A-2
how do you know when politicians are GUILTY?
when they attempt to make disclaimers of shock when the People tell them through their acts of public challenge that they are full of sh-- for breaching their fiduciary responsibility.
A-1
A-2
Any of have a clue what the penalty is for that?
A-3
A-4
A-5
Do you think secret military tribunals satisfy PUBLIC NOTICE to the CRIMES we are witnessing?
A-6
More from Life
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".
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
1/\u201cWhat would need to be true for you to\u2026.X\u201d
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) December 4, 2018
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody: https://t.co/Yo6jHbSit9
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?
And here at ACLU-MA, we know that justice is a labor of love. Here are some of our favorite moments of love and justice in the last year, to brighten your #ValentinesDay.
💞👇💞
Almost exactly a year ago, our clients Hanz and Maudy were reunited after being separated by the cruel "Return to Mexico" policy.
Yesterday, a family of asylum seekers were reunited. Hanz & his son were subjected to #MPP, a cruel policy that forced them into dangerous cities in northern Mexico. We sued on their behalf, allowing them to rejoin their family in Massachusetts. pic.twitter.com/Kce6MTpS9C
— ACLU Massachusetts (@ACLU_Mass) February 7, 2020