[flagged]

rahimnathwani 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I suspect most negative reactions would be some combo of:

- it's off topic to talk about racial discrimination in hiring and admissions, when OP is about how a group is treated on campus

- Terence Tao's research funding shouldn't be affected by politics, and it's irrelevant that he happens to work for UCLA

- dislike the current administration's positions and methods in general

- don't like this particular action, so any attempt to see good in it is bad

▲

SpicyLemonZest 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The reason I downvoted the comment is that it's engaged in excuse-making for an authoritarian extortion campaign. I acknowledge and strongly oppose UCLA's racial discrimination in hiring, and if the Department of Education sent them a letter demanding they knock it off or face a lawfully justified penalty I'd have absolutely no concerns about that. Over here in the real world, an aspiring dictator has destroyed the Department of Education, and is directing his goons to be as disruptive as possible about an entirely separate issue.

▲

rahimnathwani 4 days ago | parent [-]

How did my comment engage in 'excuse-making'?

I specifically called out that I was interested in understanding people's rationale for disagreeing with the actions taken by the federal government.

From your comment, it seems like you're mostly in the (B) camp, i.e. wrong enforcement method. Maybe also (C) due to questionable motive for enforcement. Have I understood correctly?

	▲	SpicyLemonZest 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I would say (B) captures my position pretty precisely, yes. Perhaps I've been too radicalized, because it's very hard for me to credit the idea that (B) is even possible to disagree with.