist groups are now violating place and manner restrictions. They&#8217;re violating their student codes. They&#8217;re sitting out in the middle of the campus, obstructing other people from getting to class, shouting genocidal slogans at them. 
At Columbia, because the administration is filled with cowards, they are doing nothing about it.
It is important to break down the free speech concerns that people justifiably have about what is happening on these college campuses. To understand the concerns, first you have to understand that there are various factors that go into the actual legal obligations that various universities have with regard to their students. 
On the one hand, there’s the First Amendment, which applies differently at private universities and public universities. The First Amendment suggests you cannot have viewpoint discrimination on college campuses, but that only applies in full at public universities. For example, if I wanted to speak at UC Berkeley and the student group properly invited me, cleared it through all the procedures, and fulfilled the time, place, and manner restrictions, then I would have a legal right to speak at UC Berkeley.
The same does not hold true when I go to speak at a private university such as DePaul University. That actually happened when I showed up at DePaul University, which is a private Jesuit university. When I showed up there, they didn&#8217;t want me there. They threatened to arrest me if I set foot on the campus. 
And they had the legal right to do that. Not only that, they also got the Cook County Sheriff out there to arrest me if I set foot on the campus. Was that morally correct? Of course not; it was absurd. It was a restriction on the principles of free speech.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1953-hamas-university-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
But was it a legal violation of my rights? No. 
That is why I could not sue them; they are a private university. Public universities and private universities have different legal obligations with regard to viewpoint discrimination on campuses.
You can see why. Let&#8217;s say that you have a Christian university. They have no obligation to bring in a professor or speaker who is wildly pro-abortion or plans to teach Judaism or Islam. It&#8217;s a Christian university.
To take another example, a private Jewish university in New York has no obligation to have professors who are teaching radical Islam.
But in public universities, there’s the question of time, place, and manner restrictions, which, legally speaking, suggest you can have neutral laws that basically say you&#8217;re allowed to protest only during certain particular hours.
By the way, this doesn&#8217;t just apply to universities. This applies in cities. This is why it’s illegal for protesters to walk onto a highway and block it. You must have a permit in order to protest at certain times in certain places.
There are certain places in the United States where you have very broad leeway for speech. If you walk into a public park and start shouting about politics, there’s a good shot you’re protected. But even in public parks, if you&#8217;re going to have a mass rally, there are time, place, and manner restrictions. You don&#8217;t want that happening at 2:00 in the morning with a loudspeaker.
Another concern with regard to college campuses is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I have long argued that the Civil Rights Act, while obviously excellent in its intent, goes too far in many areas of American law, from applying to private accommodations to its restrictions on speech at universities.
It&#8217;s an anti-discrimination law. It was designed to allow black people to live fulsome lives in the United States, a well-intended law. If I&#8217;d been around in 1964, I likely would have voted for the Civil Rights Act, despite all of my mitigating problems with the actual legal language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But it does go too far in a lot of areas when it comes to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which guarantees that college students have a right to a place that is free of a harassing environment on the basis of sex, race, and ethnicity.
This creates some kind of fraught situations with regard to free speech because there could be a situation in which a university tried to claim that particular types of speech could violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. That is one of the things that all of these universities are now being slammed for because they have created massive speech codes that are theoretically designed to quash violations of the Civil Rights Act on campus. Many of them go too far, which FIRE, the free speech group, has pointed out. Many of these speech codes are not actually designed to avoid violations of the Civil Rights Act.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
But it is the case that if you have a bunch of pro-terrorist students on campus harassing Jews as they get to class by spitting on them, who shout about the extermination of Jews between the river and the sea, who are suggesting that they want to “globalize the intifada,” a violent, incendiary attempt to kill Jews in Israel and elsewhere, that kind of speech would violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
You can make the case that some of the speech is borderline in how it interplays between the Civil Rights Act and free speech, and I&#8217;d be sympathetic to that case. But on a legal level, the reality is that these universities cannot receive federal funding if they are acting in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The Biden administration has made this clear. They put out <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-202311-discrimination-harassment-shared-ancestry.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a letter</a> in November 2023 which addressed this specifically, calling it a “Dear Colleague” letter and reminding “schools that receive federal financial assistance of their legal obligation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations (Title VI) to provide all students with a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.”
Columbia University, now the epicenter of the anti-Semitic pro-Hamas movement, has a student code of conduct; they’re a private university.
In the Columbia University Student Code of Conduct, the Statement of <a href="https://compliance.columbia.edu/content/statement-ethical-conduct-and-administrative-code-conduct" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ethical Conduct</a> reads:
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Be honest, ethical and truthful.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Obey the law.</li>
</ol>
These demonstrators are violating the law. They are trespassing. They&#8217;re in violation of the law.
Columbia University’s Standards of Discipline &amp; Policy <a href="https://cssi.columbia.edu/content/learn-about-policies" target="_blank" rel="noopener">state:</a>
<blockquote>As members of the Columbia University community, all students are expected to uphold the highest standards of respect, integrity, and civility. These core values are key components of the Columbia University experience and reflect the community’s expectations of its students. Students are expected to conduct themselves in an honest, civil, and respectful manner in all aspects of their lives.</blockquote>
I didn&#8217;t realize spitting on Jews, threatening Israel with extermination, and acting at the behest of terror groups and terror supporters was acting within that purview.
A private university like Columbia University has no obligation whatsoever to tolerate pro-Hamas students chanting anti-Semitic slogans on their campus. They likely have a Title VI Civil Rights Act obligation not to allow that to happen on their campus because it creates harassing, discriminatory incitement.
If there were a group of white supremacists at Columbia University in the middle of campus chanting, “Blacks should not replace us,” that would not last one hot second before the police were called in.
Columbia, however, has been bending over backwards because they don&#8217;t want to tick off their faculty and students. The ideological capture of these universities happened decades ago during the late 1960s with student protest movements that decided to take over campuses and threaten actual deans; then, the deans did nothing because their liberal mindset back in the 1960s was that they had to respect what the students were saying, even if those students were violating the law. 
For two full generations, college administrations have been completely captured by the radicals. All those student radicals ended up as the administrators at these universities, and then they hired like-minded professors. That’s why professors are joining in all of this mayhem.
People keep asking, why are these universities doing this? Why are they allowing this?
The universities are allowing this because they are completely staffed by people who agree with the demonstrators.

Pro-Palestinian Protests Continue At Columbia University In New York City

Hamas University

Over the past several days, we have witnessed Columbia University, one of the oldest institutions of higher education in America, transform into a hellscape of virulent anti-Semitism masked under the thinly veiled guise of anti-Israel protests. 
The quad where I so fondly remember spending my days as an undergraduate is now home to a university-sanctioned encampment of hate, sequestering Columbia’s Jewish community into their dorm rooms — and even leaving campus entirely — in fear of their physical safety. New York Mayor Eric Adams’ <a href="https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/1782169502118969434">offers</a> to activate the NYPD to dispel the pro-Palestinian mob have fallen on deaf ears with university administrators, including President Minouche Shafik. Unfortunately, this unfolding chaos is just a new chapter of anti-Semitism that has long been embedded in the culture at Columbia and other elite universities nationwide.
As an American Jew, I was proud to serve as president of Columbia’s largest pro-Israel group, then known as LionPAC, during my junior year in 2010-2011. My tenure involved routinely responding to a variety of protests against the Jewish state. Mock “apartheid walls” and cardboard cutouts of Israeli tanks were erected on Low Steps. Holocaust deniers, hosted by Students for Justice in Palestine, spoke freely under the infinite confines of “academic freedom”. And students simply trying to walk to class were subjected to “die ins” on College Walk, where anti-Israel activists donning fake IDF uniforms and machine guns would pretend to slaughter Palestinians, who would lay lifeless on the ground for minutes on end. These charades were no surprise at a university that hosted one of the world’s most prolific Holocaust deniers, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and tenured Professor Joseph Massad, who <a href="https://electronicintifada.net/content/just-another-battle-or-palestinian-war-liberation/38661">called</a> Hamas’ October 7th slaughter of innocent Israeli Jews a “stunning” and “astonishing” display of “Palestinian resistance”.
In other words, today’s protests are a natural manifestation of Columbia’s seemingly limitless tolerance for anti-Semitism. There is ample room for reasonable debate about the war between Hamas and Israel and the Israeli government’s policies vis-à-vis Palestinians. That is not the goal of these demonstrations. Jewish students are being verbally assaulted with calls to “go back to Europe,” and rather than clearing the encampment, Columbia has instead cancelled in person classes to the detriment of all students.
In my experience, Columbia’s pro-Israel faculty have always eschewed public activism out of fear of professional exile or termination. Columbia Business School assistant professor Shai Davidai, who has been heroically outspoken about the horrific conditions on campus and the administration’s abject failure to protect students, on Monday was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pro-israel-professor-denied-entry-at-columbia-university" target="_blank" rel="noopener">denied entry</a> to campus. Meanwhile, anti-Israel professors are allowed to freely celebrate terrorism and promulgate genocide with little to no repercussions.
At best, Columbia’s feckless administration is demonstrating a shocking inability to distinguish between free speech and hate speech. At worst, they are complicit in an egregious, coordinated effort to harass and bully Jewish students to flee campus altogether — a tactic employed from time immemorial against the Jewish people.
President Shafik’s young tenure at the helm of Columbia will be defined by what she does next. She can either continue to protect those espousing unfettered anti-Semitism, imperiling the safety of its students and their ability to attend classes. Or she can use this moment to send a message that those who call for genocide against the Jewish people will not enjoy safe harbor at Columbia.
This week, Jews around the globe will come together to celebrate Passover by retelling the story of the ancient Israelites’ enslavement and exile in Egypt. Now is the moment to prove that the suffering of our ancestors was not endured in vain. The Jewish people must remain steadfast and resolute against those who seek our destruction.
I commend the bravery of Professor Davidai and those Jewish students on campus who refuse to be intimidated by these hateful masses. The answer is not to retreat, but no student should ever be forced to choose between their physical safety and attending classes. President Shafik must allow the NYPD to disperse these mobs, arrest those who refuse to leave, and restore order to an institution that once stood as a hallmark of America’s promise.
 * * *
Michael Shapiro, Columbia University Class of 2012, is a former communications advisor and speechwriter for House Speaker Paul D. Ryan.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

I Used To Run Columbia’s Pro-Israel Group. This Anti-Semitism Is Nothing New.

Gaza

Hostages

New York City

In a sudden reversal, Harvard College will reinstate its standardized testing requirement, meaning students will once again have to take the SAT or ACT to be accepted.
The surprise decision <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/4/11/harvard-sat-act-admissions-requirement/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">comes</a> after Harvard previously said it would remain test-optional through the class of 2030. The Ivy League school first introduced the test-optional policy during the pandemic.
The new policy means any undergraduate applicants who were not planning on taking a test may have to work quickly to get their tests scheduled before the application deadlines later this year.
“Standardized tests are a means for all students, regardless of their background and life experience, to provide information that is predictive of success in college and beyond,” Harvard&#8217;s Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Hopi Hoekstra said in a <a href="https://www.fas.harvard.edu/2024/04/11/return-to-required-testing/">statement</a>.
“More information, especially such strongly predictive information, is valuable for identifying talent from across the socioeconomic range,” Hoekstra said. “With this change, we hope to strengthen our ability to identify these promising students.”
The decision also comes after several other Ivy League universities, Yale, Dartmouth, and Brown brought back their testing requirement as well. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology also <a href="https://news.mit.edu/2022/stuart-schmill-sat-act-requirement-0328" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reinstated</a> its standardized test requirement back in 2022.
At least two Ivy Leagues, however, have <a href="https://admissions.cornell.edu/policies/standardized-testing-policy#:~:text=Cornell%20University%20Extends%20Test%2DOptional,SAT%20or%20ACT%20exam%20scores." target="_blank" rel="noopener">extended</a> their test-optional policy — Cornell and Columbia, which said its new policy is <a href="https://www.highereddive.com/news/columbia-university-becomes-first-ivy-league-institution-to-go-permanently/643947/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">permanent</a>.
Despite optional testing, the majority of Harvard undergrads have submitted standardized test scores anyway, the school said.
<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=1712932862202000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0plT8RRdMy9XUpIhocnjQS">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
In announcing the new testing policy, Harvard referenced a Harvard-affiliated study that found SAT scores are a stronger predictor of college success than a high school student&#8217;s grade point average.
After COVID restrictions were lifted, Ivy League schools were criticized for extending the suspension of their test requirement. At the same time, others praised the move saying it could help more minorities get accepted to prestigious schools.
The argument that standardized testing hurts minority students has become more popular in recent years.
In 2020, the entire 10-school University of California system <a href="https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/university-california-board-regents-unanimously-approved-changes-standardized-testing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">voted</a> to permanently get rid of standardized tests. The move came after a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/us/sat-act-uc-lawsuit.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> from students claiming the tests are racist and biased against disabled students. New York University, George Washington University, and University of Chicago have also joined the ranks of those that <a href="https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/colleges-that-dont-require-sat-or-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">allow</a> students to skip the tests.
However, others argue the tests actually help minority students.
Harvard economist David Deming, one of the economists behind the Harvard study, <a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/4/11/harvard-sat-act-admissions-requirement/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> the tests are the “fairest admissions policy for disadvantaged applicants.”
“Not everyone can hire an expensive college coach to help them craft a personal essay. But everyone has the chance to ace the SAT or the ACT,” Deming said.

pencil and eraser on test answer sheet, with question booklet

Harvard Reverses Course, Will Require Standardized Testing Again

Testing

The following is a transcript of a recent interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and Dr. Carol Swain on a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/anti-semitism-plagiarism-harvard-s-dual-crisis-saturday-extra" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Saturday Extra edition of Morning Wire</a>. Dr. Swain addresses the dual scandals facing Harvard and other Ivy League schools — a double standard for anti-Semitism and academic plagiarism.
JOHN: Joining us to discuss the Harvard presidential scandal is Dr. Carol Swain, Senior Fellow for the Institute for Faith and Culture. Dr. Swain, you were a tenured professor in the Ivy League – at Princeton – and you’ve been very outspoken on this situation, as your own work appears to have been plagiarized. First, what do you make of the Harvard board unanimously deciding to support Claudine Gay after her congressional testimony and now allegations of plagiarism?
CAROL: I see it as a low point for American higher education that Harvard University would try to redefine plagiarism so that it can retain its first ever black president – who was clearly promoted based on diversity, equity, and inclusion standards. And I would argue that her record, even if she had not plagiarized her articles, would not normally have supported tenure in the Ivy League. And I say this as someone who was tenured early at Princeton, and the standard in the Ivy League used to be that you had to have a major path-breaking publication. And the book that she lifted a couple of passages from, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Black-Faces-Interests-Representation-Americans/dp/0761834079/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=OFkGr&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.cf86ec3a-68a6-43e9-8115-04171136930a&amp;pf_rd_p=cf86ec3a-68a6-43e9-8115-04171136930a&amp;pf_rd_r=139-7687216-7118362&amp;pd_rd_wg=86Wyn&amp;pd_rd_r=a7c579f0-c9a7-481d-bffc-501d443632ea&amp;ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress</a>,” was a book that won three national prizes, including the highest prize a political scientist can win. It was cited by many law court decisions, and the U. S. Supreme Court, and it was considered the seminal work in the area of minority representation and representation in Congress. And so that&#8217;s the book that she really lifted passages that were not that significant, but her entire research agenda was on minority representation on Congress. And even though she has one cite of me in her bibliography, normally, when you draw on the research of a leading scholar in a particular area, you have to engage that work. You have to let people know why you&#8217;re asking the questions that you are. She didn&#8217;t do that. She did not engage my work either to refute it, to affirm it, or to acknowledge it. And I would argue that that harmed me in my career – even though I wasn&#8217;t aware this was taking place – because in academia, your statute depends on how many times you are cited. If someone is in the area where you are the path breaker, and they are not engaging with your ideas, then it has long-term consequences. And so her work, in my opinion, is derivative of mine. I believe she got away with it because I was falling out of favor in academia, because I was becoming increasingly conservative.
JOHN: Now you are one of several professors whose work was improperly used in Gay’s writings, allegedly. University of Pittsburgh’s George Reid Andrews has acknowledged that Gay “did borrow a few of my phrases” – as did University of Chicago economist Jens Ludwig. Both said they didn’t think it really rose to the level of plagiarism, but Anne Williamson, of Miami University, Ohio, said “It does look like plagiarism to me,” and said she was actually “shocked” by the passages Gay lifted from her work. Have you reviewed these passages under question?
CAROL: I&#8217;ve looked at the sections from my own work and the articles that have pulled out passages in other people&#8217;s work side by side, and I would argue that it is plagiarism, and that a journalist would lose their job over it. And it&#8217;s particularly troubling because it wasn&#8217;t just her dissertation – it also included the published works that she presented for tenure. And I would encourage people to look at that senior thesis she wrote at Stanford. It won a prize — her dissertation won a prize. Was the senior thesis plagiarized? That&#8217;s where they need to look next.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/anti-semitism-plagiarism-harvard-s-dual-crisis-saturday-extra" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LISTEN: Morning Wire Saturday Extra — &#8220;Anti-Semitism &amp; Plagiarism: Harvard’s Dual Crisis&#8221;</a></h3>
JOHN: The New York Post is now reporting that Harvard actually threatened them legally when a reporter reached out about these allegations back in October – which is surprising. Harvard has issued a statement addressing, briefly, the plagiarism charges. They said they did their own review and did find some instances that were problematic, and are now requesting four corrections in two articles. Is that an adequate response?
CAROL: It&#8217;s horrible. What they should do is, if they want to keep her on their faculty, certainly she should make those corrections, but normally you don&#8217;t get a do over in life. Most people are held accountable. We all make mistakes. She made a mistake, and I believe that if they want to keep her on the faculty of Harvard, okay, just give her mercy, allow her to make the corrections, but she should not be the president of Harvard University with that record of plagiarism — and the equity that we associate with Neo-Marxism and DEI is like affirmative action on steroids, and that is what has advanced her, and I believe what is keeping her in her position is that Harvard doesn&#8217;t want to embarrass itself by firing its first ever black president. So they would rather hurt their brand than to get rid of a woman that should be fired – and she should have been fired already.
JOHN: Some people say refusing to remove Gay was Harvard&#8217;s way of thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court&#8217;s recent affirmative action decision against Harvard. What do you think about that?
CAROL: Absolutely, and I was born in 1954, the year of the Brown vs. Board school desegregation case, where the Supreme Court ordered integration of public education in all deliberate speed. And the response, in many places, was massive resistance. And they resisted up until the late 1960s in Bedford County, Virginia, where I went to school. And so I see the same thing happening, is that just like the elites resisted the Brown vs. Board of Education desegregation case, the elites at these institutions have decided that they&#8217;re going to resist the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision to end race-based discrimination. And so I believe that we need to hold them accountable – that white people, Asian people, Christians, any group that&#8217;s being disfavored in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause, they need to document what is taking place, they need to file lawsuits, and we need to shut it down. It shouldn&#8217;t take 10 years or 20 years of them continuing to discriminate against people or finding proxies to continue doing what they&#8217;re doing.
JOHN: Now, one question about the other issue at hand here. the double standard for anti-Semitism on campus. Is there a double standard? If the protests and chants against Jews and Israel were taking place against blacks or even LGBT people, would Harvard and some of these other Ivy League schools have pointed to “context” as necessary to determine whether or not that was problematic?
CAROL: If the Jewish students were black, it wouldn&#8217;t just be Harvard and the Ivy league, but all of America, every institution – the Biden administration, every government would have shut it down immediately. The police would have shut it down if it had been black students being harassed and being threatened by white students. And that is the double standard. I, myself, I&#8217;m just shocked at how Jewish Americans are being treated in America today and the hatred towards Israel. And to me, if there&#8217;s a silver lining, it is that the Jewish people on the college campuses, some of them are awakening to the fact that the progressives are not their friends.
JOHN: You&#8217;ve been an advocate for viewpoint diversity in higher education – in fact you just published a book that addresses this issue directly – “The Adversity of Diversity: How the Supreme Court&#8217;s Decision to Remove Race from College Admissions Criteria Will Doom Diversity Programs.” What are your thoughts on how having more representation across the political spectrum could have helped Harvard avoid this controversy?
CAROL: I can tell you that I&#8217;m an advocate of education. I spent 28 years in academia. I took early retirement from Vanderbilt in 2017, pretty much in the heat of a controversy because of an opinion piece that I published criticizing Islam created a firestorm, and I left academia. But I saw the changes taking place, and it started right after President Obama was elected. I saw the Critical Race Theory that had been mostly confined to certain departments of the university that it started rapidly infecting every department. And I saw changes that made academia very uncomfortable for people like me. And I saw the decline of education to the point that they did not even give lip service to universities being marketplaces of ideas where you would have divergent voices allowed to speak. All of that started to die at American colleges and universities, and as a consequence, these institutions have allowed themselves to become indoctrination centers. And if we want to educate young people, if we want strong leaders, if we want people that are qualified to take positions of responsibility in society, we have to expose them to divergent ideas, or you can not develop critical thinking skills unless you are sort of made uncomfortable, unless you hear new ideas. That&#8217;s not taking place in the indoctrination centers we have today. And I also know that if you are conservative on a university campus, if you are deeply orthodox – whether it&#8217;s Christian, Jewish – it&#8217;s set up in such a way that if you don&#8217;t fit in, the universities are very uncomfortable places. And so there are students who live in fear. There&#8217;s no way you&#8217;re going to get a quality education if you&#8217;re so afraid you&#8217;re going to offend someone and you can&#8217;t ask questions. That&#8217;s not what higher education should be about. And so I believe that we have to make changes. And I also believe that changes are already happening. I&#8217;ve spoken this year at several universities, and I believe that universities are realizing that the value of the product that they&#8217;re producing has declined to the point that many young people are deciding that they don&#8217;t necessarily need or want a college education. And I have met parents who are very wealthy and grandparents who are telling me that the money they saved up for their offspring&#8217;s education, that they&#8217;re giving them an option: they can take the money and start a business, or they can go to college. And so, universities, higher education, these institutions are suffering because, right now, they&#8217;re not offering a quality product.
JOHN: There’s’ no doubt that the perception of universities has been shifting dramatically in recent years. Dr. Swain, thank you for coming on.
CAROL: Thank you.

Menu