Redistribution comes for Harvard — and it’s glorious



If you’ve endured a university humanities class in the past decade, you’ve probably encountered something closer to a revival for secular dogma than a center of learning. The professors preach cultural Marxism in cap and gown. Saints include Che Guevara. Sinners: white, heteronormative males. Sacred rites: pronoun rituals and land acknowledgments.

At the heart of this faith lies one central mantra: “The rich must pay their fair share.” The chant rings through classrooms and protests alike, uttered with all the subtlety of a Gregorian monk — though with far less harmony and far more self-righteousness.

Let the endowment taxes roll. Let the lawsuits fly. And may the gates of our so-called higher learning institutions be broken open to the higher truths they’ve long tried to suppress.

Let’s be fair. If everyone pays the same tax rate, the rich still pay more in absolute dollars. But that kind of equality doesn’t satisfy the high priests of redistribution. They demand “equity,” which in this context means punishing the successful with steeper percentages. Anything less is deemed injustice. Anything less is oppression. Anything less confirms you didn’t graduate with a gender studies degree and an enduring grudge.

I don’t bring this up just to trigger memories of a feminist philosophy professor scolding you for your privilege. I mention it because, at long last, I agree with them. Yes, the rich should pay a higher rate. And I know exactly where to start: with the universities themselves.

Here’s the irony — a brand of justice so rich even a tenured literature professor could see it. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act delivers on the universities’ own demands. The new graduated endowment tax will slap elite schools like Harvard and Yale with a levy of up to 8% on their investment income.

That’s not chump change. That’s enough to make a development officer cry into his ethically sourced, carbon-neutral latte.

These institutions — which idolize Alfred Kinsey, stack 95% of their faculties with leftists, and teach students to hate America — are finally getting a taste of the redistributionist medicine they’ve long prescribed to others. After decades of turning our culture into a grievance-riddled mess, they’re now paying the price. Literally.

RELATED: Trump and Linda McMahon are crushing DEI in law and medical schools with a brilliant approach

  The Washington Post/Getty Images

Call it poetic justice. Better yet, call it providential irony. Let these institutions finance the repair of the very foundations they’ve spent years undermining.

But don’t stop there.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon should give students a clear legal path to demand refunds for failed educations. If a business promises a product and fails to deliver, customers deserve their money back. Why not apply the same principle to overpriced degrees in grievance studies?

And Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should open the floodgates to lawsuits against professors who, without any medical training, diagnosed gender dysphoria and pushed irreversible surgeries as cures for teenage angst. These people couldn’t diagnose a flat tire, but they felt confident calling your daughter a boy and your son a pansexual moon sprite.

Only when faced with real consequences — financial and legal — might these institutions begin to take their responsibilities seriously again. Only then might they stop operating as what John Calvin once called “idol factories” — churning out false gods and vain imaginations at record speed.

Let the endowment taxes roll. Let the lawsuits fly. And may the gates of our so-called higher learning institutions be broken open to the higher truths they’ve long tried to suppress.

New Poll Proves Democrats Are Losing The Culture War

Gen Z weathered their formative years from their bedrooms, watching Biden bumble around words and flights of stairs

Trump Targets Iran Nuclear Program With Sanctions. Plus, How Biden Quietly Abandoned 'Buy America.'

His button is bigger than their button: The Trump administration is days away from nuclear negotiations with Iran, but it isn't pulling any punches in the meantime.

The post Trump Targets Iran Nuclear Program With Sanctions. Plus, How Biden Quietly Abandoned 'Buy America.' appeared first on .

Yale Professor Flees US for Canada, Citing Trump

Yale University professor Jason Stanley said in an interview that he is fleeing the United States, describing the country as a "fascist regime" under President Donald Trump. He will take a job just north of the border, in Toronto.

The post Yale Professor Flees US for Canada, Citing Trump appeared first on .

Education Department Opens Dozens Of Investigations Into Schools Over Alleged ‘Race-Exclusionary Practices’

'Reorient civil rights enforcement'

This Yale professor warns of Elon Musk’s ‘fascism’ — and misses the real threat



Timothy Snyder may not be well known in American conservative circles, but his European influence is substantial. I hadn’t heard of the Yale historian until I moved to Vienna, Austria, where he enjoys a kind of celebrity status. European leaders frequently refer to his ideas, whether they are criticizing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency or comparing JD Vance’s criticism of censorship at the Munich Security Conference last month to the Holocaust. These talking points have crossed the Atlantic, reaching U.S. media through figures like CBS News moderator Margaret Brennan. Snyder’s influence among the American left continues to grow.

I recently attended Snyder’s “Making Sense of an Unsettling World” lecture at Vienna’s Institute for Human Sciences. His casual demeanor, paired with a Zelenskyy-style quarter-zip — a nod to the Ukrainian leader he has met and advised — reinforces his “rebel professor” image. This blend of defiance and intellect captivates and galvanizes college students, making Snyder both a compelling and polarizing figure.

Snyder’s call to 'defend institutions' fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable.

After the predictable barrage of ad hominem attacks on Trump — of which there were many — Snyder shifted his focus to the most controversial figure in the administration: Elon Musk. As Snyder spoke, I couldn’t help but notice the vast ideological divide between the left and the right. This gap felt particularly sobering, not just because of its seemingly unbridgeable nature but also because Snyder's perspective undermines the very foundation necessary to bridge such divides: dissent and dialogue enabled by free speech.

Snyder accuses Musk of building a privatized, fascistic government by dismantling America's institutions. According to Snyder, we common folk are mere pawns in Musk’s algorithmic “system,” which he claims is designed to predict and manipulate human behavior. The goal, Snyder argues, is clear: to destroy institutions, privatize government functions, and siphon taxpayer dollars into Musk’s pockets.

Negative vs. positive freedom

Snyder’s argument centers on a critique of the conservative notion of “negative freedom” — the idea that freedom is best preserved by minimizing external restraints on the individual. He dismisses this concept as “freedom against,” portraying it as a tool ripe for exploitation by figures like Elon Musk. In Snyder's view, Musk uses this version of freedom to turn the masses “against” institutions, only to privatize them for personal gain later.

In contrast, Snyder champions the left-leaning principle of “positive freedom,” or “freedom for.”This approach suggests that freedom is only legitimate when exercised in service of ideals codified and enforced through institutions. According to Snyder's 2016 manifesto, which evolved into his New York Times best-selling pamphlet "On Tyranny," institutions “preserve human decency” and serve as the greatest barriers to tyranny. In this framework, Musk emerges as Snyder’s villain, a modern-day figure following in the footsteps of 20th-century fascists who dismantled institutions to consolidate power.

Institutions need accountability

Snyder’s alarmism about Musk exposes the deep divide between the left and right on the nature of freedom and the role of institutions. While critiques of corporate and political power are valid, Snyder’s perspective assumes that institutions should be defended without question, a stance that conflicts with conservatives’ healthy skepticism of concentrated power — a skepticism the left once shared.

Positive freedom, as Snyder envisions it, relies on the belief that government can act as a benevolent force. This assumption contradicts James Madison’s warning that “if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” But angels don’t govern us. Washington bureaucrats are subject to the same ills and vices that make government over the masses necessary. Defending institutional authority without scrutiny undermines the conservative commitment to negative freedom — the principle that individual liberties should be checks against excessive power.

Snyder’s solution, then, is not just to oppose authoritarian figures but to resist decentralization itself. He cites Aristotle and Plato to argue that inequality leads to instability and that demagogues exploit free speech to seize power. In Snyder’s world, speech is only “free” when it supports institutional interests rather than challenges them. Yet his call to “defend institutions” fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable. Snyder assumes institutions are inherently legitimate, ignoring the need for them to be accountable to the people they serve.

Where Snyder falls short

Snyder’s argument falls apart here. The left's crusade against so-called oligarchs like Musk isn’t about returning power to the people — it’s about re-centralizing it under authorities leftists consider ideologically acceptable.

Negative freedom is dangerous to them because it allows individuals to dissent, challenge state-sanctioned narratives, and question institutional orthodoxy. Yet it is precisely this freedom that has protected human decency from the imposition of top-down tyranny.

Snyder is right that institutions should be defended when they uphold the people's dignity, rights, and liberties. But just as institutions act as a check on the whims of the populace, the dissent of the people serves as a vital check on the inherent corruptibility of institutions. As Madison argued, both safeguards are essential.

When Snyder and his growing following on the global left seek to suppress dissent for the sake of institutional authority, they don’t prevent tyranny — they empower it.

60 universities face anti-Semitism investigations: Trump's Education Department



President Donald Trump's Department of Education announced on Monday that it has launched investigations into 60 universities across the nation over anti-Semitism concerns.

Last week, the Education Department, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. General Services Administration canceled $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University due to its "inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students," according to a DOE press release.

'Deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite US campuses continue to fear for their safety.'

The university was notified earlier this month that the joint task force would complete a review of its more than $5 billion federal grant commitments as part of an investigation into potential violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The action was linked to Trump's executive order combatting anti-Semitism, which also led to Immigration and Customs Enforcement's recent detainment of the leader of a pro-Hamas group associated with violent protests at Columbia University.

Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, "This is the first arrest of many to come. We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it."

"Many are not students, they are paid agitators," he continued. "We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again. If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here. We expect every one of America's Colleges and Universities to comply."

A spokesperson for Columbia University told the New York Post that the school will "work with the federal government to restore Columbia's federal funding."

"We take Columbia's legal obligations seriously and understand how serious this announcement is and are committed to combatting anti-Semitism and ensuring the safety and well-being of our students, faculty, and staff," the spokesperson stated.

On Monday, the Education Department took further action against the nation's universities that have allowed disruptive and sometimes violent pro-Hamas and anti-Israel protests to take over their campuses.

The department announced that its Office for Civil Rights sent letters to 60 universities "warning them of potential enforcement actions if they do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities."

It noted that those 60 higher learning institutions — including Arizona State University, Harvard University, Rutgers University, the State University of New York, the University of California, and Yale University — are currently under investigation.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon stated, "The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless anti-Semitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better."

"U.S. colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by U.S. taxpayers. That support is a privilege, and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws," she added.

Universities respond

A spokesperson for ASU told KPNX, "Arizona State University has a long history of opposing anti-Semitic rhetoric and acts of intimidation whether they occur on our campuses or in the community. The university has been very clear about this position."

In response to potential funding threats, Harvard announced a temporary hiring freeze on Monday.

"Effective immediately, Harvard will implement a temporary pause on staff and faculty hiring across the University. In the coming days, we will work closely with the leadership of Harvard's Schools and administrative units to help determine how to implement this guidance in extraordinary cases, such as positions essential to fulfilling the terms of gift- or grant-funded projects," it stated.

A Rutgers spokesperson told the Philadelphia Inquirer that the school "condemns anti-Semitism in the strongest terms possible, and we always will do so. Our strong Jewish community is a point of pride for the university. The university adheres to state and federal law and will always strive to strengthen and enforce the policies and practices that protect our students, faculty, and staff."

A SUNY spokesperson told the Legislative Gazette, "SUNY has no tolerance for anti-Semitism and will continue to ensure that our campuses are safe and inclusive for Jewish students and free from all forms of discrimination and harassment."

"SUNY has frequently and consistently publicly condemned anti-Semitism, opposed [boycott, divestment, and sanctions movements], and taken major steps to ensure compliance with all federal civil rights laws. The safety and security of our students is and always will be paramount," the spokesperson added.

The UC Office of the President said in a statement to KXTV that it is aware that several of its campuses received a letter from the Education Department.

"We want to be clear: The University of California is unwavering in its commitment to combatting anti-Semitism and protecting the civil rights of all our students, faculty, staff, and visitors. We continue to take specific steps to foster an environment free of anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination and harassment for everyone in the university community," the statement read.

A Yale University spokesperson told the Yale Daily News, "Yale has long been committed to combatting anti-Semitism and strives to ensure that its Jewish community, along with all communities at Yale, are treated with dignity, respect, and compassion. Anti-Semitism is inconsistent with Yale's values and principles and has no place in our community."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump’s Ed Dept Warns Dozens Of Schools About ‘Potential Enforcement Actions’ For Failing To Protect Jewish Students

'Relentless antisemitic eruptions'

Yale Law School Scrubs References to Administrator Who Is Member of US-Sanctioned Terror Financier

Yale Law School's Law and Political Economy Project, an initiative funded by the left-wing William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, quietly deleted online references to its deputy director, Helyeh Doutaghi, who is also a member of the U.S.-sanctioned terrorist fundraising entity Samidoun.

The post Yale Law School Scrubs References to Administrator Who Is Member of US-Sanctioned Terror Financier appeared first on .

Latest DISTURBING COVID vaccine data reveals just how much work RFK Jr. has to do



Recent reports from a team of immunologists at Yale University indicate that some COVID jab patients experienced “immune system exhaustion and prolonged spike protein production.”

What does that mean?

In the words of journalist Alex Berenson, who’s been reporting on these latest scientific findings, it means “bad news. Very bad.”

— (@)  
 

Steve Deace dives into the latest findings.

 

According to the study, some patients who received the vaccine developed AIDS — acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

“The word 'acquired' there is key,” says Steve. “What the Yale study finds is that people who did not previously demonstrate these sorts of immune deficiencies began demonstrating them with prolonged exposure.”

Further, “they have no idea how long the spike protein stays in your system,” Steve explains, adding that the “experts” lied about this from the get-go when they told everyone “it stays in your arm.”

Back in 2021 when the mandates began, Steve warned his audience that taking the jab was Russian roulette. Four years later, the science agrees.

Actually, the science has agreed for the last several years, but instead of admitting that the vaccine had adverse side effects, some officials pitched “long COVID” — health problems that persist or develop after someone has COVID-19.

This Yale study, however, is “the first time that a high official study is attributing it uniquely now to the jab,” says Steve.

“RFK Jr. has got to take these shots off the market.”

“I don't know what all pomp and circumstance and I-dotting and T-crossing is required for such a thing to occur, but as soon as such a thing can occur, it needs to happen,” says Steve.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.