Samuel Goldman

[Samuel Goldman @SamuelGoldman]

@renabaddie_ 127

[Samuel Goldman @SamuelGoldman]

Trump tweeted that he had just secured a ceasefire from Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah celebrated by shooting rockets and drones at Israel.

[Samuel Goldman @SamuelGoldman]

@HilzFuld The Palestinian people can have peace by agreeing to peace for Israel. You can’t have peace if you continually attack your neighbor. You can’t have it both ways.

[M.A. Rothman @MichaelARothman]

𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐃𝐄𝐏𝐔𝐓𝐘 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐑 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐋𝐈𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓: “𝐖𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐋𝐎𝐏 𝐍𝐔𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐑 𝐖𝐄𝐀𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒, 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐋𝐃𝐍’𝐓 𝐊𝐄𝐄𝐏 𝐈𝐓 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐓”

This clip is devastating for every Iran apologist on the planet.

The Deputy Speaker of the Iranian Parliament 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐚 that Iran tried to develop nuclear weapons but couldn’t keep the program secret.

Meanwhile, 𝐉𝐨𝐞 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐭 was out there just days earlier claiming: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘻𝘦𝘳𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯. 𝘕𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘢𝘩𝘶 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢��𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨.”

Zero evidence? 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮.

This is what happens when ideological blinders override basic intelligence analysis. You don’t need the CIA or Mossad to make this case—𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐥𝐞��𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭.

Every diplomat who spent years arguing that the JCPOA was working, every commentator who accused Israel of fearmongering, every politician who said “Iran only wants peaceful nuclear energy”—this clip is your receipt.

𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐮𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫. 𝐀𝐧𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞—𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚’𝐬.

[Samuel Goldman @SamuelGoldman]

@Osint613 How do their boats get that close to the US withou detection? Will they also land their advanced tricycles on the US mainland?

[Samuel Goldman @SamuelGoldman]

@Osint613 I know many lawyers who would agree to handle for free any lawsuit by Hamas claiming violation of their rights to the massacre footage which they recorded and disseminated as broadly as possible.

[Samuel Goldman @SamuelGoldman]

https://t.co/69i5g90WLW

[Samuel Goldman @SamuelGoldman]

COGAT shows food markets in Gaza to deny Hamas famine claim | The Jerusalem Post https://t.co/JcGUQlppRt

[Samuel Goldman @SamuelGoldman]

@JewsFightBack Obviously, this is the most important issue facing education in the United States today - eliminating the fact that Jews were uniquely targeted by the Nazis.

[Samuel Goldman @SamuelGoldman]

@ixxiguy @benshapiro There are limits to free speech. You cannot threaten, intimidate or promote violence of an imminent nature. You cannot infirnge on other people's right to free speech. This is exactly what this person is doing - threatening pro-Israel speakers with an imminent Hamas attack.

[Prof. Jeffrey Lax @CUNY_Prof]

I have some news.

As many of you know, shortly after I filed an internal discrimination complaint based on antizionist antisemitism on my campus, CUNY immediately placed me under investigation for doing so. Then, they tortured me for 8 months, refusing to tell me --despite knowing for all of that time-- that the outside firm investigating me had fully exonerated me.

Since I learned of my exoneration in a laughably short letter with no summary or information from the report, CUNY has refused to produce the full report, in violation of NYS FOIL laws.

One can only wonder what that report says of CUNY investigating someone for filing an antisemitism complaint. CUNY doesn't want me, or you, or anyone, to know.

But, "how can we continue to make Prof. Lax's life miserable until he finally leaves or steps down as dept. chair" is still clearly on CUNY's top to-do list.

As part of my protest against the main perpetrator of my campus's antisemitism problem-- my then direct supervisor, @CUNYKCCPRES, I resigned from her Personnel & Budget Committee, consistent with my absolute right to do so under CUNY Bylaws.

To my knowledge, I was the first and only person to ever resign from my campus's esteemed "P & B" committee, but I was very grateful for a principled colleague who thereafter resigned in solidarity with me.

I resigned because I did not wish to serve under the committee's antisemitic chair, President Claudia Schrader (who is now interim President of CUNY's York College).

This week, because of what I did, CUNY has announced plans to change bylaws that have stood for some 60 years. It proclaimed its plan to prohibit department chairs from resigning from the College P & B committee, for the first time in its history. Some on my campus have called me privately with sympathy, calling it "the Jeff Lax rule."

The rule forces participation on a committee that has been voluntary for department chairs for 60 years. It would require even a department chair who was sexually assaulted by the P & B committee chair (the college president) to continue to serve under that perpetrator.

It would, as with me, require a department chair with fully substantiated discrimination claims against the P & B committee chair (as I have by the EEOC against President Schrader) to continue to serve under that discriminatory, antisemitic chair.

It is outrageous, petty, and clearly directed at me in retaliation for the "crime" of speaking out about antisemites leading our campuses and about widespread antisemitism on our campuses.

I don't know how my story will end, and as a man with a family that I love dearly, that really scares me.

But it is clear that CUNY is intent on doing everything it can to make things continue to be AND end very badly for me.

Seeing other universities now beginning to take this same vicious and illegal approach, such as Columbia doing so to the courageous @ShaiDavidai, only strengthens my resolve to continue to fight what is happening on our campuses.

[Hillel Fuld @HilzFuld]

Wow, this one left me speechless. Ireland?!

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

In light of today’s news, I thought I would try to take a step back and provide perspective on what this is really all about.

I first became concerned about @Harvard when 34 Harvard student organizations, early on the morning of October 8th before Israel had taken any military actions in Gaza, came out publicly in support of Hamas, a globally recognized terrorist organization, holding Israel ‘solely responsible’ for Hamas’ barbaric and heinous acts.

How could this be? I wondered.

When I saw President Gay’s initial statement about the massacre, it provided more context (!) for the student groups’ statement of support for terrorism. The protests began as pro-Palestine and then became anti-Israel. Shortly, thereafter, antisemitism exploded on campus as protesters who violated Harvard’s own codes of conduct were emboldened by the lack of enforcement of Harvard’s rules, and kept testing the limits on how aggressive, intimidating, and disruptive they could be to Jewish and Israeli students, and the student body at large. Sadly, antisemitism remains a simmering source of hate even at our best universities among a subset of students.

A few weeks later, I went up to campus to see things with my own eyes, and listen and learn from students and faculty. I met with 15 or so members of the faculty and a few hundred students in small and large settings, and a clearer picture began to emerge.

I ultimately concluded that antisemitism was not the core of the problem, it was simply a troubling warning sign – it was the “canary in the coal mine” – despite how destructive it was in impacting student life and learning on campus.

I came to learn that the root cause of antisemitism at Harvard was an ideology that had been promulgated on campus, an oppressor/oppressed framework, that provided the intellectual bulwark behind the protests, helping to generate anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate speech and harassment.

Then I did more research. The more I learned, the more concerned I became, and the more ignorant I realized I had been about DEI, a powerful movement that has not only pervaded Harvard, but the educational system at large. I came to understand that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion was not what I had naively thought these words meant.

I have always believed that diversity is an important feature of a successful organization, but by diversity I mean diversity in its broadest form: diversity of viewpoints, politics, ethnicity, race, age, religion, experience, socioeconomic background, sexual identity, gender, one’s upbringing, and more.

What I learned, however, was that DEI was not about diversity in its purest form, but rather DEI was a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed under DEI’s own methodology.

Under DEI, one’s degree of oppression is determined based upon where one resides on a so-called intersectional pyramid of oppression where whites, Jews, and Asians are deemed oppressors, and a subset of people of color, LGBTQ people, and/or women are deemed to be oppressed. Under this ideology which is the philosophical underpinning of DEI as advanced by Ibram X. Kendi and others, one is either an anti-racist or a racist. There is no such thing as being “not racist.”

Under DEI’s ideology, any policy, program, educational system, economic system, grading system, admission policy, (and even climate change due its disparate impact on geographies and the people that live there), etc. that leads to unequal outcomes among people of different skin colors is deemed racist.

As a result, according to DEI, capitalism is racist, Advanced Placement exams are racist, IQ tests are racist, corporations are racist, or in other words, any merit-based program, system, or organization which has or generates outcomes for different races that are at variance with the proportion these different races represent in the population at large is by definition racist under DEI’s ideology.

In order to be deemed anti-racist, one must personally take action to reverse any unequal outcomes in society. The DEI movement, which has permeated many universities, corporations, and state, local and federal governments, is designed to be the anti-racist engine to transform society from its currently structurally racist state to an anti-racist one.

After the death of George Floyd, the already burgeoning DEI movement took off without any real challenge to its problematic ideology. Why, you might ask, was there so little pushback? The answer is that anyone who dared to raise a question which challenged DEI was deemed a racist, a label which could severely impact one’s employment, social status, reputation and more. Being called a racist got people cancelled, so those concerned about DEI and its societal and legal implications had no choice but to keep quiet in this new climate of fear.

The techniques that DEI has used to squelch the opposition are found in the Red Scares and McCarthyism of decades past. If you challenge DEI, “justice” will be swift, and you may find yourself unemployed, shunned by colleagues, cancelled, and/or you will otherwise put your career and acceptance in society at risk.

The DEI movement has also taken control of speech. Certain speech is no longer permitted. So-called “microaggressions” are treated like hate speech. “Trigger warnings” are required to protect students. “Safe spaces” are necessary to protect students from the trauma inflicted by words that are challenging to the students’ newly-acquired world views. Campus speakers and faculty with unapproved views are shouted down, shunned, and cancelled.

These speech codes have led to self-censorship by students and faculty of views privately held, but no longer shared. There is no commitment to free expression at Harvard other than for DEI-approved views. This has led to the quashing of conservative and other viewpoints from the Harvard campus and faculty, and contributed to Harvard’s having the lowest free speech ranking of 248 universities assessed by the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression.

When one examines DEI and its ideological heritage, it does not take long to understand that the movement is inherently inconsistent with basic American values. Our country since its founding has been about creating and building a democracy with equality of opportunity for all. Millions of people have left behind socialism and communism to come to America to start again, as they have seen the destruction leveled by an equality of outcome society.

The E for “equity” in DEI is about equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

DEI is racist because reverse racism is racism, even if it is against white people (and it is remarkable that I even need to point this out). Racism against white people has become considered acceptable by many not to be racism, or alternatively, it is deemed acceptable racism. While this is, of course, absurd, it has become the prevailing view in many universities around the country.

You can say things about white people today in universities, in business or otherwise, that if you switched the word ‘white’ to ‘black,’ the consequences to you would be costly and severe.

To state what should otherwise be self-evident, whether or not a statement is racist should not depend upon whether the target of the racism is a group who currently represents a majority or minority of the country or those who have a lighter or darker skin color. Racism against whites is as reprehensible as it is against groups with darker skin colors.

Martin Luther King’s most famous words are instructive:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

But here we are in 2024, being asked and in some cases required to use skin color to effect outcomes in admissions (recently deemed illegal by the Supreme Court), in business (likely illegal yet it happens nonetheless) and in government (also I believe in most cases to be illegal, except apparently in government contracting), rather than the content of one’s character. As such, a meritocracy is an anathema to the DEI movement. DEI is inherently a racist and illegal movement in its implementation even if it purports to work on behalf of the so-called oppressed.

And DEI’s definition of oppressed is fundamentally flawed.

I have always believed that the most fortunate should help the least fortunate, and that our system should be designed in such a way as to maximize the size of the overall pie so that it will enable us to provide an economic system which can offer quality of life, education, housing, and healthcare for all.

America is a rich country and we have made massive progress over the decades toward achieving this goal, but we obviously have much more work to do. Steps taken on the path to socialism – another word for an equality of outcome system – will reverse this progress and ultimately impoverish us all. We have seen this movie many times.

Having a darker skin color, a less common sexual identity, and/or being a woman doesn’t make one necessarily oppressed or even disadvantaged. While slavery remains a permanent stain on our country’s history – a fact which is used by DEI to label white people as oppressors – it doesn’t therefore hold that all white people generations after the abolishment of slavery should be held responsible for its evils. Similarly, the fact that Columbus discovered America doesn’t make all modern-day Italians colonialists.

An ideology that portrays a bicameral world of oppressors and the oppressed based principally on race or sexual identity is a fundamentally racist ideology that will likely lead to more racism rather than less. A system where one obtains advantages by virtue of one’s skin color is a racist system, and one that will generate resentment and anger among the un-advantaged who will direct their anger at the favored groups.

The country has seen burgeoning resentment and anger grow materially over the last few years, and the DEI movement is an important contributor to our growing divisiveness. Resentment is one of the most important drivers of racism. And it is the lack of equity, i.e, fairness, in how DEI operates, that contributes to this resentment.

I was accused of being a racist from the President of the NAACP among others when I posted on @X that I had learned that the Harvard President search process excluded candidates that did not meet the DEI criteria. I didn’t say that former President Gay was hired because she was a black woman. I simply said that I had heard that the search process by its design excluded a large percentage of potential candidates due to the DEI limitations. My statement was not a racist one. It was simply the empirical truth about the Harvard search process that led to Gay’s hiring.

When former President Gay was hired, I knew little about her, but I was instinctually happy for Harvard and the black community. Every minority community likes to see their representatives recognized in important leadership positions, and it is therefore an important moment for celebration. I too celebrated this achievement. I am inspired and moved by others’ success, and I thought of Gay’s hiring at the pinnacle leadership position at perhaps our most important and iconic university as an important and significant milestone for the black community.

I have spent the majority of my life advocating on behalf of and supporting members of disadvantaged communities including by investing several hundreds of millions of dollars of philanthropic assets to help communities in need with economic development, sensible criminal justice reform, poverty reduction, healthcare, education, workforce housing, charter schools, and more.

I have done the same at Pershing Square Capital Management when, for example, we completed one of the largest IPOs ever with the substantive assistance of a number of minority-owned, women-owned, and Veteran-owned investment banks. Prior to the Pershing Square Tontine, Ltd. IPO, it was standard practice for big corporations occasionally to name a few minority-owned banks in their equity and bond offerings, have these banks do no work and sell only a de minimis amount of stock or bonds, and allocate to them only 1% or less of the underwriting fees so that the issuers could virtue signal that they were helping minority communities.

In our IPO, we invited the smaller banks into the deal from the beginning of the process so they could add real value. As a result, the Tontine IPO was one of the largest and most successful IPOs in history with $12 billion of demand for a $4 billion deal by the second day of the IPO, when we closed the books. The small banks earned their 20% share of the fees for delivering real and substantive value and for selling their share of the stock.

Compare this approach to the traditional one where the small banks do effectively nothing to earn their fees – they aren’t given that opportunity – yet, they get a cut of the deal, albeit a tiny one. The traditional approach does not create value for anyone. It only creates resentment, and an uncomfortable feeling from the small banks who get a tiny piece of the deal in a particularly bad form of affirmative action.

While I don’t think our approach to working with the smaller banks has yet achieved the significant traction it deserves, it will hopefully happen eventually as the smaller banks build their competencies and continue to earn their fees, and other issuers see the merit of this approach. We are going to need assistance with a large IPO soon so we are looking forward to working with our favored smaller banks.

I have always believed in giving disadvantaged groups a helping hand. I signed the Giving Pledge for this reason. My life plan by the time I was 18 was to be successful and then return the favor to those less fortunate. This always seemed to the right thing to do, in particular, for someone as fortunate as I am.

All of the above said, it is one thing to give disadvantaged people the opportunities and resources so that they can help themselves. It is another to select a candidate for admission or for a leadership role when they are not qualified to serve in that role.

This appears to have been the case with former President Gay’s selection. She did not possess the leadership skills to serve as Harvard’s president, putting aside any questions about her academic credentials. This became apparent shortly after October 7th, but there were many signs before then when she was Dean of the faculty.

The result was a disaster for Harvard and for Claudine Gay.

The Harvard board should not have run a search process which had a predetermined objective of only hiring a DEI-approved candidate. In any case, there are many incredibly talented black men and women who could have been selected by Harvard to serve as its president so why did the Harvard Corporation board choose Gay?

One can only speculate without knowing all of the facts, but it appears Gay’s leadership in the creation of Harvard’s Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging and the penetration of the DEI ideology into the Corporation board room perhaps made Gay the favored candidate. The search was also done at a time when many other top universities had similar DEI-favored candidate searches underway for their presidents, reducing the number of potential candidates available in light of the increased competition for talent.

Unrelated to the DEI issue, as a side note, I would suggest that universities should broaden their searches to include capable business people for the role of president, as a university president requires more business skills than can be gleaned from even the most successful academic career with its hundreds of peer reviewed papers and many books. Universities have a Dean of the Faculty and a bureaucracy to oversee the faculty and academic environment of the university. It therefore does not make sense that the university president has to come through the ranks of academia, with a skill set unprepared for university management.

The president’s job – managing thousands of employees, overseeing a $50 billion endowment, raising money, managing expenses, capital allocation, real estate acquisition, disposition, and construction, and reputation management – are responsibilities that few career academics are capable of executing. Broadening the recruitment of candidates to include top business executives would also create more opportunities for diverse talent for the office of the university president.

Furthermore, Harvard is a massive business that has been mismanaged for a long time. The cost structure of the University is out of control due in large part to the fact that the administration has grown without bounds. Revenues are below what they should be because the endowment has generated a 4.5% annualized return for the last decade in one of the greatest bull markets in history, and that low return is not due to the endowment taking lower risks as the substantial majority of its assets are invested in illiquid and other high-risk assets.

The price of the product, a Harvard education, has risen at a rate well in excess of inflation for decades, (I believe it has grown about 7-8% per annum) and it is now about $320,000 for four years of a liberal arts education at Harvard College. As a result, the only students who can now afford Harvard come from rich families and poor ones. The middle class can’t get enough financial aid other than by borrowing a lot of money, and it is hard to make the economics work in life after college when you graduate with large loan balances, particularly if you also attend graduate school.

The best companies in the world grow at high rates over many decades. Harvard has grown at a de minimis rate. Since I graduated 35 years ago, the number of students in the Harvard class has grown by less than 20%. What other successful business do you know that has grown the number of customers it serves by less than 20% in 35 years, and where nearly all revenue growth has come from raising prices?

In summary, there is a lot more work to be done to fix Harvard than just replacing its president. That said, the selection of Harvard’s next president is a critically important task, and the individuals principally responsible for that decision do not have a good track record for doing so based on their recent history, nor have they done a good job managing the other problems which I have identified above.

The Corporation board led by Penny Pritzker selected the wrong president and did inadequate due diligence about her academic record despite Gay being in leadership roles at the University since 2015 when she became dean of the Social Studies department.

The Board failed to create a discrimination-free environment on campus exposing the University to tremendous reputational damage, to large legal and financial liabilities, Congressional investigations and scrutiny, and to the potential loss of Federal funding, all while damaging the learning environment for all students.

And when concerns were raised about plagiarism in Gay’s research, the Board said these claims were “demonstrably false” and it threatened the NY Post with “immense” liability if it published a story raising these issues.

It was only after getting the story cancelled that the Board secretly launched a cursory, short-form investigation outside of the proper process for evaluating a member of the faculty’s potential plagiarism. When the Board finally publicly acknowledged some of Gay’s plagiarism, it characterized the plagiarism as “unintentional” and invented new euphemisms, i.e., “duplicative language” to describe plagiarism, a belittling of academic integrity that has caused grave damage to Harvard’s academic standards and credibility.

The Board’s three-person panel of “political scientist experts” that to this day remain unnamed who evaluated Gay’s work failed to identify many examples of her plagiarism, leading to even greater reputational damage to the University and its reputation for academic integrity as the whistleblower and the media continued to identify additional problems with Gay’s work in the days and weeks thereafter.

According to the NY Post, the Board also apparently sought to identify the whistleblower and seek retribution against him or her in contravention to the University’s whistleblower protection policies.

Despite all of the above, the Board “unanimously” gave its full support for Gay during this nearly four-month crisis, until eventually being forced to accept her resignation earlier today, a grave and continuing reputational disaster to Harvard and to the Board.

In a normal corporate context with the above set of facts, the full board would resign immediately to be replaced by a group nominated by shareholders. In the case of Harvard, however, the Board nominates itself and its new members. There is no shareholder vote mechanism to replace them.

So what should happen?

The Corporation Board should not remain in their seats protected by the unusual governance structure which enabled them to obtain their seats.

The Board Chair, Penny Pritzker, should resign along with the other members of the board who led the campaign to keep Claudine Gay, orchestrated the strategy to threaten the media, bypassed the process for evaluating plagiarism, and otherwise greatly contributed to the damage that has been done. Then new Corporation board members should be identified who bring true diversity, viewpoint and otherwise, to the board.

The Board should not be principally comprised of individuals who share the same politics and views about DEI. The new board members should be chosen in a transparent process with the assistance of the 30-person Board of Overseers. There is no reason the Harvard board of 12 independent trustees cannot be comprised of the most impressive, high integrity, intellectually and politically diverse members of our country and globe. We have plenty of remarkable people to choose from, and the job of being a director just got much more interesting and important. It is no longer, nor should it ever have been, an honorary and highly political sinecure.

The ODEIB should be shut down, and the staff should be terminated. The ODEIB has already taken down much of the ideology and strategies that were on its website when I and others raised concerns about how the office operates and who it does and does not represent. Taking down portions of the website does not address the fundamentally flawed and racist ideology of this office, and calls into further question the ODEIB’s legitimacy.

Why would the ODEIB take down portions of its website when an alum questioned its legitimacy unless the office was doing something fundamentally wrong or indefensible?

Harvard must once again become a meritocratic institution which does not discriminate for or against faculty or students based on their skin color, and where diversity is understood in its broadest form so that students can learn in an environment which welcomes diverse viewpoints from faculty and students from truly diverse backgrounds and experiences.

Harvard must create an academic environment with real academic freedom and free speech, where self-censoring, speech codes, and cancel culture are forever banished from campus.

Harvard should become an environment where all students of all persuasions feel comfortable expressing their views and being themselves. In the business world, we call this creating a great corporate culture, which begins with new leadership and the right tone at the top. It does not require the creation of a massive administrative bureaucracy.

These are the minimum changes necessary to begin to repair the damage that has been done.

A number of faculty at the University of Pennsylvania have proposed a new constitution which can be found at https://t.co/Vggm1eomnI, which has been signed by more than 1,200 faculty from Penn, Harvard, and other universities. Harvard would do well to adopt Penn’s proposed new constitution or a similar one before seeking to hire its next president.

A condition of employment of the new Harvard president should be the requirement that the new president agrees to strictly abide by the new constitution. He or she should take an oath to that effect.

Today was an important step forward for the University. It is time we restore Veritas to Harvard and again be an exemplar that graduates well-informed, highly-educated leaders of exemplary moral standing and good judgment who can help bring our country together, advance our democracy, and identify the important new discoveries that will help save us from ourselves.

We have a lot more work to do. Let’s get at it.

[Hillel Fuld @HilzFuld]

An antisemite walks into a bar and takes a seat.

Pretty quickly, he notices a Jew across the room and he thinks to himself “I’m gonna show him!”

He calls the bartender over and says “Give everyone a beer on me except that Jew over there!”

The bartender does exactly that.

As soon as everyone gets their beer, they look at the antisemite, lift their cups and say cheers. The antisemite looks at the Jew who then also lifts his cup and says cheers to the antisemite.

He is very confused. Why is the Jew doing that after I bought everyone a beer except him?

So he ups his game.

He calls over the bartender and says to give out a very nice shot of whiskey to everyone but that Jew. The bartender does exactly that.

They all lift their cups to the antisemite as does the Jew. Again, the antisemite is confused and frustrated.

He calls over the bartender again and says “Give everyone your most expensive drink on me but don’t give it to that Jew!”

And so he does. Again, the Jew lifts his cup and says cheers to the antisemite.

At this point, the antisemite is fuming.

He calls over the bartender and asks “Why does that Jew keep thanking me for buying everyone drinks even though I didn’t buy him one?”

The bartender looks at the antisemite confused and says “Him? He owns the bar!”

[Aviva Klompas @AvivaKlompas]

Hamas released a horrific video of Israeli hostage, Sahar Baruch, today.

Sahar was abducted by terrorists from Kibbutz Be’eri on Oct 7. He was with his grandmother and little brother when Hamas attacked. Sahar ran back into his grandmother’s burning house to look for an inhaler for his brother. His grandmother and brother were murdered and Sahar was taken hostage.

The video released today ends by showing his tortured and mutilated body. Rather than screaming for the release of the hostages who are enduring untold evils, the world wants Israel to retreat.

There can be no ceasefire until all the hostages are released and the Hamas war machine is destroyed.

[Eylon Levy @EylonALevy]

When you chant “Globalise the Intifada!” and “Ceasefire now!” in the same breath, what you mean is, “We’ll keep firing and you can cease.”

We get the message.

[Ari Fleischer @AriFleischer]

Notice these protesters are yelling at an American who attended a Chanukah party. They’re not denouncing Israeli policy - they’re threatening to kill an American, calling him an occupier. Don’t tell me this is about Israel. It’s antisemitism in our country, plain and simple.

[Hillel Fuld @HilzFuld]

Four hospitals in Gaza are now surrounded by the IDF based on precise data and intelligence that Hamas leaders are hiding inside alongside massive piles of weapons and bombs.

Gazan civilians are exiting the hospital with white flags (very significant) and are being brought to safety as the IDF advances toward the hospitals.

This is the beginning of a new phase in the war on Hamas.

Pray.

[Samuel Goldman @SamuelGoldman]

In interrogation video, Hamas terrorists confirm group’s hideout under Gaza hospital

https://t.co/0HsAR7IDFM

[Occupy Democrats @OccupyDemocrats]

BREAKING: U.S. Capitol Officer Harry Dunn destroys Trump live on national TV, declares that he “should have been arrested on January 7th” for inciting the deadly January 6 insurrection that sent him and over 140 Capitol officers to the hospital.

But it gets WORSE for Trump…

Officer Dunn then put Trump on notice that he will “continue to pound the pavement” until Trump is convicted and sent to prison in order for Trump to be “held accountable” for his crimes and for “true justice” to be served — and urged America’s justice system to convict Trump swiftly because “with every day that goes by” with Trump walking free, “the more that is at stake” for our democracy.

Officer Dunn then described Trump’s violent insurrectionist as “hit men” who were “sent by Trump” — and when asked what he would tell Trump if he had the opportunity to talk to him face-to-face, Dunn responded, “I don’t like talking to individuals who are delusional, lost in reality and flat-out disrespectful. I have no words for him, but I’ll let Special Counsel Jack Smith do the talking.”

Please retweet and ❤️ to thank Capitol Officer Dunn for his relentless fight to hold insurrectionist Trump accountable — and consider joining the growing exodus to Tribel, a woke new Twitter competitor that banned Trump for life and is exploding in popularity because Elon Musk banned Tribel’s Twitter account — but he forgot to ban this link to download the new Tribel app: https://t.co/HnJzSKj4Hp