Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
This post is not about Hamas and its propensity to use human shields in its conflict with Israel. I am talking about a problem that takes place in America when its institutions desperately seek to avoid change.
It was announced yesterday that Harvard’s authority to enroll foreign students has been suspended by the Trump administration. This is the latest of multiple moves by both Harvard and the White House toward addressing the government’s desire to establish a new approach to higher education. Will some innocent students be hurt? Of course. And that will be the progressive talking point for media and other political allies in the ongoing conflict. (As an aside: Some students will benefit by transferring to other universities whose reputation is not tanking like Harvard’s.)
This argument (harm to students/children) is not new. Any opportunity to claim, whether in education, immigration law, or health, that any change will do avoidable harm naturally follows such adjustments. Nor is it limited to children and young adults in training. It is also used to cite harm to women, various minorities, the economically disadvantaged, etc. The tactic is always to put a “human face” on the consequences of change.
Truth be told, there are always innocents who are harmed when institutions are in need of correction. There is never a consequence-free change. There is never a perfectly executed change in which no one is harmed unjustly.
And if that is the standard, then no institution can be prevented from continuing along the path it has chosen. Remember that the next time a politician, media figure, or an institution's mouthpiece tells you of the horrible personal consequences that change is making. They are setting out a “human shield.” They want to make change agents the bad guys, when, in reality, it is institutional unwillingness to make changes in their operations and objectives that is causing harm — both to the public and to human shields.
Discussion (11)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
There is harm no matter what you do. DEI harms both those whose merit is deliberately ignored and the institutions who advocate it by the devaluation of their reputations. Its elimination harms the bureaucracy.
Thomas Sowell makes the argument that when a student gains entrance to an occupation or institution for which they are unprepared, they suffer the humiliation of failure when they might otherwise excel in a job or institution that better fits their capabilities. That is not a racial argument unless you choose to make it so.
But it is an unpopular argument in today’s culture. And That is a symptom of our current culture’s sickness.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Question … in WW2 were there cries from the Left that civilians in Berlin or Dresden were being indiscriminately killed, or were starving? No. Why not? It’s a version of FAFO. The civilian population authorized the policies of the government that lead them into war. Provoke the bull … get the horns. Same with Gaza. They voted for Hamas. This is the road they chose. FAFO.
CONTRIBUTOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Why not? Mainly because by the time we entered the war Germany had attacked the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union was all in on destroying Germany.
Most of the leftist movements decrying treatment of civilians by Western nations through 1991 were funded by the Soviets as part of their war against the Free World. It was a form of guerilla warfare. Those movements were active in the US prior to June 21 1941 to undermine US support for Britain. They all flipped off as if a switch were thrown when Germany and the Soviets went to war.
Similarly, in the 21st century these people are being funded by China, and for the same reason - it is an effort to undermine the West. History may not often repeat, but it certainly rhymes.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Bravo, Rodin, bravo.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
If Harvard did not take Federal funds, would Trump have the authority in peace time to prevent them from enrolling foreign students?
You're seeing five of eleven comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.