This NYT interview with Dr. Fauci blows the biggest hole possible in @Ken_Rosenthal's reporting from 10 days ago.
Within a day or two the Union had its own meeting with government officials. That was already reported, although perhaps not as widely as the original pieces claiming the Union didn't want to talk to government officials. In a previous thread 3/
But, this interview undermines the original reporting further.
Fauci told the NYT:
The only thing I said was that, from a public health standpoint, it looks like the cases — if you look at the plotting of 5/
Apparently, of interviewing any of the government officials or even the Union, Rosenthal went with "according to sources." Those sources were 7/
You'll recall that the Cactus League wrote a letter asking MLB to delay spring training, MLB then cited that request as a reason to delay the season, and both were reported widely. It was only a few days later
This is the same thing. MLB asked the
More from Government
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".