This article is about researchers studying Harvard's association and profits off slavery. It goes into the university's connections with the slave trade and the impact of the Antiguan slave trade on the people of Antigua. More than that, however, it demonstrates that studying history isn't always seen as a neutral act, nor is knowledge necessarily a goal that everyone has. It demonstrates the hazards of studying history, but also, why doing so is so important.
Studying history is never a neutral act. Our collective history is a (we hope mostly true) story that we tell ourselves about ourselves. Even though it is based on true events, it is still a story. What history we choose to tell and how we tell it is always a statement about who we are, or how individuals hope we come to see ourselves. This is why changes to history curriculum can garner such passionate debate. It's usually not about whether the history is true (even though that's almost always how it is framed). Often times what is being removed and what is it's being replaced with are both "true." It's about whose truth we're choosing to tell ourselves.
This reminds me of Larry David interview when he finds out one of his family ancestors was a slave owner. However his response was funny, genuine, and on point.
People that are unable to accept reality and learn from it lack maturity and cannot be considered adults.
Surprisingly our society is fairly forgiving as long as you can learn from your mistakes. Just shutting it down tells you more about the people than the transgressions of the past.
That was on the pbs show Finding your Roots right? I just watched it a bit ago and he was one of the first on the show IMO to have the right response to that info.
On a tangent, I do vaguely recall reading an article about Larry going off on Dershowitz for being a scumbag of a goblin in some shop in Martha’s Vineyard
The problem is that activist history isn’t academic; it is by definition starting out with a desired goal (paying reparations to descendants families) and then looking in the historical record to generate an argument to support that proposition. There may be a generation of historians that don’t believe in historical objectivity (or even that such objectivity is possible), but activist history risks turning the profession into just another political lobby - it’s an embarrassment.
Seeking out “descendant families” is rather ridiculous as an academic proposition. Descendants 400+ years removed from the historical period being examined have nothing to do with ascertaining what actually happened in the 17th century. They might make sympathetic figures for political arguments about reparations, but that isn’t the role of a historian, at least not a professional historian.
Moreover, the application of 21st century values to persons long-dead (ostensibly with the goal of promoting the idea that institutions that employed those individuals should pay for their acts 400+ years later) is itself disturbing. The 17th century happened. The people who lived in the 17th century had their own values and world view that may seem strange to us looking back today, but the role of a historian is not to sit on judgement of people who lived in an entirely different world hundreds of years ago. History is not theology and we are not Gods, however more enlightened we believe ourselves to be than our “benighted forbears”.
The idea that Harvard owes money to descendants of persons who were not treated in accordance with 21st century values and ethics is itself absurd. The past happened. It won’t “unhappen” the way that it did just because some institution writes a check. The notion is entirely ridiculous and non-academic, and those who pursue it may find careers as activists, but they don’t belong in academia.
>The idea that Harvard owes money to descendants of persons who were not treated in accordance with 21st century values and ethics is itself absurd.
Exactly this.
Yes, people of African decent were treated horribly. And that treatment has led to a modern day where people with that ancestry are often lower on the economic and educational ladders.
But the PROPER thing to do, if you're talking reparations, would be to do something to change THAT outcome. Finance schools for the underprivileged. Especially setting up private schools that cater to 10-18 year old black kids, so that they can get the early education they need so they don't NEED affirmative action college programs - and get in on their own merits instead.
Instead, some of the reparations money, if based on "descendants of who hurt by us in the past" can just end up going to kids who are 75% white (they have a black grandpa/grandma), or already successful black families. Sure, it's still "noble", but it isn't helping where help is needed.
did you read the article? because your preference was exactly what they were trying to squash. the antiguan and barbudan government started talking about making things right and maybe reserving a seat or two at different colleges for antiguans as reparations for the labor that went into building Harvard, and Harvard started sweating and fired a bunch of the people doing the research.
Reserving a seat at the most prestigious university in the world for someone from Antigua or Barbados (or anywhere really) in 2026 instead of awarding it to other students with more merit, because Harvard existed and/or benefited from slavery centuries ago, is both ridiculous and unethical. It is a poster child for affirmative action done poorly.
you would have a very compelling argument if universities didn't already practice affirmative action for the monied and entrenched through legacy preference and pay to play, which lets in dozens if not hundreds of underqualified little princes and princesses. admissions have never solely been about merit, you're a little gormless if you believe that.
oh you don't now do you? and your disagreement with it will change that reality, yeah? because as long as they exist, affirmative action to right historic wrongs, especially when the schools have profited off of them, should as well.
I'm not calling you any names either, it is very foolish and naive to believe that college admissions at 99% of schools but especially ivies is about merit. it's gormless. you're being gormless.
Your use of punctuation and capitalization is a travesty to the English language and you call other people gormless? The mind boggles...
As for institutions today righting historic wrongs of the distant past, you and I obviously disagree. It seems that public opinion however is swinging to my view.
> Moreover, the application of 21st century values to persons long-dead (ostensibly with the goal of promoting the idea that institutions that employed those individuals should pay for their acts 400+ years later) is itself disturbing. The 17th century happened. The people who lived in the 17th century had their own values and world view that may seem strange to us looking back today
do you think the enslaved people back then had the same values as the ''people in the 17th century''?
> do you think the enslaved people back then had the same values as the ''people in the 17th century''?
You are welcome to read about that topic, as it has been written about extensively. I would recommend Professor Genovese's seminal text, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World The Slaves Made if you are actually interested. Don't blame me if you do not like what the historical record actually has to say about this topic though.
There were people studying the historical side not as activists and still where shut down, out, and fired by the University. While the topic of reparations can be debated, arguing that studying the history and descendants is not ridiculous as a “academic proposition. History takes the culmination of all information and trying to say certain information is irrelevant because someone may use it in a way that another sees as unfit, is ludicrous.
>There were people studying the historical side not as activists and still where shut down, out, and fired by the Universit
If they were hired under a particular project and paid by a funding line attached to that project, ending the project ends their job. This is just how academia works. It's a complex web of money from contracts and grants combined with university funding where everyone is constantly angling to get their department or project more money. I've seen huge multi-year projects that employed dozens of people and operated out of leased office space off campus abruptly end because the grant money stopped. The university isn't just going to pick up the tab for people it doesn't have work for. If those historians can find a grant to work under I'm sure Harvard would be all too happy to take their cut off the grant and let them continue "working for Harvard".
If Harvard were considering the concept of reparations, but wondering what that would look like, then this historic research is valuable for providing the facts on what happened, who was affected directly, and what the subsequent consequences were. Such research would be able to reach all the way to the present day to find who the subjects of any reparations might be. Would the same historian tools be able to describe their current condition in a way similar to how historic populations' condition is described?
>What makes you think no one thought slavery was wrong then?
When did I say that? Certainly there were people who objected to slavery in the 17th century, at least on religious grounds.
To turn that around, here is a thought experiment to consider. Most educated people, certainly most posters on Reddit, believe that affirmative action programs are a common good that should be incorporated into every institution in order to correct "historical imbalances" and redistribute "equity" to desired out-groups.
And yet, there exist many of us who do not agree that society should be organized around race, who denounce efforts to classify us into involuntarily-assigned racial clades, who denounce efforts to redistribute resources based on involuntary group identities dictated by others. For this we are treated much like the abolitionists of the 19th century - banned on Reddit, banned from speaking at Harvard, subjected to all kinds of verbal abuse for our views, etc.
What if, in the 23rd century, enlightened persons come to the position that individuals have value in their own right apart from group identities? What if the enlightened view 200 years from now is that affirmative action was a grave crime against individual liberty, a crime that institutions - such as Harvard University - engaged in, promoted, and profited from? Would you support forcing such institutions to pay reparations to the descendants of white students who are discriminated against today under affirmative action programs?
I think not. But there is no reason why not, at least if one accepts the principle that those who exist today are responsible for the sins of people who look like them (or are affiliated with common institutions) that existed hundreds of years ago. This thought experiment highlights the danger in assuming oneself to be God casting judgment on history - you are not God and cannot know whether what you advocate today (affirmative action, arbitrary race divisions) will be considered sins by those who live hundreds of years hence. Heck, even as recently as 100 years ago, these same institutions promoting affirmative action/DEI were promoting eugenics and scientific racism! The "enlightened" person of 1926 was no more enlightened than the "enlightened" person of 2026, much though they believed it at the time.
if you believe the point of historical observations is some strict "objective" view that shouldn't involve morals at all, whats the point of history? You think just because those of the past had different values that we shouldn't investigate what negative impact historical events have had and try to rectify/learn from them?
You are so appalled by the idea of moralizing what has been done in the past and I don't understand that. It is possible to understand there values when it comes to something like slavery and still judge them as wrong. Would you prefer we pretend the slave trade never happened and has no impact on the modern world?
>if you believe the point of historical observations is some strict "objective" view that shouldn't involve morals at all, whats the point of history?
As a historian, it's up to me to lay out the facts objectively. Anyone else can make whatever judgments they wish to based on my work. I can discuss the moral framework of the time, but applying modern morality to historical figures is an inherently flawed endeavor.
> You think just because those of the past had different values that we shouldn't investigate what negative impact historical events have had and try to rectify/learn from them?
That isn't the job of a professional historian. As to "rectifying" the negative impact of historical events, that burden falls on no one - persons living in the 21st century are not responsible for the acts of persons who lived 400 years ago, even if they happen to physically resemble those persons. This is a simple proposition that has always been recognized in western law: the sins of the father are not the sins of the son, and in this case we are talking about the sins of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.
To accept the proposition that persons alive today must account for the sins of persons long dead is to turn the historical record into a search for grievance - and humans have occupied the Earth for over 100,000 years, so there is an endless source of grievance that can be recognized. Do we make modern day Mongolia reimburse (by reparations) the modern day descendants of Germany and Italy among other places for the sins of Ghengis Khan? What about the descendants of the Aztecs who displaced other indigenous persons in Mexico thousands of years ago? Do Swedes today reimburse the descendants of Anglo Saxons for the barbarous acts of their viking forebears? Look hard enough and you can find grievances in every corner of human history because it has been going on for a long time. In this respect, the experience of Caribbean or North American slavery is not at all unique (indeed, slavery itself is not unique).
>You are so appalled by the idea of moralizing what has been done in the past and I don't understand that.
It is a pointless exercise. It makes little sense to denounce Swedes of today because the vikings were violent 1200 years ago, or to demand that Swedish institutions reimburse Celts and Anglo Saxons for the "crimes" of their ancestors. Of course the prospect of arriving in boats, burning a village to the ground, and murdering and/or raping every last inhabitant is a vile crime from the perspective of an enlightened person living in the 21st century - but that is what happened for thousands of years of human history. The exercise of condemning it is both pointless and, worse, pursued because the condemnor seeks to elevate themselves and demonstrate their righteousness (i.e., vanity is the real goal of those who sit in judgment of the past).
>Would you prefer we pretend the slave trade never happened and has no impact on the modern world?
Quite the contrary - the slave trade did happen. As to the "impact on the modern world" I would say that all of human history has impacted the modern world and the existence of slavery in human civilizations of yesteryear is merely a small part of that history.
It's to my knowledge that all qualified descendants of the people enslaved by Harvard are guaranteed admission and tuition. If the keep finding descendants Harvard will become a HBCU.
[OP] Quouar | 10 days ago
This article is about researchers studying Harvard's association and profits off slavery. It goes into the university's connections with the slave trade and the impact of the Antiguan slave trade on the people of Antigua. More than that, however, it demonstrates that studying history isn't always seen as a neutral act, nor is knowledge necessarily a goal that everyone has. It demonstrates the hazards of studying history, but also, why doing so is so important.
Anxious_Big_8933 | 9 days ago
Studying history is never a neutral act. Our collective history is a (we hope mostly true) story that we tell ourselves about ourselves. Even though it is based on true events, it is still a story. What history we choose to tell and how we tell it is always a statement about who we are, or how individuals hope we come to see ourselves. This is why changes to history curriculum can garner such passionate debate. It's usually not about whether the history is true (even though that's almost always how it is framed). Often times what is being removed and what is it's being replaced with are both "true." It's about whose truth we're choosing to tell ourselves.
iwontelaborate | 9 days ago
Hilarious how many people know the saying “History is written by the victors” but rarely question the history we’re taught in our schools (US).
gekaman | 10 days ago
This reminds me of Larry David interview when he finds out one of his family ancestors was a slave owner. However his response was funny, genuine, and on point.
People that are unable to accept reality and learn from it lack maturity and cannot be considered adults.
Surprisingly our society is fairly forgiving as long as you can learn from your mistakes. Just shutting it down tells you more about the people than the transgressions of the past.
Xg1j0eX | 10 days ago
My favorite part of Larry David finding out he had slave owning ancestors was saying that the one who got beat to death deserved it.
garbagegoat | 10 days ago
That was on the pbs show Finding your Roots right? I just watched it a bit ago and he was one of the first on the show IMO to have the right response to that info.
Xg1j0eX | 9 days ago
That's what it was called. Ben Affleck tried to get them to edit out his ancestors slave owenership.
ScottNewman | 10 days ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLBva_3E2Ts
gekaman | 10 days ago
Thank you for posting the link
ScottNewman | 10 days ago
It's pretty, pretty.... pretty good
maltNeutrino | 10 days ago
On a tangent, I do vaguely recall reading an article about Larry going off on Dershowitz for being a scumbag of a goblin in some shop in Martha’s Vineyard
crake | 10 days ago
The problem is that activist history isn’t academic; it is by definition starting out with a desired goal (paying reparations to descendants families) and then looking in the historical record to generate an argument to support that proposition. There may be a generation of historians that don’t believe in historical objectivity (or even that such objectivity is possible), but activist history risks turning the profession into just another political lobby - it’s an embarrassment.
Seeking out “descendant families” is rather ridiculous as an academic proposition. Descendants 400+ years removed from the historical period being examined have nothing to do with ascertaining what actually happened in the 17th century. They might make sympathetic figures for political arguments about reparations, but that isn’t the role of a historian, at least not a professional historian.
Moreover, the application of 21st century values to persons long-dead (ostensibly with the goal of promoting the idea that institutions that employed those individuals should pay for their acts 400+ years later) is itself disturbing. The 17th century happened. The people who lived in the 17th century had their own values and world view that may seem strange to us looking back today, but the role of a historian is not to sit on judgement of people who lived in an entirely different world hundreds of years ago. History is not theology and we are not Gods, however more enlightened we believe ourselves to be than our “benighted forbears”.
The idea that Harvard owes money to descendants of persons who were not treated in accordance with 21st century values and ethics is itself absurd. The past happened. It won’t “unhappen” the way that it did just because some institution writes a check. The notion is entirely ridiculous and non-academic, and those who pursue it may find careers as activists, but they don’t belong in academia.
wyldmage | 9 days ago
>The idea that Harvard owes money to descendants of persons who were not treated in accordance with 21st century values and ethics is itself absurd.
Exactly this.
Yes, people of African decent were treated horribly. And that treatment has led to a modern day where people with that ancestry are often lower on the economic and educational ladders.
But the PROPER thing to do, if you're talking reparations, would be to do something to change THAT outcome. Finance schools for the underprivileged. Especially setting up private schools that cater to 10-18 year old black kids, so that they can get the early education they need so they don't NEED affirmative action college programs - and get in on their own merits instead.
Instead, some of the reparations money, if based on "descendants of who hurt by us in the past" can just end up going to kids who are 75% white (they have a black grandpa/grandma), or already successful black families. Sure, it's still "noble", but it isn't helping where help is needed.
sickbabe | 9 days ago
did you read the article? because your preference was exactly what they were trying to squash. the antiguan and barbudan government started talking about making things right and maybe reserving a seat or two at different colleges for antiguans as reparations for the labor that went into building Harvard, and Harvard started sweating and fired a bunch of the people doing the research.
Anxious_Big_8933 | 9 days ago
Because that goal is a ridiculous one. Unethical even.
sickbabe | 9 days ago
please, share with the class how reparations in this format are unethical.
Anxious_Big_8933 | 9 days ago
Reserving a seat at the most prestigious university in the world for someone from Antigua or Barbados (or anywhere really) in 2026 instead of awarding it to other students with more merit, because Harvard existed and/or benefited from slavery centuries ago, is both ridiculous and unethical. It is a poster child for affirmative action done poorly.
Explain to the class why it is not ridiculous?
sickbabe | 9 days ago
you would have a very compelling argument if universities didn't already practice affirmative action for the monied and entrenched through legacy preference and pay to play, which lets in dozens if not hundreds of underqualified little princes and princesses. admissions have never solely been about merit, you're a little gormless if you believe that.
Anxious_Big_8933 | 9 days ago
I'm against that too.
No need for the name calling.
sickbabe | 9 days ago
oh you don't now do you? and your disagreement with it will change that reality, yeah? because as long as they exist, affirmative action to right historic wrongs, especially when the schools have profited off of them, should as well.
I'm not calling you any names either, it is very foolish and naive to believe that college admissions at 99% of schools but especially ivies is about merit. it's gormless. you're being gormless.
Anxious_Big_8933 | 9 days ago
Your use of punctuation and capitalization is a travesty to the English language and you call other people gormless? The mind boggles...
As for institutions today righting historic wrongs of the distant past, you and I obviously disagree. It seems that public opinion however is swinging to my view.
asphias | 9 days ago
> Moreover, the application of 21st century values to persons long-dead (ostensibly with the goal of promoting the idea that institutions that employed those individuals should pay for their acts 400+ years later) is itself disturbing. The 17th century happened. The people who lived in the 17th century had their own values and world view that may seem strange to us looking back today
do you think the enslaved people back then had the same values as the ''people in the 17th century''?
crake | 9 days ago
> do you think the enslaved people back then had the same values as the ''people in the 17th century''?
You are welcome to read about that topic, as it has been written about extensively. I would recommend Professor Genovese's seminal text, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World The Slaves Made if you are actually interested. Don't blame me if you do not like what the historical record actually has to say about this topic though.
Shionkron | 10 days ago
There were people studying the historical side not as activists and still where shut down, out, and fired by the University. While the topic of reparations can be debated, arguing that studying the history and descendants is not ridiculous as a “academic proposition. History takes the culmination of all information and trying to say certain information is irrelevant because someone may use it in a way that another sees as unfit, is ludicrous.
Lampwick | 10 days ago
>There were people studying the historical side not as activists and still where shut down, out, and fired by the Universit
If they were hired under a particular project and paid by a funding line attached to that project, ending the project ends their job. This is just how academia works. It's a complex web of money from contracts and grants combined with university funding where everyone is constantly angling to get their department or project more money. I've seen huge multi-year projects that employed dozens of people and operated out of leased office space off campus abruptly end because the grant money stopped. The university isn't just going to pick up the tab for people it doesn't have work for. If those historians can find a grant to work under I'm sure Harvard would be all too happy to take their cut off the grant and let them continue "working for Harvard".
SeeShark | 10 days ago
Did you read the article?
IkeRoberts | 9 days ago
It was a project initiated and funded by the Harvard administration, not an external grant that expired.
IkeRoberts | 9 days ago
If Harvard were considering the concept of reparations, but wondering what that would look like, then this historic research is valuable for providing the facts on what happened, who was affected directly, and what the subsequent consequences were. Such research would be able to reach all the way to the present day to find who the subjects of any reparations might be. Would the same historian tools be able to describe their current condition in a way similar to how historic populations' condition is described?
HotNeighbor420 | 9 days ago
What makes you think no one thought slavery was wrong then?
crake | 9 days ago
>What makes you think no one thought slavery was wrong then?
When did I say that? Certainly there were people who objected to slavery in the 17th century, at least on religious grounds.
To turn that around, here is a thought experiment to consider. Most educated people, certainly most posters on Reddit, believe that affirmative action programs are a common good that should be incorporated into every institution in order to correct "historical imbalances" and redistribute "equity" to desired out-groups.
And yet, there exist many of us who do not agree that society should be organized around race, who denounce efforts to classify us into involuntarily-assigned racial clades, who denounce efforts to redistribute resources based on involuntary group identities dictated by others. For this we are treated much like the abolitionists of the 19th century - banned on Reddit, banned from speaking at Harvard, subjected to all kinds of verbal abuse for our views, etc.
What if, in the 23rd century, enlightened persons come to the position that individuals have value in their own right apart from group identities? What if the enlightened view 200 years from now is that affirmative action was a grave crime against individual liberty, a crime that institutions - such as Harvard University - engaged in, promoted, and profited from? Would you support forcing such institutions to pay reparations to the descendants of white students who are discriminated against today under affirmative action programs?
I think not. But there is no reason why not, at least if one accepts the principle that those who exist today are responsible for the sins of people who look like them (or are affiliated with common institutions) that existed hundreds of years ago. This thought experiment highlights the danger in assuming oneself to be God casting judgment on history - you are not God and cannot know whether what you advocate today (affirmative action, arbitrary race divisions) will be considered sins by those who live hundreds of years hence. Heck, even as recently as 100 years ago, these same institutions promoting affirmative action/DEI were promoting eugenics and scientific racism! The "enlightened" person of 1926 was no more enlightened than the "enlightened" person of 2026, much though they believed it at the time.
ryann_flood | 9 days ago
if you believe the point of historical observations is some strict "objective" view that shouldn't involve morals at all, whats the point of history? You think just because those of the past had different values that we shouldn't investigate what negative impact historical events have had and try to rectify/learn from them?
You are so appalled by the idea of moralizing what has been done in the past and I don't understand that. It is possible to understand there values when it comes to something like slavery and still judge them as wrong. Would you prefer we pretend the slave trade never happened and has no impact on the modern world?
Laiko_Kairen | 9 days ago
>if you believe the point of historical observations is some strict "objective" view that shouldn't involve morals at all, whats the point of history?
As a historian, it's up to me to lay out the facts objectively. Anyone else can make whatever judgments they wish to based on my work. I can discuss the moral framework of the time, but applying modern morality to historical figures is an inherently flawed endeavor.
crake | 9 days ago
> You think just because those of the past had different values that we shouldn't investigate what negative impact historical events have had and try to rectify/learn from them?
That isn't the job of a professional historian. As to "rectifying" the negative impact of historical events, that burden falls on no one - persons living in the 21st century are not responsible for the acts of persons who lived 400 years ago, even if they happen to physically resemble those persons. This is a simple proposition that has always been recognized in western law: the sins of the father are not the sins of the son, and in this case we are talking about the sins of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.
To accept the proposition that persons alive today must account for the sins of persons long dead is to turn the historical record into a search for grievance - and humans have occupied the Earth for over 100,000 years, so there is an endless source of grievance that can be recognized. Do we make modern day Mongolia reimburse (by reparations) the modern day descendants of Germany and Italy among other places for the sins of Ghengis Khan? What about the descendants of the Aztecs who displaced other indigenous persons in Mexico thousands of years ago? Do Swedes today reimburse the descendants of Anglo Saxons for the barbarous acts of their viking forebears? Look hard enough and you can find grievances in every corner of human history because it has been going on for a long time. In this respect, the experience of Caribbean or North American slavery is not at all unique (indeed, slavery itself is not unique).
>You are so appalled by the idea of moralizing what has been done in the past and I don't understand that.
It is a pointless exercise. It makes little sense to denounce Swedes of today because the vikings were violent 1200 years ago, or to demand that Swedish institutions reimburse Celts and Anglo Saxons for the "crimes" of their ancestors. Of course the prospect of arriving in boats, burning a village to the ground, and murdering and/or raping every last inhabitant is a vile crime from the perspective of an enlightened person living in the 21st century - but that is what happened for thousands of years of human history. The exercise of condemning it is both pointless and, worse, pursued because the condemnor seeks to elevate themselves and demonstrate their righteousness (i.e., vanity is the real goal of those who sit in judgment of the past).
>Would you prefer we pretend the slave trade never happened and has no impact on the modern world?
Quite the contrary - the slave trade did happen. As to the "impact on the modern world" I would say that all of human history has impacted the modern world and the existence of slavery in human civilizations of yesteryear is merely a small part of that history.
ivzie | 10 days ago
Great article, thank you.
Osiris_Raphious | 9 days ago
Time to rewrite history and get a new class of debt slavery going.
AllThotsGo2Heaven2 | 10 days ago
Ok uh unexpectedly detailed article from the guardian.
Satan_on_a_stick | 10 days ago
It's to my knowledge that all qualified descendants of the people enslaved by Harvard are guaranteed admission and tuition. If the keep finding descendants Harvard will become a HBCU.
SeeShark | 10 days ago
400 years is a lot of descendants. It was a ridiculous guarantee to make, and anyone that knows math would have told them that.
PhysicsEagle | 10 days ago
If only they could find someone at Harvard who knows math…
Draemeth | 10 days ago
Harvard isn’t like it once was, there’s a huge influx of low reading grade students with poor mathematical ability
SeeShark | 10 days ago
Presumably they still have professors
8doorcoupe | 9 days ago
I wasn’t aware we had hard numbers on some overall decline in reading ability of Harvard students. Is there a source you could point me to on that?
Jerdanhowell | 10 days ago
Truth sometimes becomes more dangerous than choosing to keep it buried
SeeShark | 10 days ago
Dangerous to whom?
Telecom_VoIP_Fan | 9 days ago
Well-researched and disturbing - it shakes whatever confidence people still have in "prestigious" institutes of higher learning.