<p>"Why is it a good idea to spend six figures on something that isn't going to meet the nutritional needs of your students?" says Kitkatail:</p>
<p>You could say the same thing about half the courses in the Catalog, incuding many of those attracting the highest enrollment.</p>
<p>Good point, Byerly. In fact I think you could say that about more than half the courses in the Catalog, since I rather suspect none of them meets its students' nutritional needs.</p>
<p>We should just not have courses. Clearly that was my point all along.</p>
<p>Fruit Loops, however, fulfill the emotional needs of many. </p>
<p>We need to consider the psyche and not obsess about bone mass and tooth decay.</p>
<p>Honestly, the faculty can be SO myopic; it is getting to the point where sugar is considered an illegal stimulant, along with vodka and steroids.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Honestly, the faculty can be SO myopic; it is getting to the point where sugar is considered an illegal stimulant, along with vodka and steroids.>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I know you have a low opinion of the Harvard faculty, but at Harvard as at other colleges, the faculty has zero input about what gets served in cafeteria. Zero. Naught. Zilch, Nada. If cost-cutting measures are behind this move, take it up with Larry Summers. If it's PC-ness that bothers you, take it up with the Director of Dining services.</p>
<p>In order to get away with a move like this (ie, deciding to take away people's favorite cereal on alleged "health" grounds) a sufficiently PC fog has to overlay the campus already.</p>
<p>For that, it is the insufferably liberal faculty that is primarily to blame, and not newcomer Larry Summers, whose own dietary preferences are decidedly non-PC.</p>
<p>On the other hand I do not discount the influence that may have been exerted by some busybody student group, or even a Crimson "expose" of nutritionally unsound offerings.</p>
<p>The whole truth will not be known, and blame cannot be assessed, until a thorough investigation is conducted by an independent, blue-ribbon committee.</p>
<p>"Why is it a good idea to spend six figures on something that isn't going to meet the nutritional needs of your students? If they want it merely for taste value, they should have to spend their own money to get it."</p>
<p>Then we might as well just give the students carb/protein/lipid injections straight to their stomach, with vitamin and mineral pills as dessert.</p>
<p>Can someone please tell me what is wrong with liberal faculty. I mean seriously...would you prefer that David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes teach Government at Harvard. I mean come on...let us not toss around liberal like an epithet.</p>
<p>They aren't taking away people's favorite cereal...ITS THE EXACT SAME CEREAL. There isn't any differance. As some people have noticed, some cereal makers, (General Mills is notorious for this), sell their cereal in both brand name and generic form. </p>
<p>Byerly...why would you cite the Boston Globe as a source, and then attack its veritablility. You are walking both sides of the fence here.</p>
<p>Harvard is trying to cut costs...would you rather them raise the board fee. Eat the damn cereal and shut up.</p>
<p>Who's benefitting from Harvard cutting costs? The students, who seem to be collectively against it?</p>
<p>Byerly...I love how you create this PC-liberal haze in every post. Just letting you know that when you throw around all these terms and never actually talk about the issue, you come across pretty stupidly...as sort of a Bill O'Reilly type. I for one have never seen the PC-liberal connection. Really, being politically correct is defined by where you are. I mean, in many places it's politically correct to hate gay people. And who makes all those complaints to the FCC? In other words, while I walk around broke, in my hemp clothes and listening to my Grateful Dead bootlegs, I hope you are enjoying our next war and praising Jesus.</p>
<p>Eric</p>
<p>I am no fan of the God Squad, either. I guess I'm instictively libertarian ... I don't like anybody who claims to know better whats good for me than I do.</p>
<p>I don't give a God-Damn if you want to smoke pot or play stolen tapes, or if some other guy wants to praise Jesus or stay virginal till he's married.</p>
<p>But DON'T IMPOSE YOUR VALUES ON ME!!!!</p>
<p>On most elite college campuses, the God Squad is a non-presence, and the officious, tyrannical and bossy ones are almost entirely of the leftist-PC variety, whose oppressive activities include, variously:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>outlawing "unhealthy foods", </p></li>
<li><p>banning "hate speech" (ie opinions with which they do not agree), </p></li>
<li><p>inviting a string of ultra-liberal speakers (unless its a token conservative, who is then shouted down and picketed against),</p></li>
<li><p>rallying against and denouncing the Republican Party, and </p></li>
<li><p>generally scorning and vilifying the values held dear by fully half of the American people.</p></li>
<li><p>Keeping a strangle-hold on the hiring process to discourage the retention of any teachers - or the expression of any views - not supportive of their own prejudices.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And there goes Byerly, embracing the Southern Conservative stereotype. Congratulations, Byerly, on both understanding and demonstrating alterman's point.</p>
<p>EDIT: In a display of bad forum etiquette, Byerly edited his post from "duh whut'd he say?" (or something smilar) to what you see now. or maybe he's changed it again. We'll never know.</p>
<p>Are you so limited in your vision as to be incapable of recognizing that bigotted "liberals" are just as much of a menace as intolerant "conservatives"?</p>
<p>The leftist bigots are the main enemy in my view, because I care primarily about what is going on at northestern elites which are - in effect - one-party states where dissent is verboten, and I don't much care what goes on at the University of Mississippi or Liberty University.</p>
<p>Excuse the double post, but I just now had the chance to read Byerly's re-educated post. It is not worth anyone's time to address his "points". I will leave my comments at:</p>
<p>Byerly, you are utterly laughable. Revel in your ignorance while it lasts.</p>
<p>"I don't give a God-Damn if you want to smoke pot or play stolen tapes, or if some other guy wants to praise Jesus or stay virginal till he's married"</p>
<p>Byerly for once I agree with you heartily</p>
<p>This is the same argument I use in favor of Gay Marriage</p>
<p>" one-party states where dissent is verboten"</p>
<p>ummm, not really</p>
<p>lincoln chafee and sununu are prominent northeast republican senators. And that statement can just as easily apply to any state in the south... particularly the deep south.... while driving through mississippi I had people tell me repeatedly that the civil war wasnt over</p>
<p>I use the word "state" symbolically, referring to Harvard, Yale and Brown, rather than Massachusetts, Connecticut or Rhode Island.</p>
<p>As you can see by the arch response from the poster "Nom" the leftists are so clearly "in charge" in these "city states" that they sneer at the notion of sharing power.</p>
<p>Nom & his ideological bretheren feel about Republicans the way the Shiites feel about the Kurds: a combination of revulsion, fear, hatred and disgust.</p>
<p>byerly, I , as a liberal do have some libertarian tendencies... but, how can you as a libertarian remain a repbulican when the republicans in congress have run up the highest budget deficit in years on prok barrel spending (espescially that 700 billion medicare bill)</p>
<p>I think its ironic how republicans run on "fiscal conservativism" but then don't practice what they preach. Last week an amendment which proposed mandated revenue cuts to pay for new tax cuts was sponsored by a senate dem but shot down by the republicans</p>
<p>whatever happened to the contract with american and the balanced budget amendment. It seems to me that the parties have switched places in terms of fiscal responsibility</p>
<p>@Byerly: You may call me by name. Nom. You do not have to treat it like some specimen, entrapping it in quotation marks. Do not pick me as a token target liberal. You know absolutely nothing about my beliefs given what I have posted in this thread. From my vantage point, I can see that you are only provoking your (assumed) opposition, not debating.</p>
<p>Nothing about your belief system as revealed by your posts here makes me curious to know more about the "inner Nom."</p>
<p>Nor do I have any interest in "debating" you, although I will not let sneers from your "vantage point" go unresponded to.</p>
<p>Where did I ever say I was a "fiscal conservative"?</p>
<p>The big budgets have been necessary to - </p>
<p>(1) successfully revive the economy after the 9.11 hit, and </p>
<p>(2) crush Sadaam & Co., preserve the existance of Israel and hopefully turn things our way in the oil-rich Middle East. </p>
<ul>
<li>all worthy causes, and in the national interest, IMHO.</li>
</ul>
<p>@Byerly: Out of which orifice did you pull your "inner Nom" comment? Moving along, you ought to realize that you never did address my "sneer". My comment was a response to your saber rattling. I was pointing out that you choose to attack people rather than opinions. Unsuprisingly, your reply did just that. I never suggested debating you myself, as your post implied. Instead, I chose to abstain. The details are wasted on someone so self-confident as you.</p>