Comment by low_tech_love
8 days ago
Some personal highlights:
"They’re excellent schools, and they have excellent scientists, and if one of Vice-President Vance’s kids is sick, he’s going to want the doctor to have gone to one of these schools; he’s not going to want them to have gone to Viktor Orbán’s university."
"People have said to me, “Well, you take all that money from the government, why don’t you listen to them?” The answer is, because the money doesn’t come with a loyalty oath."
"I don’t have to agree with the mayor to get the fire department to come put out a fire. And that’s what they’re saying to these international students: “Well, you came to this country. What makes you think you can write an op-ed in the newspaper?” Well, what makes you think that is, this is a free country. "
> "They’re excellent schools, and they have excellent scientists, and if one of Vice-President Vance’s kids is sick, he’s going to want the doctor to have gone to one of these schools; he’s not going to want them to have gone to Viktor Orbán’s university."
I'm not sure I understand. If I want a medical doctor, I'm not looking for someone based on his political views or spirited independence from the Hungarian government, but for someone with training in a very narrow discipline, namely medicine. I really don't want someone who is more interested in "the modern and the postmodern" prescribing me meds, but I do want someone who conforms to the current pharmacological standards.
The University President in question does not even run a medical school; Wesleyan does not, to my knowledge, teach anyone the art of medicine, however highly it might rank as a liberal arts institution. Semmelweis University in Budapest, however, is older than the United States, is the largest healthcare provider in Hungary, and is ranked among the top 300 universities in the world. Therefore, if I had to chose between someone who went to Wesleyan and someone who went to Semmelweis, which I'll take as "Viktor Orbán's university," I should much rather have the Hungarian who actually knows medicine rather than the liberal arts PhD who might be able to lecture me on what postmodernism should mean to me.
What are you purporting not to understand? It seems you’re fighting your own straw man.
The author of the article seems to accept "appeal to authority" he just wishes it was more critically refined to a point that it might somehow be justifiable.
The OP is expressing dismay at this obviously compromised position. There is no purportment or strawmen that I can detect.
In that specific quote he’s talking about Ivy League universities, not Wesleyan, but the quote would be too long. I thought it was clear, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Regardless, I absolutely agree with you, except for one thing: I would have no problem being under care of a Hungarian, but I doubt you’d ever see a MAGA enthusiast saying he prefers that than an American doctor.
[flagged]
The money comes from the public, not the government
And I for one would much rather it go to subsidize university research than subsidize the defense industry
You need both if you want it to remain a free and sovereign country.
2 replies →
Can I have statistics for this? Because I always thought it was mostly from the government, not from the public.
Where do you think the government gets its money from?
1 reply →
Do you not understand that money coming from the government has been acquired from taxes, ergo the money comes from the people.
Surely he could have expressed himself better than that. Insulting some other country's universities seems a very odd thing to do when trying to make a point about your own universities. This is especially odd as the choice of country to insult has several universities that are well inside the top 10% worldwide and rank higher than Wesleyan.
We should expect better rhetoric from the rector of a liberal arts university.
Unfortunately I can't read the actual article to see what the rest of his argument was like. I wish that HN would automatically provide links to bypass paywalls.
There was no insult. The point is very clear if you are not trying to intentionally make him look bad. He said that Vance would never send his kids to a hospital in Hungary; he never said hospitals in Hungary are bad, or that Hungarians are peasants, for example. What he’s trying to show you is that you’re being manipulated, that what they say is not what they do, so you shouldn’t believe them. But I guess most people prefer to trust the snake oil sellers than open their eyes.
Edit: and by the way Orbán is not Hungary, in the same way that Trump is not America, although they would very much like you to think so. I wonder why?
[flagged]
What are you conflicted about? The op-eds written by these international students contained none of the things you mentioned that are supposedly not compatible with the US.
On the other hand, while the US is bombing civilians in Yemen, revoking womens' rights and moving towards persecuting lgbt people, it would seem that ironically the the US is exactly the jam for that. A perfect fit.
Valuing Palestinian lives is not supporting terrorism.
Sure, hopefully we all value Palestinian lives. I certainly do. Where the consensus breaks down is what does that mean in practice? Should Israel be allowed to attack terrorist organizations in Palestine? If so, is there an "acceptable" level of civilian casualties (collateral damage)? Does that level change if the terrorists intentionally use civilians as human shields, for example by using a hospital as an operating base or launching rockets from civilian residential neighborhoods?
To be clear I am not attempting to defend war crimes or terrorist activity or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that simply valuing Palestinian lives is rather meaningless and empty unless it translates into action.
7 replies →
Ok, then I guess they should only go after the people who are supporting actually designated terrorist organizations.
Problem solved, right?
Strongly agree. The problem is that Hamas represents them (illegitimately IMHO).
Thus you have a lot of Palestinian supporters advocating for Hamas, and that is effectively "supporting" terrorism.
2 replies →
Even if you hold those views (with which we'd all, I hope, vigorously disagree), America is _still_ your jam, up to and until they mutate into crimes / criminal attempts / incitements to crime etc. The ways this administration has persued removal either violate that boundary, or require stretching the boundary around the right-hand side to its absolute limit.
Popper and "the paradox of tolerance" to the rescue. You can, and should, tolerate anything but intolerance.
There are US citizens who want to shoot gays, kill people different in creed or heritage, and bomb people for religious reasons. We had the gay panic defense (the legal defense to kill gay people just because you found out they were gay, and the shock justified you killing them). We had people shooting sikhs assuming they're muslim. We had folks bombing abortion clinics. There are US citizens who have done far more, and far worse, than writing an op-ed or taking over a building.
So, frankly, why not treat these people the same we treated like these other folk-- a trial and then appropriate punishment proven in the court of law. If an immigrant is violating the terms of their visa, the US gov't can prove it in their own courts and then deport them appropriately.
Those situations aren't comparable. While I oppose bigoted behavior by US citizens, for better or worse they have an absolute and inviolable right to remain in this country. Aliens generally have no such right. Entering and remaining in the country is a privilege. I oppose arbitrary arrests and deportations conducted without due process, but in principle there's nothing wrong with holding aliens to a different standard than citizens.
From a political standpoint, why should US citizens pay taxes to educate people who are apparently hostile to our fundamental values?
3 replies →
What about is always a bad answer. It comes of a defensive.
Indeed, I agree with you. There are US citizens who want to do reprehensible things, and I still say: maybe the US is not their jam. No, I'm not advocating exile or illegal detention. Just stating a fact.
2 replies →
> The answer is, because the money doesn’t come with a loyalty oath
But it does come with some reasonable level of consideration and appreciation.
You don't know how they feel, so what you're saying is "they have to show/express appreciation," which is synonymous with a loyalty oath.
[flagged]
The government pays to get good universities which attract smart foreign who come to the US to study on these universities.
Maybe the government should appreciate them not the other way around.
Yeah, I agree. The government appreciates, or should appreciate, the good uses its taxpayers' money is put towards. As to the other intractables above, appreciation and loyalty are very far from the same thing.
1 reply →
It is their right to be there. They do not have to show appreciation and the current government should never be one deciding these what is appreciation. Bowing to authority is exactly the opposite of what education is about.
Being paid what you're owed doesn't necessitate gratitude.
For those who disagree with this, when was the last time you thanked your boss for your paycheck?
6 replies →
[flagged]
Why do you think this?
Because it's a transcation and there are two parties to the transaction. And for these transaction to occur in a repeated fashion neither side should feel they are being taken advantage of.
3 replies →
What about e.g. writing an op-ed expressing one's views conveys a lack of consideration and appreciation?
Consider that any competent manager will value polite debate and constructive criticism far more than the empty words of "yes" men.
Guess which category "reasonable ... consideration and appreciation" falls into.
Put another way, if you read North Korean state media, you will find that they always have a reasonable level of consideration and appreciation for their government.
"you didn't say thank you!!!"