This is clearly bothersome, and this administration bothers me at a deep level. One open question I have is: how do we keep the temptation at bay for subsequent administrations, democratic or republican, from exercising unilateral power at such scale? Clearly it's to curtail the power of the executive, but I'm afraid that neither will resist the temptation to (over)correct or double down, respectively
Systems and laws only exist if people are willing to enforce them. If the majority of the population support someone disregarding it all, laws on paper are fairly worthless.
That means laws should be modified based on people’s will. For example, in United Kingdom of America, law can still punish murder as long as it’s not done by the king. It’s a different law than today’s , but still useful to quite some degree. Plus it may not be that different than today’s.
The way to fix it is to change the constitution (for example [1], although bigger changes are probably needed, IMHO anyway, but this is a good start) but the constitution is so hard to change that this is not really feasible in the short to medium term. And making it easier to change the constitution is a catch-22.
And while the Democratic party is obviously tons better than the Republican party, that's only because the Republican party is so awful. The Dems seem to have only tepid interest to fix this at best.
It's not the democrats job to fix this. It's the voters job.
The voters decided to vote democrats out of office. They are the ones with the power here.
Democracy is about majority rule. Blaming the minority for not fixing the problem is to miss the whole point of voting.
The public decided that this guy, this party, should win the last election. The public will decide who wins the next one.
The really ugly truth is that a significant slice of the public think this is going well. Another significant slice thinks this is OK, let's do more of this. You might not like it. I might not like it. Welcome to the minority. (And Democracy does not treat minorities well.)
Big worry indeed. What puzzles me is that, for all the claims of the death of monoculture, how is it that politics has resisted these fragmentations? How has Trump managed to consolidate power so strongly within the power? I don't keep up with politics, but I suspect even those in the know have no clue either.
Thanks for this link. I wonder how the USA would have fared with that one change in the sentence.
How you keep a politician or political party afraid in any arbitrary democratic country? You threaten them with possibility of not being re-elected. That is practically the only non-violent way.
Now the question applied to USA would be - can citizens of USA elect an alternative politician or party? They can't, due to medieval first past the post system. And this is really your answer - until you keep the election system as is, you will get the same politicians or worse. Because they are not afraid anymore.
> One open question I have is: how do we keep the temptation at bay for subsequent administrations, democratic or republican, from exercising unilateral power at such scale?
Well, it’s quite simple. If a Democratic president does happen to get elected again (hard to imagine happening in my lifetime), SCOTUS will clam up and reverse most of these little executive power loopholes. Recall how Biden didn’t have the authority to order the Department of Education to forgive student loans? But now Posse Comitatus is just, like, a suggestion.
Consider, when has a Democrat politician done this at any level or has talked about doing it? A democratic congress had gotten in Biden's way on really arcane technicalities.
Trump is more or less doing what he campaigned on and has a history of doing. At a minimum, don't vote for anyone involved worth supporting his admin. Don't vote for anyone with the same major donors (you can look up donors on open secrets), or the same project 2025/federalist background. Pay attention to your primary elections.
The simplest way to keep subsequent admins from doing this is to not vote R.
I would add that it's a false equivalence to take the behavior of one party, and then worry about the parties not behaving that way "but they might".
In other words the worth is not "what a future hypothetical democrat" might do, but rather what the "current republican is doing.
To answer your point though, the only real thing you can do is vote. That is your lever of power.
Make no mistake, Americans voted for this behavior. All of it was explicitly telegraphed in the campaign. He is doing exactly what people voted him to do.
Yes congress is weak. Yes the Supreme Court is bought and paid for. That doesn't help. But this isn't some accident. It was done openly, and voters rewarded it.
I get that lots of people didn't vote for him. But more people did. If you're not in love with the outcomes, make sure you turn out when the chance comes along. Encourage others to turn out. Because one side is not like the other, and making a choice matters.
And if you're in the "it doesn't matter who wins, they're all the same" camp, well, I'd respectfully suggest you're wrong. It does matter.
> the only real thing you can do is vote. That is your lever of power.
This is not the only thing you can do, and this kind of engagement leads to a worse set of options each election cycle. No social movement has ever won rights simply by voting. There are many important ways to apply pressure between elections.
Any source is better than "oh you know what I mean". Even if nobody is going to change their mind, it helps to stay aware of where others stand on an issue. Better than to be completely alien to each others.
But it wasn't working. It only stopped when Trump did something. The elephant in the room is that nobody can even acknowledge this truth, citation: this whole thread. Until liberals grapple with this unfortunate truth, there's going to be a large cohort of affected people who are unsure as to whether this is credibly in their interests, when it's them being harassed, and they're being lectured to by people who aren't being harassed and don't have to pay the costs of being wrong.
The truth is that Zionism is a Jewish supermicist ideology. To some Jewish Zionists hearing bad things about Israel is considered a personal attack, and any suggestion that it might be wrong to support an ongoing genocide is antisemitic harassment directed at them personally. Their views about Israel are supposed to be sacrosanct in a way no other political position would be.
White supremacists complain in the same way when their ideology is attacked, but these days most institutions haven't been so differential to that line.
Thank you for the case in point, a live example of turning a blind eye to things like this[1], and part of the reason why Zionism exists in the first place. Jews know how to recognize the figurative blind eye, where such hostility against them as an ethnic group either isn't happening (most of the posters here) or is justified because of their collective behavior (your post). None of this is new. What is new is that Zionism is a mechanism that turns such ethnic hatred into collective strength, which is probably something you hate to hear, but is nevertheless the truth.
Doesn't this refute your point that nothing was being done? This indivudual made criminal threats and was charged with a crime in 2024.
Where are the charges for Zionists who beat Jewish pro-palestine protestors and sent them to the hospital? Jewish students are disproportionately represented in the Palestine movement on campuses, something I'm sure you prefer to ignore.
One instance of an actual threat or antisemitic harassment doesn't mean that this conversion isn't dominated by the exact thing I explained earlier: people with an etho-supremicist ideology complaining that there is any pushback at all and attempting to weaponize a victim narrative by conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. It shouldn't be hard to say you're against Israel's genocide of Palestinians regardless of your ethnicity or religious background.
What was the harassment? Because it often seems that when you dig into these accusations, they’re counting protesting against Israel or wearing a keffiyeh as acts of antisemitism.
No, plenty of political posts don't get flagged. However on Hacker News posts critical of the current US administration are very often flagged. In fact, there's two examples right now on the Active threads page; https://news.ycombinator.com/active
During the Cold War the Russians were quite happy to fund protests everywhere especially on college campuses which are easy targets. But that was a super power influencing things.
This time around its this weird micro nation with 300K people that has got it into its head, it can exert global influence by throwing oil money around. But this is not the football world cup. Historically there are really no examples of such small countries exerting so much influence before it is all shut down by larger powers.
Expect ofcourse with the Vatican. But that is centralized religion with "citizenship" across borders. Qatar meanwhile barely has enough people to defend a town, and already experienced a backlash in 2017 with a blockade. This is the second round. Watch them retreat back to sports by the end of the decade.
Small countries and Geopolitical Power are not compatible.
You’re getting downvoted but it’s true. If you don’t mourn who the state deems you to mourn your suspicious and thousands of people will attempt to get you fired.
If you criticize the current government, you’re an agitator.
If you think something that is in opposition to the current administration, your a socialist commie
It is hard because they might be teaching global warming, or biology realities like intersex people exiting, or slavery was bad and it happened in the US, is seen as political by the some who are arguing to keep politics out of the classroom.
Sure. It also helps to accurately characterize the place we are at today if you want people to take the estimation of trajectory seriously.
Part of the problem is that some part of the country has been calling (perhaps accurately) people fascist for years—hell, just last week people were hysterically chanting that Trump is Hitler at a dinner, which is ridiculous in the particulars (even if there are obvious similarities in mass dehumanization and use of indiscriminate state violence) while simultaneously making it harder for the rest of us to convince others to see those real similarities—while other parts look around and just see the same old country they always did, just with more insane people. If we cannot overcome the massive cultural differences that characterize our broad society and communicate well with each other, we have little hope to fix the underlying problems enabling these people to perpetrate evil.
But, I don't have much hope for this coming decade, frankly. We are all too addicted to finding comfort in our little cultural bubbles to collectively find the will to pull our heads out of the media machines that surround us and reassemble around some sense of the very real shared values that should bind us together: feeding ourselves and our families and finding healthy lives pursuing happiness.
USA is getting there. There is already a private gulag in Salvador for executing people and labor camps (prisons with enforced labor) in USA. Head of state slowly takes over legislative branch of government via some bullshit excuse, and that branch just silently folded under him. He is now eyeing judicial branch and pondering replacing judges with pocket ones. Also slowly taking over media if they stray too far from the party line.
Sounds like a good progress in only half a year. He'll get to troika's and stazi a bit later.
We may never go that direction. I'd guess our flavor of evil will be uniquely american—performative cruelty, benign neglect, feigned helplessness, sporadic senseless violence, and everyone for themselves. Trump (nor, I suspect, Vance, or Thiel behind him) strike me as very much like Mao or Stalin at all.
There is no political movement with any weight in this country remotely comparable to either the bolsheviks or the maoists. The closest we got to that in living memory was probably the black panthers and they were successfully (and bloodily, brutally) put down and scattered to the wind.
Now we are all trapped in highly personalized crazy houses, halls of mirrors, where nothing is real and our very views of reality are too warped for us to assemble into coherent organized political movements. The exception, perhaps, being capital itself, able to whip masses of people into hysteria or discombobulated confusion while rich vampires suck the life out of this country and leave us a schizo husk muttering to ourselves about free speech, the constitution, and cancel culture.
So excuse me if I roll my eyes anyone tries to compare anyone in this country to "left" movements around the world. We are too insane and don't have the spine to move that way.
> 150 out of 45,000+ is just over 0.3%.... not a big number.
It's a big deal when it's targeted. It basically means that "you may be in the next 0.3%":
> One campus graduate student, who received the message and was provided anonymity due to fears of retaliation, claimed the release targeted Muslim and Arab individuals who had previously expressed support for Palestine.
That's what we hear. I wouldn't trust one side's story only:
> The student claimed they had been the subject of a false report of antisemitism to the campus Title IX and XI Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination, or OPHD. They said other students who received the notification had OPHD cases that were determined to be unsubstantiated or stand open.
Also antisemitism is a red herring. It just fits today's narrative.
Do you believe it’s possible to oppose the human rights abuses committed by the state of Israel without being antisemitic? Do you think it’s ethical to conflate these two distinct activities?
Harvard and Columbia are both learning that giving in to the current administration's demands doesn't actually get them off your back, it actually emboldens them to demand even more.
I think, you mean Columbia and Brown. Harvard took the government to court won,though it will be appealled but they havent settled yet (that I know of.) I think the government is asking government 1 billion from UCLA .
This is clearly bothersome, and this administration bothers me at a deep level. One open question I have is: how do we keep the temptation at bay for subsequent administrations, democratic or republican, from exercising unilateral power at such scale? Clearly it's to curtail the power of the executive, but I'm afraid that neither will resist the temptation to (over)correct or double down, respectively
> how do we keep the temptation at bay for subsequent administrations,
Isn’t this ignoring the elephant in power right now ?
Why project this current reality into the future? It’s right here
Systems and laws only exist if people are willing to enforce them. If the majority of the population support someone disregarding it all, laws on paper are fairly worthless.
That means laws should be modified based on people’s will. For example, in United Kingdom of America, law can still punish murder as long as it’s not done by the king. It’s a different law than today’s , but still useful to quite some degree. Plus it may not be that different than today’s.
You don't really. I think that's the big worry.
The way to fix it is to change the constitution (for example [1], although bigger changes are probably needed, IMHO anyway, but this is a good start) but the constitution is so hard to change that this is not really feasible in the short to medium term. And making it easier to change the constitution is a catch-22.
And while the Democratic party is obviously tons better than the Republican party, that's only because the Republican party is so awful. The Dems seem to have only tepid interest to fix this at best.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/21/opinion/trump-constitutio...
It's not the democrats job to fix this. It's the voters job.
The voters decided to vote democrats out of office. They are the ones with the power here.
Democracy is about majority rule. Blaming the minority for not fixing the problem is to miss the whole point of voting.
The public decided that this guy, this party, should win the last election. The public will decide who wins the next one.
The really ugly truth is that a significant slice of the public think this is going well. Another significant slice thinks this is OK, let's do more of this. You might not like it. I might not like it. Welcome to the minority. (And Democracy does not treat minorities well.)
Big worry indeed. What puzzles me is that, for all the claims of the death of monoculture, how is it that politics has resisted these fragmentations? How has Trump managed to consolidate power so strongly within the power? I don't keep up with politics, but I suspect even those in the know have no clue either.
Thanks for this link. I wonder how the USA would have fared with that one change in the sentence.
How you keep a politician or political party afraid in any arbitrary democratic country? You threaten them with possibility of not being re-elected. That is practically the only non-violent way.
Now the question applied to USA would be - can citizens of USA elect an alternative politician or party? They can't, due to medieval first past the post system. And this is really your answer - until you keep the election system as is, you will get the same politicians or worse. Because they are not afraid anymore.
> One open question I have is: how do we keep the temptation at bay for subsequent administrations, democratic or republican, from exercising unilateral power at such scale?
Well, it’s quite simple. If a Democratic president does happen to get elected again (hard to imagine happening in my lifetime), SCOTUS will clam up and reverse most of these little executive power loopholes. Recall how Biden didn’t have the authority to order the Department of Education to forgive student loans? But now Posse Comitatus is just, like, a suggestion.
When a Democrat is in office it's the Major Questions doctrine, or some other excuse. When it's a Republican it's Unitary Executive all the way.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
Consider, when has a Democrat politician done this at any level or has talked about doing it? A democratic congress had gotten in Biden's way on really arcane technicalities.
Trump is more or less doing what he campaigned on and has a history of doing. At a minimum, don't vote for anyone involved worth supporting his admin. Don't vote for anyone with the same major donors (you can look up donors on open secrets), or the same project 2025/federalist background. Pay attention to your primary elections.
The simplest way to keep subsequent admins from doing this is to not vote R.
I would add that it's a false equivalence to take the behavior of one party, and then worry about the parties not behaving that way "but they might".
In other words the worth is not "what a future hypothetical democrat" might do, but rather what the "current republican is doing.
To answer your point though, the only real thing you can do is vote. That is your lever of power.
Make no mistake, Americans voted for this behavior. All of it was explicitly telegraphed in the campaign. He is doing exactly what people voted him to do.
Yes congress is weak. Yes the Supreme Court is bought and paid for. That doesn't help. But this isn't some accident. It was done openly, and voters rewarded it.
I get that lots of people didn't vote for him. But more people did. If you're not in love with the outcomes, make sure you turn out when the chance comes along. Encourage others to turn out. Because one side is not like the other, and making a choice matters.
And if you're in the "it doesn't matter who wins, they're all the same" camp, well, I'd respectfully suggest you're wrong. It does matter.
> the only real thing you can do is vote. That is your lever of power.
This is not the only thing you can do, and this kind of engagement leads to a worse set of options each election cycle. No social movement has ever won rights simply by voting. There are many important ways to apply pressure between elections.
> when has a Democrat politician done this at any level or has talked about doing it?
During the Red Scare.
Even more bothersome is being Jewish and having people like the named staff and students harassing you because they have a bone to pick with Israel.
I think it's possible to be bothered by your claim, the extermination of palestinians, and the consolidation of executive power.
Any source is better than "oh you know what I mean". Even if nobody is going to change their mind, it helps to stay aware of where others stand on an issue. Better than to be completely alien to each others.
Police can investigate. Judges can issue warrants. Trials can be held.
There are tools to deals with this sort of thing.
Separation of powers exists for a reason. It's basic civics that's being violated here. The details of the case are unimportant and a red herring.
But it wasn't working. It only stopped when Trump did something. The elephant in the room is that nobody can even acknowledge this truth, citation: this whole thread. Until liberals grapple with this unfortunate truth, there's going to be a large cohort of affected people who are unsure as to whether this is credibly in their interests, when it's them being harassed, and they're being lectured to by people who aren't being harassed and don't have to pay the costs of being wrong.
The truth is that Zionism is a Jewish supermicist ideology. To some Jewish Zionists hearing bad things about Israel is considered a personal attack, and any suggestion that it might be wrong to support an ongoing genocide is antisemitic harassment directed at them personally. Their views about Israel are supposed to be sacrosanct in a way no other political position would be.
White supremacists complain in the same way when their ideology is attacked, but these days most institutions haven't been so differential to that line.
Thank you for the case in point, a live example of turning a blind eye to things like this[1], and part of the reason why Zionism exists in the first place. Jews know how to recognize the figurative blind eye, where such hostility against them as an ethnic group either isn't happening (most of the posters here) or is justified because of their collective behavior (your post). None of this is new. What is new is that Zionism is a mechanism that turns such ethnic hatred into collective strength, which is probably something you hate to hear, but is nevertheless the truth.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/former-cornell-stude...
Doesn't this refute your point that nothing was being done? This indivudual made criminal threats and was charged with a crime in 2024.
Where are the charges for Zionists who beat Jewish pro-palestine protestors and sent them to the hospital? Jewish students are disproportionately represented in the Palestine movement on campuses, something I'm sure you prefer to ignore.
So we've quietly moved on from "they deserved it" or "they're making it up", have we?
One instance of an actual threat or antisemitic harassment doesn't mean that this conversion isn't dominated by the exact thing I explained earlier: people with an etho-supremicist ideology complaining that there is any pushback at all and attempting to weaponize a victim narrative by conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. It shouldn't be hard to say you're against Israel's genocide of Palestinians regardless of your ethnicity or religious background.
Good thing that's not happening, then.
[flagged]
What was the harassment? Because it often seems that when you dig into these accusations, they’re counting protesting against Israel or wearing a keffiyeh as acts of antisemitism.
> what was the harassment?
At least in New York, there was legitimate conflation between believing Israel has a right to exist and supporting a genocide.
If you're curious about the technicalities, it seems it's:
This (the power to audit): https://rpp.wtgrantfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09...
Plus this (the audit itself): https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of...
This seems to grant institutions permission to share PII for purpose of an audit, not compel them to do so.
Why was this flagged? Political?
No, plenty of political posts don't get flagged. However on Hacker News posts critical of the current US administration are very often flagged. In fact, there's two examples right now on the Active threads page; https://news.ycombinator.com/active
I feel like I understand so much better what living through the cold war era must have been like, when "being a communist" was the excuse de jure.
It still is. The 'enemy' died, the (manufactured) fear didn't.
During the Cold War the Russians were quite happy to fund protests everywhere especially on college campuses which are easy targets. But that was a super power influencing things.
This time around its this weird micro nation with 300K people that has got it into its head, it can exert global influence by throwing oil money around. But this is not the football world cup. Historically there are really no examples of such small countries exerting so much influence before it is all shut down by larger powers.
Expect ofcourse with the Vatican. But that is centralized religion with "citizenship" across borders. Qatar meanwhile barely has enough people to defend a town, and already experienced a backlash in 2017 with a blockade. This is the second round. Watch them retreat back to sports by the end of the decade.
Small countries and Geopolitical Power are not compatible.
Russia are still doing that, look on the Wikipedia page of the Internet Research Agency to see all the recent protests that they are responsible for.
> But that was a super power influencing things
Who said superpowers aren't influencing American discourse today - such as DRAGONBRIDGE [0][1][2] which has made Reddit borderline unusable.
[0] - https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/prc...
[1] - https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/pro-ccp-spamouf...
[2] - https://blog.google/threat-analysis-group/google-disrupted-d...
Seeing now multiple television personalities ran off air does give a certain "Hollywood Blacklist" vibe
You’re getting downvoted but it’s true. If you don’t mourn who the state deems you to mourn your suspicious and thousands of people will attempt to get you fired.
If you criticize the current government, you’re an agitator.
If you think something that is in opposition to the current administration, your a socialist commie
[flagged]
What the hell are you on about mate
[dupe] Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45235003
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
It is hard because they might be teaching global warming, or biology realities like intersex people exiting, or slavery was bad and it happened in the US, is seen as political by the some who are arguing to keep politics out of the classroom.
. . . and other 'realities' like anti-semitism is absolutely fine with us.
What a weird "what about"ism.
[dead]
Very normal thing to happen… in Maoist China or Stalin’s Russia.
Both of those people engaged in summarily executing hundreds of thousands of people for their political views. We aren't there yet.
One way you avoid that is you start sounding the alarm bells early.
Sure. It also helps to accurately characterize the place we are at today if you want people to take the estimation of trajectory seriously.
Part of the problem is that some part of the country has been calling (perhaps accurately) people fascist for years—hell, just last week people were hysterically chanting that Trump is Hitler at a dinner, which is ridiculous in the particulars (even if there are obvious similarities in mass dehumanization and use of indiscriminate state violence) while simultaneously making it harder for the rest of us to convince others to see those real similarities—while other parts look around and just see the same old country they always did, just with more insane people. If we cannot overcome the massive cultural differences that characterize our broad society and communicate well with each other, we have little hope to fix the underlying problems enabling these people to perpetrate evil.
But, I don't have much hope for this coming decade, frankly. We are all too addicted to finding comfort in our little cultural bubbles to collectively find the will to pull our heads out of the media machines that surround us and reassemble around some sense of the very real shared values that should bind us together: feeding ourselves and our families and finding healthy lives pursuing happiness.
USA is getting there. There is already a private gulag in Salvador for executing people and labor camps (prisons with enforced labor) in USA. Head of state slowly takes over legislative branch of government via some bullshit excuse, and that branch just silently folded under him. He is now eyeing judicial branch and pondering replacing judges with pocket ones. Also slowly taking over media if they stray too far from the party line.
Sounds like a good progress in only half a year. He'll get to troika's and stazi a bit later.
You forgot the forced installation of Apparatchiks into (private) universities and media companies for "alignment".
And yet every day the state of things marches that way which minimal opposition.
We may never go that direction. I'd guess our flavor of evil will be uniquely american—performative cruelty, benign neglect, feigned helplessness, sporadic senseless violence, and everyone for themselves. Trump (nor, I suspect, Vance, or Thiel behind him) strike me as very much like Mao or Stalin at all.
And also both of those people practiced ideologies associated with the left.
There is no political movement with any weight in this country remotely comparable to either the bolsheviks or the maoists. The closest we got to that in living memory was probably the black panthers and they were successfully (and bloodily, brutally) put down and scattered to the wind.
Now we are all trapped in highly personalized crazy houses, halls of mirrors, where nothing is real and our very views of reality are too warped for us to assemble into coherent organized political movements. The exception, perhaps, being capital itself, able to whip masses of people into hysteria or discombobulated confusion while rich vampires suck the life out of this country and leave us a schizo husk muttering to ourselves about free speech, the constitution, and cancel culture.
So excuse me if I roll my eyes anyone tries to compare anyone in this country to "left" movements around the world. We are too insane and don't have the spine to move that way.
Or McCarthy's America.
And this time, we’re simply paranoid about ourselves
150 out of 45,000+ is just over 0.3%.... not a big number.
Wait till they find out Google will also happily hand over your information when the government or law enforcement demands it.
> 150 out of 45,000+ is just over 0.3%.... not a big number.
It's a big deal when it's targeted. It basically means that "you may be in the next 0.3%":
> One campus graduate student, who received the message and was provided anonymity due to fears of retaliation, claimed the release targeted Muslim and Arab individuals who had previously expressed support for Palestine.
[flagged]
That's what we hear. I wouldn't trust one side's story only:
> The student claimed they had been the subject of a false report of antisemitism to the campus Title IX and XI Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination, or OPHD. They said other students who received the notification had OPHD cases that were determined to be unsubstantiated or stand open.
Also antisemitism is a red herring. It just fits today's narrative.
Do you believe it’s possible to oppose the human rights abuses committed by the state of Israel without being antisemitic? Do you think it’s ethical to conflate these two distinct activities?
Curious what antisemitic abuse Judith Butler was supposedly expressing.
In UC Berkeley’s defense, the alternative would be an immediate cut to all research funding and worse so this was the best they could do.
Harvard and Columbia are both learning that giving in to the current administration's demands doesn't actually get them off your back, it actually emboldens them to demand even more.
I think, you mean Columbia and Brown. Harvard took the government to court won,though it will be appealled but they havent settled yet (that I know of.) I think the government is asking government 1 billion from UCLA .
chat is giving info about your staff and students to an actively hostile government that doesn’t actually like you as an institution the best defense?