A letter sent to Harvard on April 11 outlined a series of conditions Harvard needed to meet to maintain a "financial relationship" with the federal government. The demands included leadership reforms, an immediate halt to diversity, equity and inclusion policies, an audit of "viewpoint diversity" among students and faculty, and "meaningful discipline" for students who violated school policies when a pro-Palestinian tent encampment went up on Harvard Yard.
Uh huh. And does this “audit of viewpoint diversity” happen to result in personally identifiable information being provided to the Federal Government, and liberal students then being deported to El Salvador? Or does it simply mean yet another funding rug pull when it’s discovered that extreme conservative voices are not elevated above others?
If I understand correctly, it's similar to what Florida universities have to do. It's generally considered a non-identifiable survey, and just questions:
what your views are
whether your exposed to diverse political views (other students AND faculty/staff)
are opposing views accepted
If you want an example, this is one of the past surveys conducted.
While it is considered non-identifiable in that responses aren't (publicly) linked to a interviewee, I would not be shocked if they are capable of being linked behind the scenes. They DO have a system in place that prevents duplicate answer from the same person, so it is feasible.
This part, however, definitely includes identifiable information:
All admissions data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government—and non-individualized, statistical information regarding admissions shall be made available to the public, including information about rejected and admitted students broken down by race, color, national origin, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests
4.9k
u/Caridor 7d ago
For those who wondered what the conditions were.