The authors of the letter are correct in saying that Harvard University must “stand up for principle.” But the principle it must stand for is justice for the victims of sexual harassment and assault.
It is heartening to see people join the protests in Missouri under a variety of banners.
The unprecedented pace of the disease could have been halted much earlier had the international community’s response not been so slow until now.
We hope, going forward, that institutions of higher education find a way to sort this problem out.
Public discourse suffers in an environment where ideas are discounted off-hand due to the identity of the speaker.
The Court and this country have made incredible strides in the direction of expanding the rights of same-sex couples to marry, but marriage inequality remains only one of many systematic injustices against members of the LGBTQ community in this country.
Properly and officially delineating the respective roles of the House Committees and the UC would be an important first step toward improving relationships with these two important governing bodies.
As Massachusetts Transportation Secretary Richard A. Davey said at the station’s opening, “It’s about a neighborhood.”
Harvard is remarkably resilient, but even as campus moves past the emails, it is important to recognize their effect. Regardless of the credibility of this specific threat, we must recognize that they reflect a very real current of racism that is unfortunately alive and well in our world today.
The law is the first in the nation to officially embrace an affirmative consent policy, and we hope others are soon to come.
In light of the staggering civilian death toll, we support the actions of the Palestine Solidarity Committee and of all student protesters who took part in Monday’s demonstration.
For the nation’s first African-American Attorney General, these blind spots blemish the substantive progress he achieved towards making the United States more just.
The movement deserves our support, and China should be criticized for its behavior toward civil rights both in Hong Kong and on the mainland.
Beginning next academic year, the Ad Board will implement the largest structural changes in its history, changes that will alter both the types of cases and the number of cases the Board will deliberate on in the future.
Perhaps most troubling, this already flawed program would limit poor students’ freedom of choice by tying aid to the rankings.