Title IX’s Witness Intimidation:
(Sub-headline: 'In a culture that presumes guilt, honest testimony on behalf of the accused can carry a high price') -
outlines how a student at Harvard can face negative repercussions for daring to testify on behalf of the accused in the now-ill-reputed, Obama-mandated academic processes for adjudicating sexual-assault cases. Tanaya Devi, a doctoral candidate in economics, has faced social shunning for doing so. Does Harvard do anything to discourage such nastiness? Apparently not. Is Harvard institutionalizing dishonesty?
Also: doing a google search for "harvard wsj defend accused" yields results pertaining to Harvard's admissions policies which discriminate against Asian applicants. (Let's face it: under any definition of racism, including the left's Newspeak version - "it's racism only if it involves a power structure" - this is racist; Harvard's power to confer status on its graduates is undeniable.) It appears that Harvard's way of penalizing Asian applicants is through its "personality score." Isn't that dishonest on its face? Is Harvard institutionalizing dishonesty?
If Harvard is pulling this kind of shit, it's hard to see how the rest of academia (save for Hillsdale, I guess?) doesn't follow suit.
