June 30, 2025 • 39 mins
After a federal investigation, the Trump Administration found Harvard University violated civil rights law by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students on campus. As a result of their findings, the Trump Admin. sent a letter to Harvard University President Alan Garber, threatening to cut all of Harvard’s federal funding if Harvard fails to immediately institute changes on campus. Dan discussed the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights findings into the investigation of Harvard and heard your reaction!
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
I'm telling you Boston's new radio.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
Oh good luck to Brad Marsh and I'm not sure
he's going to be able to play six years, but hey,
for a thirty seven year old guy in the NHL,
that's pretty good. Pretty good. Okay. We have spent two
hours talking about the controversy in Newton. If you tuned
in late, we talked with a city councilor John Oliver.
(00:30):
In the nine o'clock hour, we talked with Arianna h Foya,
one of the residents of No Nantum, and we also
talked with Newton Mayor Ruthanne Fuller. They were in the
nine o'clock hour, and in the eleven o'clock hour. We
had lots of different callers, most of whom are very
(00:50):
much offended by which may by what Mayor Fuller did.
If you had an opportunity to miss the nine o'clock hour,
you can listen to it tomorrow. Tomorrow that hour will
be posted by Rob Brooks, or top notch ace producer.
He gets that up sometime generally before two or three
(01:11):
o'clock in the morning, and Rob will have that posted
for all of you to listen to and you can
begin listening to it as early as probably four o'clock
this morning. Now I want to switch on to a
national story as I think, as I'm sure all of
(01:32):
you are aware, the President's big beautiful tax bill or
whatever you want, like a big beautiful bill. I don't
think he calls it a tax bill. We probably will
be getting more to that in the next day or so.
I'm here for two more days this week. But one
of the things that is a big story today is
(01:54):
the Trump administration formally has found that Harvard failed to
protect Jewish students and has threatening to cut off all funding.
I'm looking at stories today from CNN, from The New
York Times, from Associated Press, and I think this is
a very interesting story. Obviously, Donald Trump has Harvard in
(02:21):
the crosshairs. He has two schools in the crossairs, Columbia
and Harvard. Now I don't think either of those schools
covered themselves in glory in the wake of the Hamas
attack on Israel back in October of twenty twenty three
and all of the demonstrations that have occurred. But for
(02:43):
some reason, maybe it is because Colombia has been more
acquiescent Harvard, it seems to be the real focus of
President Trump, and I think that there is a possibility
that the President could easily overplay his hand. I, as
(03:07):
I think most of you realize, I support Israel and
Israel's right to exist. I think the president should be
congratulated on what he achieved in the damage that he
inflicted on the nuclear program in Iran. We were talking
about that a week ago, I said at that time,
(03:31):
and I continue to believe it. Watch what Iran does.
Don't necessarily listen to what they say. They are always
going to say things for domestic consumption, the purpose of
which is to remain in power. This is a autocracy,
this is a theocracy. It is a dictatorship. It oppresses
(03:56):
its people. We know all of that. On that score,
I think the President did exactly the right thing. However,
in terms of Harvard, Harvard has acknowledged that they have
not been as diligent as they should be in being
(04:19):
concerned about how Jewish students are treated, not only by
faculty but also by other students. They have said Harvard report,
they did their own task force, and Harvard said the
alienating and hostile atmosphere that many Jewish and Israeli students
(04:42):
had Harvard described experiencing, particularly in the twenty twenty three
twenty four academic year. They acknowledged that. Okay, now you
have the Trump administration with their own task force. They
(05:03):
have found that Harvard University is in violent violation. I
don't know what that word means, violent violation, but violent
violation of the Civil Rights Act. That's according to CNN,
once more escalating the battle with the school, days after
(05:24):
President Trump suggests that a deal was in sight to
end its targeting of the university. Now, the members of
the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti Semitism said on
today in a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber, that
(05:44):
an investigation into the school's compliance with Title six of
the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color,
or national origin in programs or activity receiving federal funding,
is now complete. The Office for Civil Rights at the
(06:06):
Department of Health and Human Services finds that Harvard University
is in violent violation of the Title six of the
Civil Rights Act, reads the letter obtained by CNN, which
is signed by Assistant Attorney General Ramid Dillon and others.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Now.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
Dylan is a lawyer. She's out of San Francisco, she
seems to me to be a very competent attorney, but
she also is very much a Trump advocate appointed by
the president. According to CNN, the investigation concluded that Harvard
(06:44):
has been in some cases deliberately indifferent and in others
has been a wilful participant in anti Semitic harassment of
Jewish students, faculty in staff, pointing two examples of Jewish
and israel students being assaulted and spin on imagery on
campus that it says, quote trafficked in obvious anti Semitic troops,
(07:09):
and what it describes as an impermissible multi week encampment
that has stilled fear in and disrupted the studies of
Jewish and Israeli students, according to the letter, now there
is a quote here. In response, Harvard said it is
(07:29):
far from indifferent and strongly disagrees with the report's conclusion.
The university's communications director, Jason Newton said in a statement
his statement, anti Semitism is a serious problem, and no
matter the content, it is unacceptable. Harvard has taken substantive,
(07:52):
proactive steps to address the root causes of anti Semitism
in its community. Newton said one to folk On that
because that is an acknowledgment by the Harvard spokesman. And
I'm sure that this statement from the Harvard spokesman or
communications director Jason Newton was reviewed by the administration and
(08:18):
reviewed by lawyers. It is an admission against interest. It
is a statement that says, yeah, anti Semitism is a
serious problem, and no matter the content is unacceptable. Fine.
That is a statement that does not refer to Harvard University,
but the sentence following that does. Harvard has taken substantial, substantive,
(08:42):
proactive steps to address the root causes of anti semitism
in its meaning Harvard's community. So that is an admission
in of itself. And look, there's no question at this
point that Harvard has been lax in tamping down and
(09:05):
dealing with anti semitism. The question is, if it is
acknowledging the problem and has taken steps to alleviate that problem,
why is the Trump administration still going after them and
increasing the threats and raising the stakes. I don't know
(09:29):
the answer to that, but I hope you do. I
think it would be great if we could eliminate all
forms of discrimination in every higher education university in this country.
But I think the Trump administration would be wise, in
my opinion, to take its victories and monitor Harvard's future compliance.
(09:55):
But to take the acknowledgement that Harvard has made. It
is not saying we're as clean as the driven snow.
They are admitting that they have failed. Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten,
thirty six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty Different topic,
different subject, different hour. Let's light them up, coming right
(10:19):
back on Nightside. You're on night Side with Dan Ray
on WBZ Boston's news radio. Sorry, will take them in
order as we always do. Let me go to Matt
and Brighton. Matt, are you satisfied with what Harvard has
said or done or do you think the Trump administration
should continue to push and do they risk being becoming
(10:42):
considered overbearing in this situation?
Speaker 4 (10:46):
Well, I mean it's a good question. I think we're
getting two perspectives here. Now I understand the part of
anti Semitism versus anti Zionism, and when I read Harvard's statement,
they've said we felt like we've combated anti Israel, which
(11:10):
would be anti Zionism. The overall answer is that's for
the students who are there to answer and President Trump,
who's a very good advocate for the Jewish people. I'm
talking about the American Jews. Yep, they may be still targeted.
I don't know that they're not. And if Harvard's can
(11:33):
able to put in place anti Israel rhetoric, anti Zionism
and control that, I don't know there's not still anti Semitism.
So I'm there will be a point that I think, yes,
they are overbearing and overdoing it. But until I'm able
to be satisfying within my peer group, know that both
(11:56):
are combated. I support Donald Trump and President Trump can.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Well you're a young guy. You're a young guy. You're
not at Harvard, but you're a young guy.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
Right, No, but I might to law school.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
No, but what if your how I'm trying to figure
how old are you? Thirty five?
Speaker 4 (12:15):
A couple of years younger?
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Okay, we're saying you're thirty three. Okay. And the point
that I'm trying to make is Harvard seems to be
willing to cooperate in this effort and to make things better.
If Trump sometimes, if he senses a weakness, he probably
(12:39):
tries to take advantage of that. But they can come
a point in time where he overplaces his hand and
I I and then Harvard can dig their heels. And
I would rather see him, uh work with Harvard.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
I would like to see that too.
Speaker 4 (12:56):
But imagine if we tried to work with columb I
mean we imagine if he tried to work with Kolombie.
I mean, look like the old deans Stephonic or whatever
her name was, not Staphonic.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
Congress Stephanic who was who ran the the hearing in
which the presidents of Harvard, U, Penn m T were
questions and the Columbi.
Speaker 5 (13:18):
You two, I go over a year ago.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
It just seems I agree with you. It would be
great to work in you know, roundtable legislation to combat
this and get rid of it and to make and
to figure out.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
The resignation of the University of Virginia president yesterday.
Speaker 4 (13:37):
Uh, I hadn't heard about it, to be honest with you.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
The University of Virginia, which is also one of the
really best universities in the country, resigned. So well, we'll see,
We'll love to see the next Matt is always appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
My friend, appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
Then, thank you much.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
Good night. Let me go to my friend Harvey silver Glad,
who was checking in on his Harvey, I know you
are very close to this situation. What has Harvard done
substantively that they're referring to?
Speaker 1 (14:11):
It is refused to bow down and kiss the knee
of Donald Trump. That is the only reason that Trump
is going after Harvard.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
But tell me if you know, first of all, what
has Harvard done. Because I'm being critical of Trump here
or potentially overplaying his hand. It seems to me as
if I just read that statement, you're a lawyer, better
a lawyer than me or I could ever think of being.
But I thought that that statement from the Harvard spokesman
(14:44):
was interesting. Anti Semitism is a serious problem, no matter
the content.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Period is very frank, had been very frank. By the way,
Harvard has a Jewish president. I don't know if that matters,
but it might be factored in to the equation here.
Harvard has been very frank. It has this problem, it's
working on it.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
By the way, I just want to read this sentence, Harvey,
because I think this supports what you're saying. Harvard has
taken substantive, proactive steps to address the to address the
root causes of anti semitism. In its meaning Harvard's community.
This was the statement from the from the communications director.
(15:30):
I believe that that is an admission statement, you know,
as a statement against interest. It's an acknowledgment that Harvard's saying,
we've dropped the ball and we're going to make it better.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Why not take that as a victory? Trump? Does he
run the risk of overplaying his hand? My question?
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Cos he does? He does, and the Harvard's going to
win in court now if they take it to the
Supreme Court, I'm not so sure, because Trump now controls
the Supreme Court is going to somebody's going to win.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
So you're saying Harvard will win on the withholding of
federal moneys. Is that what you're saying. Yes, it's a
long fight and they are going to be without federal moneies.
It just seems as if Harvard is in Trump's cross heirs,
and no matter what Harvard is willing to acknowledge and
(16:32):
admit to, that's not going to be enough.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
What do you think he wants? What do you think
it is going to be painful the remainder of the
Trump I've written to Alan Garber and John Manning about this.
It is going to be painful. For four years. But
Harvard has been around since sixteen thirty six.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
That's great.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
It's going to be around for a few hundred more
years at least, and Trump is going to be around
only four years. It's going to cost it's going to
cost them a lot of money, but it's going to
be worth it in the longer. They have about a
seventy six billion dollar endowment. They have to dig into
(17:19):
it and just write out these these three and a
half crazy years at in front of us.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Okay, so let us assume they're doing that. Okay, let's
take that. What substantively do you think Harvard can do.
Maybe there's nothing they can do to please Trump, but
what can they do to make it more comfortable for
Jewish and Israeli students on that campus?
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Okay? You know that I'm a free speech absolutist.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
I know that, tru I'm very much aware of that,
and that's why I'm asking the question.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Students have a right dispute hatred. They have a right
to protest Israel, to protest Judaism, to protest Jews. They
have a right to march. They do not have a
right to interfere with other students getting their education. They
(18:18):
do not have a right to interfere with the classes,
with students' ability to attend classes, with student's ability to study.
They can demonstrate, but they can't demonstrate so loudly that
they interrupt the business of Harvard University. Correct the traditional
(18:39):
free speech lines have to be drawn here.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Would it be helpful? And why has it not happened
that Jewish organizations, and there are Jewish organizations at Harvard
if they held a news conference and said, look, our
life here is better, better today than it was a
year ago, and we hope it will be better a
(19:06):
year from now than it is today. But the university
is moving in the right direction, and we commend the
administration for going in that direction. And we appreciate what
President Trump has done highlighting this problem. But there comes
a point in time where it maybe Harvard has to
(19:28):
self regulate and not face penalties, financial penalties from the government.
Why have the Jewish student organization has not come forward
with something like that, Harvey.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
I don't know that, but I'm going to write a
letter to them and suggest it.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Well, thank you, thank you. You can tell them we
talked about it here on Night Side. Roy Pell as
always I appreciate your perspective. I think we both are
looking for the same goal. And I know that you've
negotiated with Trump yourself in your in your time as
as an attorney and found him to be very off putting,
(20:08):
and so you've seen this behavior before. I think sometimes
when the other side is acquiescingcept accept the the concession
claim victory. I don't think Donald Trump or the administration
(20:28):
needs to be appointing professorships at Harvard. I think that's
an absolute overreach and it will come back to haunt
the Republicans. Yes, thank you, Harvey. Right, Oh, talk soon,
Talk soon.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Good.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
The only lines that we have opened right now are
the only line six one seven nine. I'd love to
hear from you on this. We're going to talk with
Laurie Bob in California, John and Pennsylvania, Lauri's and Melrose.
We got to so the six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty lines are full six seven, nine, three, ten thirty.
(21:10):
I think that you have to commend Donald Trump for
pointing out this issue. Harvard is not denying this, Harvard
is agreeing to it and saying they are working on
it and they would like to continue to work on it.
I think there there is a point in time where
(21:31):
the president needs to say, we will monitor, we appreciate
what you have done. Let it. Let Harvard present a
president a report. I don't get it. I don't get it.
It's a serious issue, but I'd love to get your
take on it. And if I'm wrong, bring it on. Okay,
(21:52):
I'm willing to hear your point of view. We'll be
back on night Side after this.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray, Boston News Radio.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
All right, let's get to the calls right away. Let's
go to Laurie and Melrose. Hey, Laurie, welcome next on Nightside.
Speaker 6 (22:11):
Yes, Hi, Yes, I agree with you. I think it's
uh an ego issue because he made so many demands
months and whatever ago, and they weren't, you know, jumping
and to please him Trump. I think it's in all
an ego thing. He doesn't want anybody to go against him.
(22:32):
Everybody has to you know, He's even he's going after
his own members if they don't jump to vote for
what he wants. I think that's the issue, and it
goes back. I think to win the demonstrations months after
the cause of war was going on and they were
over you really, bombing and killing you know, citizens there
(22:54):
with you know, trying to get to the you know,
v Millins and all that was going on, and the
college students were demonstrating, and I think, you know, things
got heated and overdone, and bringing the Jewish students for
all this, some of them probably from that part of
the world, the ones that were demonstrating, and if people
(23:17):
were upset, and I mean, going with his comment about
the you know, student organizations or yours, you know, speaking up,
the Jewish studentization speaking up, I'm bothered by the I
have Jewish friends, and I'm bothered by the fact that
they haven't addressed the issue of the starvation in Gaza.
(23:39):
Of all the children are dying and the people are
starving to death. Why aren't they speaking up to their
you know, well, let me.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Ask you this question. Did Americans speak up when Germany
was being bombed in nineteen forty four?
Speaker 6 (23:57):
Probably?
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Probably not.
Speaker 6 (23:59):
I wasn't around and well.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
I wasn't around here. Who was the first president of
the United States, Georgia Washington. I wasn't around that either,
But I know who that was.
Speaker 6 (24:07):
I mean, I don't know what happened at that time.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
But what I'm saying is the assault by Hamas on
elderly civilians and on babies was brutal, brutal. Now you
you pick on somebody and then Israel responds and they
(24:30):
want to root out Hamas from Gaza. And Hamas has
infiltrated itself into uh into the Palestinian society and they
built built tunnels under hospitals and under schools. So if
(24:51):
you're Benjamin Naton Yaho, do you say, well, right.
Speaker 6 (24:54):
Now I'm talking a long, long, long time of bombing.
We're not talking at you know, going after them and
so forth. There haven't been a lot of consideration if
these people were stopping, you know, a while ago, and
they finally let some food in, and now it's back
to the point that there's not even medication.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
When when when the humanitarian groups have have put habitation
to get in.
Speaker 6 (25:21):
If you watch I watch patients, you know, face the
nation every week. I listened to that and you have
Republicans for Democrats and all sides speaking.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
And but who do who do think who do you
think is ripping off the food and the medical supplies
that are coming in.
Speaker 6 (25:38):
Do you think that the world health organizations are all
trying you win everybody, and they haven't been allowed in
by Israel.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
I mean question of Israel. It's Hamas no how wrong
on that, Laurie. I must tell you when the when
the food gets in, Harmas has helped, has grabbed the
food and the medicine. They're more concerned about their fighters than.
Speaker 7 (26:02):
They are about the.
Speaker 6 (26:05):
Mowing down the people that are again.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
You and I and you let me tell you, you
and I.
Speaker 8 (26:16):
I know it's no.
Speaker 6 (26:18):
You don't want to accept that any of that. So
I understand you.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
I run a talk show in which people have like
you have a right to call and express yourselves. But
when you say things that I know are untrue and
are unfair to what Israel is trying to do, let
me ask you. I ask you a question. Could let
me see if if we can find a point of agreement.
(26:44):
Are you pleased with the UH the attack of the
US on the Iranian nuclear sites or not?
Speaker 6 (26:56):
I am am, but I don't know if the timing
is the right time. It was a little bit you know,
working more and time given to the you know, diplomatic part.
But I'm not against it. I think was thought of
fifteen years ago as an idea, and it was reasons
(27:20):
for it. But I don't think we're finished.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
I think this is just you know, you do you
think do you think Iran should have the right to
develop nuclear weapons?
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (27:31):
I don't have the right, but I'm saying that they know.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
If they don't have the right, how do how do
we prevent them? Would it be a good thing if
Iran had a nuclear weapon or nuclear weapons? In your mind?
Speaker 6 (27:45):
What does that have to do with what we're talking about.
Speaker 7 (27:47):
We're talking about every heart everything I brought up, the
fact I'm trying to I'm trying to plumb your mind,
Laurie and understand from where you from where you're coming.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
That's all I was hoping that you will want to say,
Ron is probably the one of the last countries in
the world that should have nuclear weapons.
Speaker 7 (28:07):
They are a crazed I didn't you twisting my words.
Everything I was hoping.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
I was hoping that.
Speaker 6 (28:17):
I was hop they had You know, they were picking
a time that Israel was bombing them, and they were
back and forth bombing, so this was a good time
for us should just jump in and destroy that mountain.
But that was the reason it was done.
Speaker 3 (28:34):
You were you were unwilling to answer my direct questions.
But that's okay. I'm glad you called. You're always welcome
to call this program.
Speaker 6 (28:44):
And we had I'm just telling you that it all started.
You were asking the question. It all started with the
student demonstrations. They were they were upset.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
Oh, they were more than they were more than upset.
They spit on Israeli, on Israeli students, They bit on
Jewish students. However upset they were. They prevented Israelian Jewish
students from going to class. Harvey Silverglay, who's the first
Amendment absolutist, just talked about that. Laurie. I've gone on
way too long, but I've enjoyed the conversation, and I
hope you can.
Speaker 6 (29:15):
Give you okay if you have your own opinion.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Okay, we both have our own opinions. That's what that's
what this show is all about. Thanks, lur Okay, where
I'm going to go next, I'm going to go to John. John,
I'm going to get you in here, but I'm going
to kind of crunch a little bit on time.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
Go ahead, John, Sure, Well, first of all, let's address
the question of what violent means in violent violation quote unquote,
it means nothing. It's it's simply more adaptation of the
official government channels of Trump's own, typically hyperbolic to the
point of being untevin from reality rhetoric. So we know
(29:53):
that the violent phrase there, it means nothing. It's a
meaningless adjective. He's doing it for the for the reason
that your friend mister uh Silverglade Esquire uh stated that
he was he uh, he's a want to be authoritarian,
and he's back by a party that's willing to go
(30:14):
along with him at this point, and so he wants
Harvard to count out to him. That's all he demands capitulation.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
Okay, well, how well Harvard has said this, John, let
me just read this sentence to you, because I'd like
to get your reactions.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
I heard, I heard it, I know. But there may
be people who are listening now who haven't heard of anyone.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
John, John, give me, give me, give me the the
the kindness to restate. Harvard has admitted anti Semitism is
a serious problem, no matter the context, it's unacceptable, and
you and I would agree with that.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
Correct.
Speaker 5 (30:54):
Yes, absolutely, Harvard has.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Been has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root
causes of anti Semitism in its community, meaning Harvard's community.
That's an admission, that's an acknowledgment by Harvard that Harvard
has a problem. But they also say we've taken substantive,
proactive steps. My point is, and my question is, and
(31:18):
you have answered it, which is fine. Why would Trump
not be swat enough to say, Okay, you've made that admission.
I addressed a problem that even you admitted to. Let's
fix it, and we're going to monitor you. Why not
leave it at that. That's what I'm suggesting.
Speaker 5 (31:37):
You might agree, he doesn't want, he doesn't want. He
doesn't want that, he's not That's not the concern. The
concern is exercising power and demanding capitulation.
Speaker 9 (31:46):
He wants to.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
Control, for example, their their law school curriculum. Look, I can,
I can. I can read you off a list of
Trump officials and one outside consultant, quote unquote Laura Lumer
who or either have either identified themselves as pro righte
(32:08):
nationalists or who have made racist statements, or who have
associated with anti Summites, or who have associated with outright
white nationalists. I can give you a short list of
at half a dozen off the nearly off the top
of my head. So don't tell me that the Trump
administration is just adamantly against discrimination against any racial or
(32:33):
religious or minority group and that that's why they're targeting Harvard. No,
they want to exercise belay.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
They have targeted. They have targeted a university which has
made admissions and acknowledgments. I'm you are so blind towards Trump, John,
You're so blind in your nothing more, John, John, do
me a favor. I gave you a chance to make
your speech. Okay, I'm just telling you you are so
(33:02):
blind in your hatred towards Trump, which in your mind
is totally justified. Okay, totally justified that I'm simply trying
to say, as someone who thinks Trump has done some
good things as well as some dumb things, that I'm
confused by this. You're you're giving me your example and
and I'm giving you an opportunity to express it. That's
(33:24):
all I'm asking. I'm glad you called, but again, no
matter what Trump does you you're not going to accept it.
I think that he is.
Speaker 5 (33:36):
Oh, my lord, Dan, I okay, if if the intelligence justified,
and it very well may have, Iran was working towards
a nuclear weapon at that point.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
There's no question then I'm working towards a nuclear What
do you mean if if the intelligence is justified, of
course they were working towards a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 5 (33:54):
His own director, his only direct his own director of intelligence,
so that at that time she didn't believe they were,
then you were canted. So let's say they were. Yes,
there was probably no other options but to go ahead.
Speaker 3 (34:07):
Right, Okay, that's fine. So you're gonna give him credit
for bombing around. You're giving him credit for bombing around, correct.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
Yes, justified that they were working on. Yeah. I gave
him credit doing the first administration for for grounding those
bowling planes where the software was for was junk and
they were refusing to do it even though it put
passengers and child.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
Did you give him credit for closing the border?
Speaker 5 (34:40):
I give him, well, I give him credit for border
uh in going after some of the weak points that
were allowing human traffickers. Now I don't give him credit
for some of the tenous actions he's taken to violate
basic human rights.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
That's that's the question. That question, do you does it
violate human rights to close the border?
Speaker 5 (35:05):
It doesn't violate even to close the border.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
Okay, so we have another point of agreement. John. I
got to run here, man, because we've gone a little
longer and I'm way past my break. I took you,
but I didn't want to. I didn't want to hold
you up. I made an exception for you. You're always
welcome on this program. You're one of my best callers,
and I thank you for calling.
Speaker 5 (35:24):
All right, thank you a great night.
Speaker 3 (35:26):
We'll be back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
It's night Side with Radio.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
Okay. We have three calls, and I got like five minutes,
so everybody's going to get a minute and a half. Okay,
let's go for it right now, Jack and Newton. Jack,
I got three calls, You got a minute and a half.
Go ahead, Jack, I'll try to be quiet. Go ahead.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
Okay.
Speaker 9 (35:49):
Yeah, it's Jack Porter. Well. I've been a consultant to
the task force at Harvard, and I can tell the
audience it's been an excellent job. They should read all
the recommendations to students a little very faith on campus.
They're going to introduce Holocaust studies and zion of course
is on Zionism. Everything will be done, I hope they
(36:10):
don't spend a lot of money on legal fees Harvard.
And also on the other side, and let's get back
to thanks. Are fine, that's an excellent task for us.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
And well, that's great. And I hope that some of
the Jewish students and Jewish organizations might step forward. I
think Donald Trump might feel, hey, he has to get
as much of a concession. I'm trying to answer my
own question.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
Now.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
It might be that Trump feels he needs to get
as much out of Harvard. But there comes a point
where you can't get water out of a stone, you
know what I'm saying, Jack, If Harvard feels it's gone,
you know, the whole field, They've gone the hundred yards
and there's nothing left to go, he might get to
the point where he's overplaying his hand. That's all. That's
(36:57):
all the question I was asking tonight.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
So he's kind of, you know, just move on. I
don't know.
Speaker 9 (37:03):
You know, he's picking on Harvard because it's the biggest
and you know it's the biggest target.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (37:09):
I'm trying to set an example of it. You can
win with Harvard. I think that's a good point as well, Jack,
I want to get two more in so I'm going
to let you go. I owe you more time next
time you call.
Speaker 9 (37:18):
Fair enough, Okay, thank you.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
Jack, appreciate the bill in New York. Billy got to
be quick for me here. I got you and Mary
Ann from Hopkin to go ahead, Bil.
Speaker 2 (37:27):
Hey, Dan, thanks for taking my call. I just want
to say that regarding the Harvard issue, I think I
think Harvard was wrong by saying, no, we didn't do
anything wrong, we didn't do anything wrong, and they played
that and the Trump administration got bad publicity over it,
(37:49):
and everybody hated Trump because they were doing everything against Harvard.
And now Harvard's coming out and saying, hey, you know what,
we we had a problem. Yeah, and we're trying to
fix it and and great, but you know what we
could have They could have done all of all of
(38:09):
the regrets in the beginning and said yeah, we had
a problem, and now now we get it.
Speaker 3 (38:17):
Thank you, sir. I appreciate you call. I really do
call back earlier. We get more time, Mary Ann and
Hopkins and Mary Inne. I got about thirty five to
forty seconds for you, go right ahead.
Speaker 8 (38:28):
Okay. I was just going to say, I think has
Donald Trump ever admitted to any wrongdoing like ever. So
the idea that like he all of a sudden cares
about a certain group being discriminated against, I think is
just absolute BS. And I think he's the worst abomination
of a president ever, and I'm sick about what he's doing.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
Okay, Well, you said it, and you said it succinctly,
and I appreciate that. And call earlier some night and
we can have a longer conversation. Thanks, Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Thank you have a greatness.
Speaker 3 (39:02):
Is your first time calling.
Speaker 8 (39:05):
I've called once more during COVID it was like years ago.
Speaker 3 (39:08):
Welcome back more frequently, don't I may not be here
five years from now. You never know. Okay, Thanks Mary,
I appreciate it very much. All Right, I want to
thank everyone to call it, including my friend John from Pennsylvania,
Harvey Silverglate, et cetera. We're done for the night and
we I'll be on Facebook Live with a night side
postgame coming right up. I want to thank Rob, want
(39:29):
to thank Marita, want to thank all the callers and
all the listeners. All dogs, okats, all pets go to heaven.
That's what my pal Charlie Ray is who passed fifteen
years ago in February. That's where all your pets are
who have passed. They loved you and you love them.
I do believe you'll see them again. We'll see again
tomorrow night on night side everyone. Thanks so much for listening,
and have a great Tuesday. Stay cool.
It's Night Side with Dan Ray.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
I'm telling you Boston's new radio.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
Oh good luck to Brad Marsh and I'm not sure
he's going to be able to play six years, but hey,
for a thirty seven year old guy in the NHL,
that's pretty good. Pretty good. Okay. We have spent two
hours talking about the controversy in Newton. If you tuned
in late, we talked with a city councilor John Oliver.
(00:30):
In the nine o'clock hour, we talked with Arianna h Foya,
one of the residents of No Nantum, and we also
talked with Newton Mayor Ruthanne Fuller. They were in the
nine o'clock hour, and in the eleven o'clock hour. We
had lots of different callers, most of whom are very
(00:50):
much offended by which may by what Mayor Fuller did.
If you had an opportunity to miss the nine o'clock hour,
you can listen to it tomorrow. Tomorrow that hour will
be posted by Rob Brooks, or top notch ace producer.
He gets that up sometime generally before two or three
(01:11):
o'clock in the morning, and Rob will have that posted
for all of you to listen to and you can
begin listening to it as early as probably four o'clock
this morning. Now I want to switch on to a
national story as I think, as I'm sure all of
(01:32):
you are aware, the President's big beautiful tax bill or
whatever you want, like a big beautiful bill. I don't
think he calls it a tax bill. We probably will
be getting more to that in the next day or so.
I'm here for two more days this week. But one
of the things that is a big story today is
(01:54):
the Trump administration formally has found that Harvard failed to
protect Jewish students and has threatening to cut off all funding.
I'm looking at stories today from CNN, from The New
York Times, from Associated Press, and I think this is
a very interesting story. Obviously, Donald Trump has Harvard in
(02:21):
the crosshairs. He has two schools in the crossairs, Columbia
and Harvard. Now I don't think either of those schools
covered themselves in glory in the wake of the Hamas
attack on Israel back in October of twenty twenty three
and all of the demonstrations that have occurred. But for
(02:43):
some reason, maybe it is because Colombia has been more
acquiescent Harvard, it seems to be the real focus of
President Trump, and I think that there is a possibility
that the President could easily overplay his hand. I, as
(03:07):
I think most of you realize, I support Israel and
Israel's right to exist. I think the president should be
congratulated on what he achieved in the damage that he
inflicted on the nuclear program in Iran. We were talking
about that a week ago, I said at that time,
(03:31):
and I continue to believe it. Watch what Iran does.
Don't necessarily listen to what they say. They are always
going to say things for domestic consumption, the purpose of
which is to remain in power. This is a autocracy,
this is a theocracy. It is a dictatorship. It oppresses
(03:56):
its people. We know all of that. On that score,
I think the President did exactly the right thing. However,
in terms of Harvard, Harvard has acknowledged that they have
not been as diligent as they should be in being
(04:19):
concerned about how Jewish students are treated, not only by
faculty but also by other students. They have said Harvard report,
they did their own task force, and Harvard said the
alienating and hostile atmosphere that many Jewish and Israeli students
(04:42):
had Harvard described experiencing, particularly in the twenty twenty three
twenty four academic year. They acknowledged that. Okay, now you
have the Trump administration with their own task force. They
(05:03):
have found that Harvard University is in violent violation. I
don't know what that word means, violent violation, but violent
violation of the Civil Rights Act. That's according to CNN,
once more escalating the battle with the school, days after
(05:24):
President Trump suggests that a deal was in sight to
end its targeting of the university. Now, the members of
the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti Semitism said on
today in a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber, that
(05:44):
an investigation into the school's compliance with Title six of
the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color,
or national origin in programs or activity receiving federal funding,
is now complete. The Office for Civil Rights at the
(06:06):
Department of Health and Human Services finds that Harvard University
is in violent violation of the Title six of the
Civil Rights Act, reads the letter obtained by CNN, which
is signed by Assistant Attorney General Ramid Dillon and others.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Now.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
Dylan is a lawyer. She's out of San Francisco, she
seems to me to be a very competent attorney, but
she also is very much a Trump advocate appointed by
the president. According to CNN, the investigation concluded that Harvard
(06:44):
has been in some cases deliberately indifferent and in others
has been a wilful participant in anti Semitic harassment of
Jewish students, faculty in staff, pointing two examples of Jewish
and israel students being assaulted and spin on imagery on
campus that it says, quote trafficked in obvious anti Semitic troops,
(07:09):
and what it describes as an impermissible multi week encampment
that has stilled fear in and disrupted the studies of
Jewish and Israeli students, according to the letter, now there
is a quote here. In response, Harvard said it is
(07:29):
far from indifferent and strongly disagrees with the report's conclusion.
The university's communications director, Jason Newton said in a statement
his statement, anti Semitism is a serious problem, and no
matter the content, it is unacceptable. Harvard has taken substantive,
(07:52):
proactive steps to address the root causes of anti Semitism
in its community. Newton said one to folk On that
because that is an acknowledgment by the Harvard spokesman. And
I'm sure that this statement from the Harvard spokesman or
communications director Jason Newton was reviewed by the administration and
(08:18):
reviewed by lawyers. It is an admission against interest. It
is a statement that says, yeah, anti Semitism is a
serious problem, and no matter the content is unacceptable. Fine.
That is a statement that does not refer to Harvard University,
but the sentence following that does. Harvard has taken substantial, substantive,
(08:42):
proactive steps to address the root causes of anti semitism
in its meaning Harvard's community. So that is an admission
in of itself. And look, there's no question at this
point that Harvard has been lax in tamping down and
(09:05):
dealing with anti semitism. The question is, if it is
acknowledging the problem and has taken steps to alleviate that problem,
why is the Trump administration still going after them and
increasing the threats and raising the stakes. I don't know
(09:29):
the answer to that, but I hope you do. I
think it would be great if we could eliminate all
forms of discrimination in every higher education university in this country.
But I think the Trump administration would be wise, in
my opinion, to take its victories and monitor Harvard's future compliance.
(09:55):
But to take the acknowledgement that Harvard has made. It
is not saying we're as clean as the driven snow.
They are admitting that they have failed. Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten,
thirty six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty Different topic,
different subject, different hour. Let's light them up, coming right
(10:19):
back on Nightside. You're on night Side with Dan Ray
on WBZ Boston's news radio. Sorry, will take them in
order as we always do. Let me go to Matt
and Brighton. Matt, are you satisfied with what Harvard has
said or done or do you think the Trump administration
should continue to push and do they risk being becoming
(10:42):
considered overbearing in this situation?
Speaker 4 (10:46):
Well, I mean it's a good question. I think we're
getting two perspectives here. Now I understand the part of
anti Semitism versus anti Zionism, and when I read Harvard's statement,
they've said we felt like we've combated anti Israel, which
(11:10):
would be anti Zionism. The overall answer is that's for
the students who are there to answer and President Trump,
who's a very good advocate for the Jewish people. I'm
talking about the American Jews. Yep, they may be still targeted.
I don't know that they're not. And if Harvard's can
(11:33):
able to put in place anti Israel rhetoric, anti Zionism
and control that, I don't know there's not still anti Semitism.
So I'm there will be a point that I think, yes,
they are overbearing and overdoing it. But until I'm able
to be satisfying within my peer group, know that both
(11:56):
are combated. I support Donald Trump and President Trump can.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Well you're a young guy. You're a young guy. You're
not at Harvard, but you're a young guy.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
Right, No, but I might to law school.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
No, but what if your how I'm trying to figure
how old are you? Thirty five?
Speaker 4 (12:15):
A couple of years younger?
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Okay, we're saying you're thirty three. Okay. And the point
that I'm trying to make is Harvard seems to be
willing to cooperate in this effort and to make things better.
If Trump sometimes, if he senses a weakness, he probably
(12:39):
tries to take advantage of that. But they can come
a point in time where he overplaces his hand and
I I and then Harvard can dig their heels. And
I would rather see him, uh work with Harvard.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
I would like to see that too.
Speaker 4 (12:56):
But imagine if we tried to work with columb I
mean we imagine if he tried to work with Kolombie.
I mean, look like the old deans Stephonic or whatever
her name was, not Staphonic.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
Congress Stephanic who was who ran the the hearing in
which the presidents of Harvard, U, Penn m T were
questions and the Columbi.
Speaker 5 (13:18):
You two, I go over a year ago.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
It just seems I agree with you. It would be
great to work in you know, roundtable legislation to combat
this and get rid of it and to make and
to figure out.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
The resignation of the University of Virginia president yesterday.
Speaker 4 (13:37):
Uh, I hadn't heard about it, to be honest with you.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
The University of Virginia, which is also one of the
really best universities in the country, resigned. So well, we'll see,
We'll love to see the next Matt is always appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
My friend, appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
Then, thank you much.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
Good night. Let me go to my friend Harvey silver Glad,
who was checking in on his Harvey, I know you
are very close to this situation. What has Harvard done
substantively that they're referring to?
Speaker 1 (14:11):
It is refused to bow down and kiss the knee
of Donald Trump. That is the only reason that Trump
is going after Harvard.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
But tell me if you know, first of all, what
has Harvard done. Because I'm being critical of Trump here
or potentially overplaying his hand. It seems to me as
if I just read that statement, you're a lawyer, better
a lawyer than me or I could ever think of being.
But I thought that that statement from the Harvard spokesman
(14:44):
was interesting. Anti Semitism is a serious problem, no matter
the content.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Period is very frank, had been very frank. By the way,
Harvard has a Jewish president. I don't know if that matters,
but it might be factored in to the equation here.
Harvard has been very frank. It has this problem, it's
working on it.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
By the way, I just want to read this sentence, Harvey,
because I think this supports what you're saying. Harvard has
taken substantive, proactive steps to address the to address the
root causes of anti semitism. In its meaning Harvard's community.
This was the statement from the from the communications director.
(15:30):
I believe that that is an admission statement, you know,
as a statement against interest. It's an acknowledgment that Harvard's saying,
we've dropped the ball and we're going to make it better.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Why not take that as a victory? Trump? Does he
run the risk of overplaying his hand? My question?
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Cos he does? He does, and the Harvard's going to
win in court now if they take it to the
Supreme Court, I'm not so sure, because Trump now controls
the Supreme Court is going to somebody's going to win.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
So you're saying Harvard will win on the withholding of
federal moneys. Is that what you're saying. Yes, it's a
long fight and they are going to be without federal moneies.
It just seems as if Harvard is in Trump's cross heirs,
and no matter what Harvard is willing to acknowledge and
(16:32):
admit to, that's not going to be enough.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
What do you think he wants? What do you think
it is going to be painful the remainder of the
Trump I've written to Alan Garber and John Manning about this.
It is going to be painful. For four years. But
Harvard has been around since sixteen thirty six.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
That's great.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
It's going to be around for a few hundred more
years at least, and Trump is going to be around
only four years. It's going to cost it's going to
cost them a lot of money, but it's going to
be worth it in the longer. They have about a
seventy six billion dollar endowment. They have to dig into
(17:19):
it and just write out these these three and a
half crazy years at in front of us.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Okay, so let us assume they're doing that. Okay, let's
take that. What substantively do you think Harvard can do.
Maybe there's nothing they can do to please Trump, but
what can they do to make it more comfortable for
Jewish and Israeli students on that campus?
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Okay? You know that I'm a free speech absolutist.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
I know that, tru I'm very much aware of that,
and that's why I'm asking the question.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Students have a right dispute hatred. They have a right
to protest Israel, to protest Judaism, to protest Jews. They
have a right to march. They do not have a
right to interfere with other students getting their education. They
(18:18):
do not have a right to interfere with the classes,
with students' ability to attend classes, with student's ability to study.
They can demonstrate, but they can't demonstrate so loudly that
they interrupt the business of Harvard University. Correct the traditional
(18:39):
free speech lines have to be drawn here.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Would it be helpful? And why has it not happened
that Jewish organizations, and there are Jewish organizations at Harvard
if they held a news conference and said, look, our
life here is better, better today than it was a
year ago, and we hope it will be better a
(19:06):
year from now than it is today. But the university
is moving in the right direction, and we commend the
administration for going in that direction. And we appreciate what
President Trump has done highlighting this problem. But there comes
a point in time where it maybe Harvard has to
(19:28):
self regulate and not face penalties, financial penalties from the government.
Why have the Jewish student organization has not come forward
with something like that, Harvey.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
I don't know that, but I'm going to write a
letter to them and suggest it.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Well, thank you, thank you. You can tell them we
talked about it here on Night Side. Roy Pell as
always I appreciate your perspective. I think we both are
looking for the same goal. And I know that you've
negotiated with Trump yourself in your in your time as
as an attorney and found him to be very off putting,
(20:08):
and so you've seen this behavior before. I think sometimes
when the other side is acquiescingcept accept the the concession
claim victory. I don't think Donald Trump or the administration
(20:28):
needs to be appointing professorships at Harvard. I think that's
an absolute overreach and it will come back to haunt
the Republicans. Yes, thank you, Harvey. Right, Oh, talk soon,
Talk soon.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Good.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
The only lines that we have opened right now are
the only line six one seven nine. I'd love to
hear from you on this. We're going to talk with
Laurie Bob in California, John and Pennsylvania, Lauri's and Melrose.
We got to so the six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty lines are full six seven, nine, three, ten thirty.
(21:10):
I think that you have to commend Donald Trump for
pointing out this issue. Harvard is not denying this, Harvard
is agreeing to it and saying they are working on
it and they would like to continue to work on it.
I think there there is a point in time where
(21:31):
the president needs to say, we will monitor, we appreciate
what you have done. Let it. Let Harvard present a
president a report. I don't get it. I don't get it.
It's a serious issue, but I'd love to get your
take on it. And if I'm wrong, bring it on. Okay,
(21:52):
I'm willing to hear your point of view. We'll be
back on night Side after this.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray, Boston News Radio.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
All right, let's get to the calls right away. Let's
go to Laurie and Melrose. Hey, Laurie, welcome next on Nightside.
Speaker 6 (22:11):
Yes, Hi, Yes, I agree with you. I think it's
uh an ego issue because he made so many demands
months and whatever ago, and they weren't, you know, jumping
and to please him Trump. I think it's in all
an ego thing. He doesn't want anybody to go against him.
(22:32):
Everybody has to you know, He's even he's going after
his own members if they don't jump to vote for
what he wants. I think that's the issue, and it
goes back. I think to win the demonstrations months after
the cause of war was going on and they were
over you really, bombing and killing you know, citizens there
(22:54):
with you know, trying to get to the you know,
v Millins and all that was going on, and the
college students were demonstrating, and I think, you know, things
got heated and overdone, and bringing the Jewish students for
all this, some of them probably from that part of
the world, the ones that were demonstrating, and if people
(23:17):
were upset, and I mean, going with his comment about
the you know, student organizations or yours, you know, speaking up,
the Jewish studentization speaking up, I'm bothered by the I
have Jewish friends, and I'm bothered by the fact that
they haven't addressed the issue of the starvation in Gaza.
(23:39):
Of all the children are dying and the people are
starving to death. Why aren't they speaking up to their
you know, well, let me.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Ask you this question. Did Americans speak up when Germany
was being bombed in nineteen forty four?
Speaker 6 (23:57):
Probably?
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Probably not.
Speaker 6 (23:59):
I wasn't around and well.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
I wasn't around here. Who was the first president of
the United States, Georgia Washington. I wasn't around that either,
But I know who that was.
Speaker 6 (24:07):
I mean, I don't know what happened at that time.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
But what I'm saying is the assault by Hamas on
elderly civilians and on babies was brutal, brutal. Now you
you pick on somebody and then Israel responds and they
(24:30):
want to root out Hamas from Gaza. And Hamas has
infiltrated itself into uh into the Palestinian society and they
built built tunnels under hospitals and under schools. So if
(24:51):
you're Benjamin Naton Yaho, do you say, well, right.
Speaker 6 (24:54):
Now I'm talking a long, long, long time of bombing.
We're not talking at you know, going after them and
so forth. There haven't been a lot of consideration if
these people were stopping, you know, a while ago, and
they finally let some food in, and now it's back
to the point that there's not even medication.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
When when when the humanitarian groups have have put habitation
to get in.
Speaker 6 (25:21):
If you watch I watch patients, you know, face the
nation every week. I listened to that and you have
Republicans for Democrats and all sides speaking.
Speaker 3 (25:31):
And but who do who do think who do you
think is ripping off the food and the medical supplies
that are coming in.
Speaker 6 (25:38):
Do you think that the world health organizations are all
trying you win everybody, and they haven't been allowed in
by Israel.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
I mean question of Israel. It's Hamas no how wrong
on that, Laurie. I must tell you when the when
the food gets in, Harmas has helped, has grabbed the
food and the medicine. They're more concerned about their fighters than.
Speaker 7 (26:02):
They are about the.
Speaker 6 (26:05):
Mowing down the people that are again.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
You and I and you let me tell you, you
and I.
Speaker 8 (26:16):
I know it's no.
Speaker 6 (26:18):
You don't want to accept that any of that. So
I understand you.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
I run a talk show in which people have like
you have a right to call and express yourselves. But
when you say things that I know are untrue and
are unfair to what Israel is trying to do, let
me ask you. I ask you a question. Could let
me see if if we can find a point of agreement.
(26:44):
Are you pleased with the UH the attack of the
US on the Iranian nuclear sites or not?
Speaker 6 (26:56):
I am am, but I don't know if the timing
is the right time. It was a little bit you know,
working more and time given to the you know, diplomatic part.
But I'm not against it. I think was thought of
fifteen years ago as an idea, and it was reasons
(27:20):
for it. But I don't think we're finished.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
I think this is just you know, you do you
think do you think Iran should have the right to
develop nuclear weapons?
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (27:31):
I don't have the right, but I'm saying that they know.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
If they don't have the right, how do how do
we prevent them? Would it be a good thing if
Iran had a nuclear weapon or nuclear weapons? In your mind?
Speaker 6 (27:45):
What does that have to do with what we're talking about.
Speaker 7 (27:47):
We're talking about every heart everything I brought up, the
fact I'm trying to I'm trying to plumb your mind,
Laurie and understand from where you from where you're coming.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
That's all I was hoping that you will want to say,
Ron is probably the one of the last countries in
the world that should have nuclear weapons.
Speaker 7 (28:07):
They are a crazed I didn't you twisting my words.
Everything I was hoping.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
I was hoping that.
Speaker 6 (28:17):
I was hop they had You know, they were picking
a time that Israel was bombing them, and they were
back and forth bombing, so this was a good time
for us should just jump in and destroy that mountain.
But that was the reason it was done.
Speaker 3 (28:34):
You were you were unwilling to answer my direct questions.
But that's okay. I'm glad you called. You're always welcome
to call this program.
Speaker 6 (28:44):
And we had I'm just telling you that it all started.
You were asking the question. It all started with the
student demonstrations. They were they were upset.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
Oh, they were more than they were more than upset.
They spit on Israeli, on Israeli students, They bit on
Jewish students. However upset they were. They prevented Israelian Jewish
students from going to class. Harvey Silverglay, who's the first
Amendment absolutist, just talked about that. Laurie. I've gone on
way too long, but I've enjoyed the conversation, and I
hope you can.
Speaker 6 (29:15):
Give you okay if you have your own opinion.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Okay, we both have our own opinions. That's what that's
what this show is all about. Thanks, lur Okay, where
I'm going to go next, I'm going to go to John. John,
I'm going to get you in here, but I'm going
to kind of crunch a little bit on time.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
Go ahead, John, Sure, Well, first of all, let's address
the question of what violent means in violent violation quote unquote,
it means nothing. It's it's simply more adaptation of the
official government channels of Trump's own, typically hyperbolic to the
point of being untevin from reality rhetoric. So we know
(29:53):
that the violent phrase there, it means nothing. It's a
meaningless adjective. He's doing it for the for the reason
that your friend mister uh Silverglade Esquire uh stated that
he was he uh, he's a want to be authoritarian,
and he's back by a party that's willing to go
(30:14):
along with him at this point, and so he wants
Harvard to count out to him. That's all he demands capitulation.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
Okay, well, how well Harvard has said this, John, let
me just read this sentence to you, because I'd like
to get your reactions.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
I heard, I heard it, I know. But there may
be people who are listening now who haven't heard of anyone.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
John, John, give me, give me, give me the the
the kindness to restate. Harvard has admitted anti Semitism is
a serious problem, no matter the context, it's unacceptable, and
you and I would agree with that.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
Correct.
Speaker 5 (30:54):
Yes, absolutely, Harvard has.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Been has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root
causes of anti Semitism in its community, meaning Harvard's community.
That's an admission, that's an acknowledgment by Harvard that Harvard
has a problem. But they also say we've taken substantive,
proactive steps. My point is, and my question is, and
(31:18):
you have answered it, which is fine. Why would Trump
not be swat enough to say, Okay, you've made that admission.
I addressed a problem that even you admitted to. Let's
fix it, and we're going to monitor you. Why not
leave it at that. That's what I'm suggesting.
Speaker 5 (31:37):
You might agree, he doesn't want, he doesn't want. He
doesn't want that, he's not That's not the concern. The
concern is exercising power and demanding capitulation.
Speaker 9 (31:46):
He wants to.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
Control, for example, their their law school curriculum. Look, I can,
I can. I can read you off a list of
Trump officials and one outside consultant, quote unquote Laura Lumer
who or either have either identified themselves as pro righte
(32:08):
nationalists or who have made racist statements, or who have
associated with anti Summites, or who have associated with outright
white nationalists. I can give you a short list of
at half a dozen off the nearly off the top
of my head. So don't tell me that the Trump
administration is just adamantly against discrimination against any racial or
(32:33):
religious or minority group and that that's why they're targeting Harvard. No,
they want to exercise belay.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
They have targeted. They have targeted a university which has
made admissions and acknowledgments. I'm you are so blind towards Trump, John,
You're so blind in your nothing more, John, John, do
me a favor. I gave you a chance to make
your speech. Okay, I'm just telling you you are so
(33:02):
blind in your hatred towards Trump, which in your mind
is totally justified. Okay, totally justified that I'm simply trying
to say, as someone who thinks Trump has done some
good things as well as some dumb things, that I'm
confused by this. You're you're giving me your example and
and I'm giving you an opportunity to express it. That's
(33:24):
all I'm asking. I'm glad you called, but again, no
matter what Trump does you you're not going to accept it.
I think that he is.
Speaker 5 (33:36):
Oh, my lord, Dan, I okay, if if the intelligence justified,
and it very well may have, Iran was working towards
a nuclear weapon at that point.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
There's no question then I'm working towards a nuclear What
do you mean if if the intelligence is justified, of
course they were working towards a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 5 (33:54):
His own director, his only direct his own director of intelligence,
so that at that time she didn't believe they were,
then you were canted. So let's say they were. Yes,
there was probably no other options but to go ahead.
Speaker 3 (34:07):
Right, Okay, that's fine. So you're gonna give him credit
for bombing around. You're giving him credit for bombing around, correct.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
Yes, justified that they were working on. Yeah. I gave
him credit doing the first administration for for grounding those
bowling planes where the software was for was junk and
they were refusing to do it even though it put
passengers and child.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
Did you give him credit for closing the border?
Speaker 5 (34:40):
I give him, well, I give him credit for border
uh in going after some of the weak points that
were allowing human traffickers. Now I don't give him credit
for some of the tenous actions he's taken to violate
basic human rights.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
That's that's the question. That question, do you does it
violate human rights to close the border?
Speaker 5 (35:05):
It doesn't violate even to close the border.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
Okay, so we have another point of agreement. John. I
got to run here, man, because we've gone a little
longer and I'm way past my break. I took you,
but I didn't want to. I didn't want to hold
you up. I made an exception for you. You're always
welcome on this program. You're one of my best callers,
and I thank you for calling.
Speaker 5 (35:24):
All right, thank you a great night.
Speaker 3 (35:26):
We'll be back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
It's night Side with Radio.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
Okay. We have three calls, and I got like five minutes,
so everybody's going to get a minute and a half. Okay,
let's go for it right now, Jack and Newton. Jack,
I got three calls, You got a minute and a half.
Go ahead, Jack, I'll try to be quiet. Go ahead.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
Okay.
Speaker 9 (35:49):
Yeah, it's Jack Porter. Well. I've been a consultant to
the task force at Harvard, and I can tell the
audience it's been an excellent job. They should read all
the recommendations to students a little very faith on campus.
They're going to introduce Holocaust studies and zion of course
is on Zionism. Everything will be done, I hope they
(36:10):
don't spend a lot of money on legal fees Harvard.
And also on the other side, and let's get back
to thanks. Are fine, that's an excellent task for us.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
And well, that's great. And I hope that some of
the Jewish students and Jewish organizations might step forward. I
think Donald Trump might feel, hey, he has to get
as much of a concession. I'm trying to answer my
own question.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
Now.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
It might be that Trump feels he needs to get
as much out of Harvard. But there comes a point
where you can't get water out of a stone, you
know what I'm saying, Jack, If Harvard feels it's gone,
you know, the whole field, They've gone the hundred yards
and there's nothing left to go, he might get to
the point where he's overplaying his hand. That's all. That's
(36:57):
all the question I was asking tonight.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
So he's kind of, you know, just move on. I
don't know.
Speaker 9 (37:03):
You know, he's picking on Harvard because it's the biggest
and you know it's the biggest target.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (37:09):
I'm trying to set an example of it. You can
win with Harvard. I think that's a good point as well, Jack,
I want to get two more in so I'm going
to let you go. I owe you more time next
time you call.
Speaker 9 (37:18):
Fair enough, Okay, thank you.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
Jack, appreciate the bill in New York. Billy got to
be quick for me here. I got you and Mary
Ann from Hopkin to go ahead, Bil.
Speaker 2 (37:27):
Hey, Dan, thanks for taking my call. I just want
to say that regarding the Harvard issue, I think I
think Harvard was wrong by saying, no, we didn't do
anything wrong, we didn't do anything wrong, and they played
that and the Trump administration got bad publicity over it,
(37:49):
and everybody hated Trump because they were doing everything against Harvard.
And now Harvard's coming out and saying, hey, you know what,
we we had a problem. Yeah, and we're trying to
fix it and and great, but you know what we
could have They could have done all of all of
(38:09):
the regrets in the beginning and said yeah, we had
a problem, and now now we get it.
Speaker 3 (38:17):
Thank you, sir. I appreciate you call. I really do
call back earlier. We get more time, Mary Ann and
Hopkins and Mary Inne. I got about thirty five to
forty seconds for you, go right ahead.
Speaker 8 (38:28):
Okay. I was just going to say, I think has
Donald Trump ever admitted to any wrongdoing like ever. So
the idea that like he all of a sudden cares
about a certain group being discriminated against, I think is
just absolute BS. And I think he's the worst abomination
of a president ever, and I'm sick about what he's doing.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
Okay, Well, you said it, and you said it succinctly,
and I appreciate that. And call earlier some night and
we can have a longer conversation. Thanks, Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Thank you have a greatness.
Speaker 3 (39:02):
Is your first time calling.
Speaker 8 (39:05):
I've called once more during COVID it was like years ago.
Speaker 3 (39:08):
Welcome back more frequently, don't I may not be here
five years from now. You never know. Okay, Thanks Mary,
I appreciate it very much. All Right, I want to
thank everyone to call it, including my friend John from Pennsylvania,
Harvey Silverglate, et cetera. We're done for the night and
we I'll be on Facebook Live with a night side
postgame coming right up. I want to thank Rob, want
(39:29):
to thank Marita, want to thank all the callers and
all the listeners. All dogs, okats, all pets go to heaven.
That's what my pal Charlie Ray is who passed fifteen
years ago in February. That's where all your pets are
who have passed. They loved you and you love them.
I do believe you'll see them again. We'll see again
tomorrow night on night side everyone. Thanks so much for listening,
and have a great Tuesday. Stay cool.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.