Yep, just replacing biological essentialism with cultural essentialism in an attempt to make the argument more palatable, but the racist/ xenophobic thru line is pretty apparent. It’s gross.

Terrible to see clash of civ logic guiding actual immigration policy in the US. Terrible

(Or, at least, we can’t tell from the screenshots whether she was affiliated with Harvard. If she was, then that could carry repercussions for his position. Which is why I’m asking.)

I don’t know that it’s worse… it’s all gross and wrong. And as someone pointed out in the Crimson article about this, not surprising— Summers told us who he is a long time ago. But these emails don’t tell us this was a student or junior colleague at Harvard. I’m wondering if that evidence exists.

Is there a source confirming this was a student? Could you share if so?

Executive can’t unilaterally impose tariffs, probably, but can tell people who they are meant to be. Something about government by, of, and for the economy, but certainly not the people

I would pay this billionaire money to give us all a break from his abuse of the bully pulpit.

This is key— didn’t the Panama papers show that the African continent would be a net creditor if not for all the offshoring that has taken place since the decolonial period?

The consensus is that it is hard, but the real trouble is that this is used as an argument not to try and learn to do it better. Curing cancer is hard too but we work on it daily. I think lifting people out of poverty is so incredibly important that failures should just encourage us to work harder.

Deserves to lose her medical license over her support of Trump, based on the defunding of USAID alone.

Model parent for the party of family values 🙄. At least the cat ladies are vindicated

Ahhhhhh. Okay. I see where you’re coming from now and suspect continuing this exchange is not worth more time, since my initial response was enough— you’re just repeating the claims of Project Esther.

They’re linked but they’re not the same, and you’re collapsing them. Communists and fundamentalists fought a neocolonial dictator together in the mid-20th century. That doesn’t translate into leftists supporting Hezbollah now.

Seems off point, tho, since the report is specific to the US.

This report was about terrorism in the US, not France. Here, there is no meaningful support on the left for Islamic fundamentalism. Christian nationalism, on the other hand, owns a major political parties here. That party discredits left activists by claiming they support Islamic terrorism.

And fundamentalists are the same as terrorists? You seem to imply this, you even invoke the Iranian Revolution (which was about neocolonialism and national sovereignty, as far as I can recall) to suggest that leftists are more likely to support fundamentalists and therefore terrorism.

Sure— any fundamentalist regime is exclusionary and authoritarian in this sense. And they exist across the religious and political spectrum. You’ve just described the Trump regime and Project 2025, for instance.

Tell me what this has to do with terrorism.

When you say “Islamist,” what do you mean? Do you mean Islamist regimes? Because that’s a sovereignty argument- it’s not the same as supporting Islamic terror. In fact, it collapses the distinction you draw above.

Right… that’s my point. You seem to be suggesting otherwise.

You’re just repeating the claims of project Esther here. Protesting to end a genocide and to criticize a genocidal regime does not equate to support for Hamas, Hezbollah, or Islamic terrorism.

www.nytimes.com/2025/05/18/u...