Biden/Harris Administration and Their AG NOT Enforcing America's Federal Civil Rights Statutes?

 "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris took an Oath to protect and uphold the laws and civil rights of ALL Americans. 

He and she have broken that oath of office and so has his Attorney General (AG) and the FBI, in my view and those of hundreds of millions of Americans and lawyers worldwide.

Federal Civil Rights Statutes:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 249 - Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act 

This statute makes it unlawful to willfully cause bodily injury—or attempting to do so with fire, firearm, or other dangerous weapons—when 1) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived race, colour, religion, national origin of any person, or 2) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person and the crime affected interstate or foreign commerce or occurred within federal special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.

The law also provides funding and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to help them to more effectively investigate, prosecute, and prevent hate crimes.

The law provides for a maximum 10–year prison term, unless death (or attempts to kill) results from the offense, or unless the offense includes kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, or aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse. For offences not resulting in death, there is a seven–year statute of limitations. For offences resulting in death, there is no statute of limitations.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights 

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law 

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under colour of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person of those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under colour of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her colour or race.

Acts under "colour of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "colour of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 - Federally Protected Activities 

1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:

1. A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;
2. a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
3. an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;
4. a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and
5. a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, colour, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:

1. A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public college;
2. a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;
3. an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labour organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labour organization or hiring hall;
4. a juror or prospective juror in state court;
5. a traveller or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or
6. a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theatres...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.

3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, colour, religion, or national origin.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 247 - Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 

Prohibits (1) intentional defacement, damage, or destruction of any religious real property, because of the religious, racial, or ethnic characteristics of that property, or (2) intentional obstruction by force or threat of force, or attempts to obstruct any person in the enjoyment of that person's free exercise of religious beliefs. If the intent of the crime is motivated for reasons of religious animosity, it must be proven that the religious real property has a sufficient connection with interstate or foreign commerce. However, if the intent of the crime is racially motivated, there is no requirement to satisfy the interstate or foreign commerce clause.

Punishment varies from one-year imprisonment and a fine or both, and if bodily injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, and the violation is by means of fire or an explosive, a fine under this title or imprisonment of not more than forty years or both; or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisonment for up to twenty years, or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 248 - Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act 

This statute prohibits (1) the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction, to intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person or any class of persons from obtaining or providing reproductive health services; (2) the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or (3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship. This statute does not apply to speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Non-obstructive demonstrations are legal.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment for an offence involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be up to six months, or both, for the first offence: and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be up to $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offence; and if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be up to ten years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 844(h) - Federal Explosives Control Statute 

Whoever (1) uses fire or an explosive to commit any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, or (2) carries an explosive during the commission of any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, including a felony which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years but not more than 15 years. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, such persons shall be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years but not more than 25 years.

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631 - Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing 

This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person's housing rights because of that person's race, colour, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:

• The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;
• the occupation of a dwelling;
• the financing of a dwelling;
• contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;
• applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.

This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.

Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 - Pattern and Practice 

This civil statute was a provision within the Crime Control Act of 1994 and makes it unlawful for any governmental authority, or agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.

History Repeats: 

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/antisemitic-legislation-1933-1939

Update:

Columbia Custodian Trapped by ‘Angry Mob’ Speaks Out

As the mob invaded Hamilton Hall in the early hours of April 30, a facilities worker was photographed pushing a demonstrator against a wall.

Later, it emerged that the protester was a 40-year-old trust fund kid named James Carlson, who owns a townhouse in Brooklyn worth $2.3 million.

The man who tried to hold him back was Mario Torres, 45, who has worked at Columbia—where the average janitor makes less than $19 an hour—for five years.

Torres was trying to “protect the building” when he ended up in an altercation with Carlson: “He had a Columbia hoodie on, and I managed to rip that hoodie off of him and expose his face.” (Carlson was later charged with five felonies, including burglary and reckless endangerment.) “I was freaking out. At that point, I’m thinking about my family. How was I gonna get out? Through the window?”

https://www.thefp.com/p/exclusive-columbia-custodian-trapped

Source:

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/federal-civil-rights-statutes

The Economic and Ethical Internet Abuse in Governments and Wasteful Spending

In today's digital age, the misuse of Internet access by employees, whether in corporations or government institutions, poses a significant financial burden. Studies have revealed that the cost of illegal Internet use among 1,000 employees can amount to a staggering $36 million annually in lost productivity, with just one hour of daily unauthorized web surfing. 

These statistics not only sound an alarm for corporations but also raise serious concerns among taxpayers and elected officials. As stewards of public funds, elected representatives have to ensure prudent financial management, yet this persistence of such unnecessary costs and abuses within civil service ranks continues unchecked, lacking appropriate termination procedures. 

The blatant disregard for taxpayer money is a breach of trust by our politicians. It is perplexing how those entrusted with safeguarding public finances allow such misconduct to persist without implementing decisive measures to curb it. 

One glaring example of this issue is the reluctance of governments to disclose the extent of employee Internet abuse. Taxpayer-funded efforts have been expended to argue against disclosing the time civil servants spend on social media, entertainment sites, or attempting to access inappropriate content. 

This lack of transparency is not only wasteful but also undermines the principles of accountability and openness in governance. A recent investigation by The Toronto Star confirms this troubling trend, revealing how taxpayer dollars are squandered while crucial information about public servants' Internet habits remains concealed. Such secrecy contradicts the very essence of public service and democratic governance. 

In matters concerning public service work habits and expenditure of public funds, transparency must always prevail. 

The refusal to disclose civil servants' Internet habits reflects poorly on the integrity of government institutions and erodes public trust. Elected representatives who endorse such practices demonstrate a disregard for their responsibility to serve the public interest. Their actions are antithetical to the principles of open and accountable governance and they must be held accountable by the electorate. 

Taxpayers, who ultimately bear the financial burden of such abuses, deserve better. Citizens must demand accountability and transparency from their elected officials to ensure responsible stewardship of public resources. For further insights into the economic impact of Internet abuse, additional sources such as the article from NDTV underscore the widespread ramifications of this issue. 

Addressing Internet misuse in government and corporate sectors is a matter of financial prudence and a fundamental necessity in upholding democratic values and fostering trust in public institutions. 

The U.S. government's mismanagement of taxpayer funds remains a pressing concern, with staggering figures highlighting the extent of wasteful spending. 

Improper payments, totalling $247 billion in 2022 alone according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), exemplify the magnitude of the issue. Over the past two decades, these erroneous payments have amounted to nearly $2.4 trillion by GAO estimates, a colossal sum that reflects a systemic problem. 

Richard Stern, a budget and spending expert from the Heritage Foundation, emphasizes the gravity of the situation, likening the loss to money casually discarded on a sidewalk. This squandering of taxpayer dollars, Stern asserts, constitutes a form of theft from hardworking Americans, underscoring the need for urgent reform. 

Beyond improper payments, additional reports from entities such as nonprofits and lawmakers, including Sen. Rand Paul, highlight further instances of wasteful expenditure. Examples range from maintaining vacant government buildings for $1.7 billion to inexplicably investing $28 million in forest camouflage uniforms for desert deployment in Afghanistan. 

Duplicated programs compound the issue, as the GAO consistently identifies overlapping initiatives year after year. Critics attribute these problems to systemic flaws in government decision-making processes. 

Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, contrasts the private sector's emphasis on efficiency and cost-effectiveness with the federal government's tendency to resort to spending as a primary solution. 

This mindset perpetuates a cycle of wasteful expenditure, undermining efforts to address fiscal responsibility. Despite the GAO's mandate to audit and report on wasteful spending, experts lament its limited capacity to effect meaningful policy changes. Elaine Karmarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, suggests that while the GAO possesses adequate authority, resource constraints hinder its effectiveness. 

The ramifications of government waste extend beyond fiscal concerns, with watchdog groups warning of broader economic implications. Stern underscores the detrimental impact on the economy, attributing factors such as rising inflation and constrained investment to excessive government spending. 

As taxpayer dollars are squandered, the potential for economic growth is stifled, compromising future prospects and eroding confidence in government stewardship. Addressing wasteful spending demands concerted efforts to enhance accountability, streamline processes, and prioritize efficiency. 

Only through comprehensive reforms can the government fulfill its duty to taxpayers and safeguard the nation's financial well-being. 

In Canada for example, During the pandemic, the federal government allocated a substantial portion of taxpayer funds towards bolstering the economy through expansive programs such as the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) and Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). 

Regrettably, a significant portion of this expenditure was marred by mismanagement, poor targeting, wastefulness, or outright excessiveness, saddling Canadians with the enduring burden of fiscal waste. Estimates reveal that out of nearly $82 billion in COVID-related spending, approximately 27 percent—equivalent to $22.3 billion—was misallocated. This included disbursements of up to $11.8 billion in CERB payments to eligible dependents (ages 15 to 24) residing in households with an annual income exceeding $100,000, as well as an additional $7.0 billion in CERB payments to eligible spouses in similar financial circumstances. 

Moreover, the auditor general (AG) highlighted significant fiscal mismanagement during the pandemic. Ineligible individuals received $4.6 billion in CERB payments and other benefits, while another $27.4 billion in COVID spending warrants further investigation. 

Notably, overpayment recipients included prisoners, deceased individuals, and children ineligible for benefits, alongside thousands of employers who received CEWS payments without demonstrating the requisite revenue decline. Beyond misallocation, income support payments often exceeded the necessary levels to restore individuals' income. 

The AG's findings indicated that the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) could render recipients financially better off than if they were employed, presenting a disincentive to work during a period of increasing labour demand. 

Notably, government spending during COVID-19 resulted in an increase in after-tax income across all income brackets, exacerbating the issue of fiscal inefficiency. As the full extent of government waste becomes apparent, the burden on taxpayers continues to mount. A recent analysis by the Fraser Institute revealed that at least 25 percent ($89.9 billion) of the estimated $359.7 billion in federal COVID spending was squandered. 

This expenditure, financed through borrowing, will incur substantial debt interest costs, totalling an estimated $21.1 billion over the next decade. Ultimately, the total cost of federal COVID-19 fiscal waste is projected to reach approximately $111.0 billion by 2032/33. In essence, Canada witnessed the squandering of billions in taxpayer funds during its COVID response, with taxpayers poised to bear the repercussions for years to come. 

Governments must prioritize effective, targeted, and meticulously managed spending to mitigate the adverse effects of fiscal mismanagement on the economy and taxpayers.

Echoes of History: Manipulation, Division, and the Fight for Freedom

 

North America's young people, hailing from Canada and the USA, find themselves unwittingly caught in a complex web of influence. Academia, political operatives, and the strategic use of censorship via social media algorithms are all players in this grand scheme to sway world politics.

 

This manipulation of the education system and the reminiscent tactics of totalitarian regimes from the past, like the Fascists and Nazis of the 20th century, are sadly nothing new. We mustn't forget the lessons of history, particularly the events leading to the tragic conflicts of the 1930s.

 

Present-day political parties, especially in the wake of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, seem more focused on maintaining power than truly serving the people. Fear, coercion, and manipulation tactics dominate, reminiscent of darker times in history.

 

Today's media landscape often feels like a battleground for competing ideologies, with one side promoting a vision of progressive liberalism while the other advocates for a socialist world order. However, beneath the rhetoric lies a dangerous game of deception.

 

The rise of cancel culture, championed by various groups like BLM, MeToo, and Antifa, further divides society along ideological lines. These movements, often amplified by sympathetic media outlets, breed animosity and distrust among different segments of the population.

 

The disturbing scenes of looting and violence witnessed in 2020 and beyond reflect a society on the brink. Ordinary people, driven by a sense of entitlement and fueled by organized pressure groups, wreak havoc on their own communities, all in the name of justice.

 

It's alarming to witness the silence of elected officials in the face of such turmoil. History has shown us that complacency only emboldens those seeking to sow discord and division.

 

Calls to defund the police and the proliferation of hate-fueled ideologies only serve to escalate tensions. The right to express dissenting opinions without fear of retribution is a cornerstone of democracy, yet it seems increasingly under threat.

 

Despite the dominance of social media giants, individuals still possess the power to shape the narrative. The rights of users must be upheld, even in the face of corporate interests and political agendas.

 

Regarding vaccine procurement, it's essential to separate fact from fiction. While criticism may be warranted, it's crucial to acknowledge the efforts made by previous administrations to secure vaccine doses for the population.

 

In these tumultuous times, we must remain vigilant and vocal in defence of our freedoms and principles. History may be repeating itself, but it's not too late to alter the course of events.

Constitutional law -- Validity of legislation -- Provincial legislation on insolvency -- Ultra vires.

In 1981, I found myself, along with my solicitor the late W. Ross Hitch on my behalf, embroiled in a legal battle that would ultimately reveal a troubling abuse of power by the Ontario Legislature. Through the passage of legislation, the government effectively froze and seized all my assets, an action that was later determined to be illegal. Despite the clear violation of my rights, rectifying this injustice came at an exorbitant cost, nearly reaching one million dollars in legal fees.

Throughout the ordeal, it became evident that the elected representatives, spanning various political parties, had acted unlawfully. Despite their sworn duty to uphold the law and serve the people, they failed to do so, instead choosing to wield their power in a manner that trampled on my rights.

Years have passed since those events unfolded, yet not a single member of the legislature or political party involved has extended an apology for their egregious misconduct. Their refusal to acknowledge their wrongdoing serves as a stark reminder of the impunity with which those in positions of authority can act and the enduring consequences faced by those who dare to challenge their abuses of power.

Here is the summarized detail:

In the case of Hitch et al. v. Clarkson Co. Ltd. et al., the applicants were involved in a legal dispute regarding the sale of properties owned by a cooperative corporation, Co-operative Health Services of Ontario (Co-op). The liquidator of Co-op, Clarkson Company Limited (Clarkson), claimed an interest in the proceeds of the sale. However, an agreement was reached between the liquidator and the applicants for the distribution of the proceeds, subject to certain conditions.

Subsequently, the Legislature of Ontario enacted the Co-operative Health Services of Ontario Assets Protection Act, 1981, which aimed to preserve the funds from sale until all matters related to the distribution of the Co-op's assets were determined. This Act directly interfered with the agreement between the liquidator and the applicants by imposing restrictions on the distribution of the funds.

The applicants challenged the Act, arguing that it was ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Ontario Legislature as it intruded into federal jurisdiction over insolvency matters. The Court agreed, stating that the Act infringed on the administration of the insolvent's estate and attempted to supplement federal insolvency legislation, which was beyond the province's authority.

Therefore, the Act was deemed invalid, and the applicants' challenge was successful.

PS 

Conceivably, if there had been internet crowdfunding availability at the time, one could have continued a lawsuit against all members of the legislature, their respective political parties and leaders, for Breach of Trust, Dereliction of Duty, and neglect of official duty for an improper and ultra vires purpose under criminal and civil laws.

As citizens, we all unfortunately over the years continue to witness that our elected officials and their political party leaders and others in government seem never to be held accountable or liable for such actions!

 

Hitch et al. v. Clarkson Co. Ltd. et al.;

Attorney-General for Ontario (Intervenant)

(1982), 35 O.R. (2d) 252

ONTARIO HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CALLAGHAN J. 16TH OCTOBER 1981

Constitutional law -- Validity of legislation -- Provincial legislation on insolvency -- Ultra vires.

Document @ https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1981/1981canlii1741/1981canlii1741.html

 

Harvard Failing Faster Than The Roman Empire

A crushing cancel culture, accusations of plagiarism, protests on campus, lawsuits, Congressional investigations, and big-dollar donors running for the door. Inside the campus turmoil, where the Emperor Charles has no clothes.

Rewrite of an article by  JON KELLER Titled Why Harvard University Is Failing at Everything

 In the early days of Claudine Gay's Harvard presidency, she faced a Congressional inquiry on rising campus antisemitism. 

This came amidst turmoil following an attack on Israel. Gay's responses, including her stance on calls for genocide, sparked controversy and international criticism. 

Despite Harvard's prestigious history, recent events have exposed flaws in its administration and academic standards. Grade inflation, leadership controversies, and declining rankings have tarnished its reputation. Moreover, the campus environment has become tense, alienating students and alumni. 

Harvard's missteps raise questions not just about its own value, but also about the broader purpose of higher education. As Harvard grapples with its identity and legacy, it confronts challenges to its once-unquestioned status.

Harvard, with its vast endowment of $50.7 billion, faces growing scrutiny and challenges. Despite its wealth, Harvard's academic progress and leadership have been questioned. The Allston campus project, initiated 18 years ago, has lagged behind MIT's biotech advancements in Kendall Square. 

This delay has led to a brain drain, with prominent scientists like Stuart Schreiber departing for better opportunities. Similarly, Harvard's Kennedy School, once known for producing public-sector leaders, now sees a significant portion of its graduates entering the private sector. Concerns about government skepticism among students and controversies over faculty dismissals further tarnish Harvard's reputation.

Grade inflation is rampant, with 79% of undergraduates receiving A grades in recent years. The campus environment fosters political intolerance, with conservative voices often marginalized. Harvard's handling of the Israel/Hamas conflict has resulted in legal complaints alleging discrimination and harassment. Additionally, infrastructure issues, such as heating and housing problems, have plagued student life.

These challenges raise questions about Harvard's ability to maintain its academic excellence and reputation in the face of evolving realities and increasing criticism.

Students and parents are increasingly critical of Harvard's campus conditions despite its immense wealth. Maintenance issues persist, with reports of peeling paint and disruptive renovations. Graduate students faced water shortages and damaged property, with Harvard officials offering inadequate compensation.

Harvard Square, an extension of the campus, suffers from neglect, contrasting with Boston University's efforts to revitalize its surroundings. The recent loss of major donors, like Tim Day, reflects dissatisfaction with Harvard's direction, particularly regarding diversity initiatives and responses to campus issues.

The university's endowment team's underperformance compounds financial challenges, prompting calls for reform from CFO Ritu Kalra. Concerns about antisemitism on campus persist, with Rabbi David Wolpe resigning from an advisory committee due to perceived inaction. Interim President Alan Garber's appointment of Professor Derek Penslar to address antisemitism further fuels controversy.

Criticism extends beyond Jewish concerns, with Professor Danielle Allen condemning disruptive protests as violations of university norms. Harvard's failure to address these issues raises doubts about its commitment to campus improvement and academic excellence.

Harvard is facing a multitude of challenges, including declining prestige, financial strain, discontent among students and faculty, and loss of support from alumni and donors. Despite these issues, there appears to be a lack of recognition among Harvard's leadership regarding the severity of the situation and how to address it.

In response to criticism, former Harvard President Claudine Gay attributed her resignation to external "demagogues" undermining the university's core values. However, Harvard's reliance on outside influences is not new, with significant funding from foreign governments contributing to concerns about intolerance and free expression on campus.

Transparency and openness are suggested remedies for Harvard's woes. The university's communication strategy has been criticized for its lack of engagement, hindering efforts to address internal and external challenges effectively.

Calls for change emphasize the need for humility, openness to diverse perspectives, and a proactive approach to addressing criticism. Harvard's failure to uphold its founding principles of excellence and truth raises questions about its future and relevance in academia.

In addition,

Harvard helped Nazi Germany improve its image in the West

The profound impact of Nazi policies on German academia during the 1930s, highlighted the systematic suppression of dissenting voices, particularly targeting Jewish scholars and those with left-leaning ideologies. It elucidated the coercive tactics employed by the Nazis to enforce ideological conformity within universities, such as the expulsion of Jewish faculty and the appointment of Nazi commissars to enforce compliance.

The account of Peter Drucker's experience at Frankfurt University poignantly illustrates the moral dilemmas faced by intellectuals in the face of totalitarianism. Drucker's decision to leave Germany underscores the chilling effect of Nazi control over academic institutions and the erosion of academic freedom.

Furthermore, the contrasting responses of intellectuals like Martin Heidegger demonstrate the complex interplay between ideology, opportunism, and moral compromise. Heidegger's collaboration with the Nazi regime exemplifies the betrayal of intellectual integrity in exchange for personal gain and ideological alignment.

The expulsion of renowned scholars like Albert Einstein symbolizes the devastating brain drain inflicted upon German academia by Nazi persecution, leading to the loss of invaluable intellectual capital and the disruption of scientific progress.

Research into Harvard's collaboration with Nazi Germany gains significance amid current debates on campus antisemitism framed as freedom of speech. Historians note Harvard's historical ties to Nazi Germany, indicating a pattern of reluctance to condemn evil regimes.

Harvard's recent controversies, including the resignation of President Claudine Gay and criticism for her response to calls for genocide against Jewish students, echo past instances of repressed antisemitism. Notably, Harvard's retention of a fellowship named after a top Nazi industrialist raises concerns about the university's response to antisemitism in light of substantial donations from Mideast regimes.

Harvard's history includes welcoming a top Nazi official, Ernst Hanfstaengl, in 1934, highlighting the university's complicity with the Nazi regime. Despite protests from students, Harvard administrators and alumni embraced Hanfstaengl, reflecting a pattern of insensitivity to antisemitic sentiments.

The legacy of Harvard's past leaders, such as A. Lawrence Lowell, who proposed quotas on Jewish student admissions, underscores the university's history of discrimination. Medoff suggests that Harvard's actions, like sending delegates to Nazi-controlled universities, illustrate a troubling pattern of support for oppressive regimes.

Also, Harvard's historical entanglements with Nazi Germany raise serious pertinent questions about its commitment to combating antisemitism and upholding democratic values.

Historian Stephen Norwood's book, "The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses," reveals Harvard's contribution to Nazi Germany's image rehabilitation efforts in the West. According to Norwood, Harvard's administration and student leaders provided significant support to the Hitler regime during its persecution of Jews and military expansion.

Norwood criticizes Harvard's president at the time, James B. Conant, for not only remaining silent on antisemitism but actively collaborating with it. Conant allowed Nazi symbols on campus, including a wreath bearing the swastika placed in a Harvard chapel by Germany's top diplomat in Boston. Additionally, Harvard's policies during the 1930s restricted Jewish refugees, particularly Jewish professors, from seeking refuge at the university.

Conant's belated condemnation of Nazism after the Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938 contrasts with his earlier actions. Despite Harvard's later rebuttal, Norwood provides evidence of Conant's efforts to foster friendly relationships with Nazi university leaders, even as they purged Jewish faculty and promoted antisemitic racial science.

Norwood's research also highlights other Harvard affiliates who sympathized with Hitler's regime, such as Dean Roscoe Pound of Harvard Law School, who praised Hitler's leadership during a visit to Germany.

Norwood emphasizes the role of American university presidents during this period, arguing that Harvard's choices were not inevitable, as demonstrated by the actions of other institutions like Williams College and British universities, which took stands against Nazi collaboration.

In conclusion, Norwood's book calls attention to the university's complicity with Nazism, urging a reassessment of Harvard’s historical legacy of “Everyone shall consider as the main end of his life and studies, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life,” and its original motto “Veritas”, adopted by Harvard's in 1643, which is Latin for “truth,”!

Source:

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2024/02/27/harvard-failure-2024/