More Idiocy Out of Harvard

First, I chronicled how Harvard allowed a few anti-capitalist blowhards to drive their endowment manager from the university because they didn't like the fact that he was well-paid.  He was well-paid because he was the best, and having his pay cut, he left.  Now Harvard gets mediocre returns on its endowment's capital.  Dumb.

Second, I chronicled how Harvard students complained that the economics curriculum actually contained some of the foundational ideas and thinkers in the field of economics, much to their chagrin because apparently some of these ideas are, gasp, conservative.

Now, we have the Harvard Crimson telling potentially ambitious young people not to come to Harvard if they are going to bad-mouth it for being "liberal" later on in life.  This completes the trifecta of dumb.  Let's make the entirely realistic assumption that success is normally distributed across society.  Thus, there are going to be a given number of successful people who will develop conservative (or maybe just  'not liberal') views as they mature into adulthood, and they may look back on their years at Harvard, reflect, and perhaps note that they learned alot of liberal nonsense stuff of marginal or dubious utility.  Still, those people have become successful and they are potential financial supporters, advisory resources or they simply add to the long line of distinguished alumni of the university, burnishing Harvard's reputation.  Why would Harvard pass up on these people?  Why would it actively forgo future resources and turn potential human capital away at the door?  If this were policy, the official line would effectively limit Harvard's progress and capabilities to only what a subset of available future alumni enable it to achieve.  It's a self-limiting policy to say nothing of the fact that it might be illegally discriminatory.  In fewer words, it's shockingly dumb; and, in the ultimate irony, illiberal.

But it is, more or less, what we've come to expect from the geniuses in Cambridge.