Latest news with #HarvardCollege
Los Angeles Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's claims about remedial math at Harvard don't add up
As the White House moves to revoke Harvard University's certification to enroll foreign students — escalating a battle between the administration and the oldest and wealthiest college in the U.S. — President Trump is falsely claiming that Harvard offers 'remedial mathematics' on topics such as simple addition. He most recently took aim at the school's math offerings during a swearing-in ceremony in the Oval Office on Wednesday for Interim U.S. Atty. for Washington, D.C. Jeanine Pirro, a Fox News host who was formerly a county prosecutor and elected judge, in response to a question from a reporter about how the 'confrontation' with Harvard will end. Here's a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: 'Harvard announced two weeks ago that they're going to teach remedial mathematics, remedial, meaning they're going to teach low grade mathematics like two plus two is four. How did these people get into Harvard? If they can't, if they can't do basic mathematics, how did they do it?' THE FACTS: Harvard does not offer a remedial math class covering basic arithmetic. Asked whether Trump was referring to a specific class, a White House spokesperson provided information about Mathematics MA5, which was introduced in the fall of 2024 as a new format for an existing course that offers extra support in calculus. The original course — Mathematics MA — is still offered. 'Harvard College does not offer any so-called remedial math classes,' said James Chisholm, a spokesperson for the university's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which encompasses its undergraduate program. He added: 'Math MA5 is a college-level calculus class. It is simply a new format of Math MA, the introductory freshman calculus course that has been taught at Harvard for decades.' Students in Mathematics MA and MA5 have the exact same homework, exams and grading structure, according to Chisholm. The only difference is that the former meets three days a week and the latter five days a week. They are both prerequisites for higher-level math courses. One question on a sample exam Chisholm provided asks students to write a formula for determining the total number of cases during a hypothetical epidemic after a certain amount of days. The Harvard Crimson reported in September that Director of Introductory Math Brendan Kelly said Mathematics MA5 is 'aimed at rectifying a lack of foundational algebra skills among students' created by the COVID-19 pandemic. A course description notes that its 'extra support will target foundational skills in algebra, geometry, and quantitative reasoning.' The median math score for the most recently enrolled undergraduate class at Harvard College was 790 out of 800 on the SATs and 35 out of 36 on the ACTs. The average high school GPA was 4.2. 'There is no university in America that is as difficult to earn admission to as Harvard — no matter your demographics,' said Brian Taylor, managing partner at the college counseling service Ivy Coach. 'President Trump's math in this case simply doesn't add up.' Goldin writes for the Associated Press.
India Today
16-05-2025
- Health
- India Today
Baby healed in world's first gene-editing therapy; Indian-origin doctor plays key role
A nine-month-old baby boy, who was born with a rare and life-threatening genetic disease, was successfully treated with an customised gene-editing treatment made just for him. Indian-origin cardiologist Kiran Musunuru was in the team of doctors who became the first to treat the baby using the customised gene-editing therapy. The baby was diagnosed with a severe genetic disorder that typically proves fatal for about half of affected infants in early nine-month-old baby, identified as KJ, was born with severe CPS1 deficiency -- a condition that affects only one in 1.3 million people -- was treated by Rebecca Ahrens-Nicklas, a senior physician, and doctor Kiran doctors at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania began work immediately after the boy's diagnosis, completing the complex design, manufacturing, and safety testing of the personalised therapy within six months. The baby was just seven months old when he received the experimental treatment in February was born with a severe condition called carbamoyl phosphate synthetase 1 (CPS1) deficiency, a disorder so rare it affects only one in a million births. The disease is caused by a faulty gene in the liver, leading to dangerous build-ups of ammonia in the blood, which can cause brain damage, coma, or even death if not managed Kiran Musunuru used the CRISPR base editing technique, which meant he carefully changed one tiny part of the baby's DNA without cutting it, to fix the gene causing the IS DOCTOR KIRAN MUSUNURU?Kiran Musunuru is a heart disease expert and Associate Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Genetics in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a principal expert in genetic research and was born to Indian immigrant parents who settled in the US. His father, Dr Rao Musunuru, is also a renowned cardiologist who moved from Andhra Pradesh and built a distinguished medical career in the United Kiran graduated in Biochemical Sciences from Harvard College in he completed a PhD in Biomedical Sciences at Rockefeller University in 2003, followed by a medical degree from Weill Cornell Medical College in addition to his medical and scientific training, the 48-year-old doctor has pursued extensive interdisciplinary education to support his work at the intersection of science, public health, and earned an MPH in Epidemiology from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in 2009, followed by an ML in Law from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in recently, in 2024, he completed an MRA in Regulatory Affairs from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of research focusses on the genetics of heart disease and seeks to identify genetic factors that protect against disease and use them to develop therapies to protect the entire population, according to Dr Kiran's his recent work, he has been using gene editing to create a one-shot "vaccination" against heart AND AWARDS FOR GROUNDBREAKING WORKKiran Musunuru has received numerous prestigious honours in recognition of his groundbreaking contributions to science and them is the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers, presented to him at the White House by former US President Barack Obama—one of the highest honours given by the US government to early-career accolades also include the American Heart Association's Award of Meritorious Achievement, the American Philosophical Society's Judson Daland Prize for Outstanding Achievement in Clinical Investigation, the American Federation for Medical Research's Outstanding Investigator Award, and Harvard University's Fannie Cox Prize for Excellence in Science addition to his research and teaching roles, Musunuru recently served as Editor-in-Chief of Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine, a leading peer-reviewed journal in the field, reflecting his leadership in advancing precision medicine and cardiovascular genetics. advertisement
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - The power to cut off funds is important for civil rights, but Trump is abusing it
Over the last few weeks, as the Trump administration has withheld and threatened to withhold federal funding for universities and other recipients of federal assistance under the guise of civil rights enforcement, we have received calls asking, essentially, is that how civil rights law works? Can the federal government run roughshod over federal funding recipients and terminate funds without making a finding of discrimination? Two lawsuits — one brought by faculty at Columbia University and the other by Harvard College — argue that the Trump administration's actions violate constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech as well as due process. As former federal officials with responsibility for civil rights enforcement, we support Harvard and others who refuse to be bullied. The civil rights laws the Trump administration is purporting to enforce establish core prohibitions against discrimination. Indeed, any agency or organization accepting federal funds should be required to comply with them. But withholding funds without any actual finding of a civil rights violation or other due process is an act of political bullying rather than law enforcement. It fits into the larger pattern of an administration that seems uninterested in the constraints the law places on arbitrary government action. Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin by programs that receive federal financial assistance. It was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson at a time when 'White' and 'Colored' signs still hung over hospital doors and water fountains. It sent a clear message to any public agency or private organization receiving federal funds that those signs had to come down. Title VI forms part of a comprehensive federal non-discrimination mandate for recipients of federal funds, along with other civil rights laws. Collectively, these laws prohibit discrimination and segregation on the basis of race, color, national origin (including English proficiency), disability, and age by programs or activities receiving just about any kind of federal financial assistance — educational and housing programs, health care services, transportation systems, and environmental agencies. They also prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in educational and health programs receiving federal financial assistance. It is the role of federal civil rights offices to hold recipients of funds accountable for complying with civil rights laws. Generally, this can be accomplished through other, less dramatic means, but as a last resort an agency sometimes must use the leverage that potential termination of federal funding provides. Important restraints are written into the law to prevent the misuse of power. Universities, hospitals, city governments, environmental agencies, and other recipients of federal funds all have the right to see and challenge the government's evidence of noncompliance; to reach voluntary resolution; and to appeal any decision to withdraw federal funds before funds are terminated. The federal government may not terminate or refuse to grant financial assistance without an express finding of failure to comply with requirements and an opportunity for a hearing. And even then, funding cannot be cut off unless the agency has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means. Agencies must also provide a written report to committees in Congress and then wait 30 days before taking action to terminate funding. Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly, but due process is fundamental to our system of government. Terminating funding has never been the goal — instead, enforcement agencies use funding termination as a last resort in their efforts to promote compliance while enabling recipients to continue to provide services to the public. It is hard to imagine that the Trump administration, in its short time in office, has completed thorough investigations of each of the universities it has targeted. Certainly it has not released anything resembling a standard letter of findings setting out in detail the concrete violations it has found. There is no evidence to suggest that the administration has sought in good faith to work with the universities to remedy perceived violations of civil rights laws. Of course, the supposed violations the administration alleges — most of them boiling down to the administration's view that it is illegal for institutions to seek to make themselves more inclusive, not less — turn civil rights laws on their heads. Programs promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility generally facilitate compliance with civil rights laws rather than violating them. But even if one finds merit in the administration's position on DEI, recipients of federal funds have due process rights. Neither an executive order nor a command by the White House can terminate federal funding by fiat. If the administration has reason to believe that a recipient of federal funds is violating civil rights law, then let it follow established process — investigate and make a determination grounded in factual findings and application of law — rather than use political rhetoric to violate the very laws it is purporting to enforce. Marianne Engelman-Lado, Leslie Proll, Sasha Samberg-Champion, and Jocelyn Samuels are civil rights lawyers who had responsibilities for civil rights enforcement at the EPA and the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Health and Human Services, respectively, during the Biden and Obama administrations. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
09-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The power to cut off funds is important for civil rights, but Trump is abusing it
Over the last few weeks, as the Trump administration has withheld and threatened to withhold federal funding for universities and other recipients of federal assistance under the guise of civil rights enforcement, we have received calls asking, essentially, is that how civil rights law works? Can the federal government run roughshod over federal funding recipients and terminate funds without making a finding of discrimination? Two lawsuits — one brought by faculty at Columbia University and the other by Harvard College — argue that the Trump administration's actions violate constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech as well as due process. As former federal officials with responsibility for civil rights enforcement, we support Harvard and others who refuse to be bullied. The civil rights laws the Trump administration is purporting to enforce establish core prohibitions against discrimination. Indeed, any agency or organization accepting federal funds should be required to comply with them. But withholding funds without any actual finding of a civil rights violation or other due process is an act of political bullying rather than law enforcement. It fits into the larger pattern of an administration that seems uninterested in the constraints the law places on arbitrary government action. Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin by programs that receive federal financial assistance. It was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson at a time when 'White' and 'Colored' signs still hung over hospital doors and water fountains. It sent a clear message to any public agency or private organization receiving federal funds that those signs had to come down. Title VI forms part of a comprehensive federal non-discrimination mandate for recipients of federal funds, along with other civil rights laws. Collectively, these laws prohibit discrimination and segregation on the basis of race, color, national origin (including English proficiency), disability, and age by programs or activities receiving just about any kind of federal financial assistance — educational and housing programs, health care services, transportation systems, and environmental agencies. They also prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in educational and health programs receiving federal financial assistance. It is the role of federal civil rights offices to hold recipients of funds accountable for complying with civil rights laws. Generally, this can be accomplished through other, less dramatic means, but as a last resort an agency sometimes must use the leverage that potential termination of federal funding provides. Important restraints are written into the law to prevent the misuse of power. Universities, hospitals, city governments, environmental agencies, and other recipients of federal funds all have the right to see and challenge the government's evidence of noncompliance; to reach voluntary resolution; and to appeal any decision to withdraw federal funds before funds are terminated. The federal government may not terminate or refuse to grant financial assistance without an express finding of failure to comply with requirements and an opportunity for a hearing. And even then, funding cannot be cut off unless the agency has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means. Agencies must also provide a written report to committees in Congress and then wait 30 days before taking action to terminate funding. Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly, but due process is fundamental to our system of government. Terminating funding has never been the goal — instead, enforcement agencies use funding termination as a last resort in their efforts to promote compliance while enabling recipients to continue to provide services to the public. It is hard to imagine that the Trump administration, in its short time in office, has completed thorough investigations of each of the universities it has targeted. Certainly it has not released anything resembling a standard letter of findings setting out in detail the concrete violations it has found. There is no evidence to suggest that the administration has sought in good faith to work with the universities to remedy perceived violations of civil rights laws. Of course, the supposed violations the administration alleges — most of them boiling down to the administration's view that it is illegal for institutions to seek to make themselves more inclusive, not less — turn civil rights laws on their heads. Programs promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility generally facilitate compliance with civil rights laws rather than violating them. But even if one finds merit in the administration's position on DEI, recipients of federal funds have due process rights. Neither an executive order nor a command by the White House can terminate federal funding by fiat. If the administration has reason to believe that a recipient of federal funds is violating civil rights law, then let it follow established process — investigate and make a determination grounded in factual findings and application of law — rather than use political rhetoric to violate the very laws it is purporting to enforce. Marianne Engelman-Lado, Leslie Proll, Sasha Samberg-Champion, and Jocelyn Samuels are civil rights lawyers who had responsibilities for civil rights enforcement at the EPA and the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Health and Human Services, respectively, during the Biden and Obama administrations.
Daily Mail
26-04-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
She is the mom whose story broke America's heart in 1997...what's she's done since is inspiring
She was the American mom whose world was turned upside down when her beloved baby boy died in the care of a British au pair in 1997. Deborah Eappen was thrown into the global spotlight after the tragic death of her eight-month-old son, Matthew, while in the care of nanny Louise Woodward at their home in Newton, Massachusetts, igniting a firestorm of debate and heartbreak. The trial that followed was harrowing, but out of this profound loss, Deborah has emerged as a figure of resilience and inspiration and she has dedicated herself to deeply personal and poignant work. In the wake of Matthew's passing, Deborah, alongside her husband Sunil channeled their grief into action. The two doctors established the Matthew Eappen Foundation - a testament to their enduring love for the boy they fondly called Matty and a commitment to making a difference for other children. With Deborah serving as the foundation's president and Sunil and Matthew's older brother Brendan as board members, the family has worked tirelessly to support initiatives focused on preventing child abuse and advocating for children's well-being. Through the foundation, Deborah found a powerful outlet for her grief - and a way to honor Matthew's memory. And this week the foundation did just that at the Boston Marathon. A familiar face at the event, Deborah has run the grueling 26.2 miles eight times, using each race as both a tribute and fundraising effort. Louise Woodward was aged 19 when she was found guilty of the murder of eight-month-old Matthew Eappen while working as an au pair for his parents. She is pictured during her trial in 1997 Even though Deborah wasn't running this year, the Matthew Eappen Foundation continued its tradition, with three supporters Vivian Tong, Bridget Stuart and Renee Potera taking on the challenge of the race to further the foundation's mission. The foundation's web page shares that Deborah now works as a Comprehensive Ophthalmologist in Boston. It says: 'Debbie is dedicated to educating medical professionals about the prevalence of child abuse and Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma (SBS/AHT) in all socio-economic groups. 'She has spoken at the American Academy of Ophthalmology midyear forum to enhance educational materials on SBS/AHT. 'She has shared her experiences at numerous conferences including the International Conference on SBS/AHT. She also interviews with general media to prevent abuse through public education. 'Debbie recognizes the impact of SBS/AHT on the entire family, including siblings. She has testified at legislative hearings on child protection. She identifies with victim rights issues and has spoken at the victim rights conference in Boston. She has encouraged organ donation in homicide victims. 'She has spoken to medical examiners, legislators, college students, medical grand rounds attendees, and victim's families.' The foundation's site also tells how Matthew's brother Brendan graduated in 2016 from Harvard College where he studied Psychology and Global Health and Health Policy. It says he 'loves teaching and learning, and he strives to extend care to the most vulnerable people through his work and everyday encounters'. And Matthew's father Sunil has also continued to dedicate himself to the health industry. He has been the President and Chief Executive Officer of the University of Vermont Health Network since 2022. Woodward was hired by the Eappens in November 1996 and just ten weeks after starting the job, Matthew died on February 9, 1997. Woodward was said to have been cautioned by the parents for staying out late within two months of taking on her role. The couple reportedly drew up a list of expectations which they presented to her in January 1997 to ensure 'the safety and well-being' of Matthew and his brother. Each year, October 30 marks a difficult anniversary for Deborah as it is the day Woodward was found guilty of second-degree murder in Matthew's death - a verdict that brought international attention to the dangers of Abusive Head Trauma. In a Facebook post on the anniversary last year she reflected on the 27th anniversary of the verdict and remembered Matthew calling him a 'butterball' baby. She wrote he was 'always smiling and giggling, easily comforted by his parents and his two-and-a-half-year-old brother, Brendan.' She described his 'chocolate eyes, silky black hair, and a knowing smile,' and recalled his favorite toy, a caterpillar that played 'You Are My Sunshine.' She also recounted the tragic events of February 1997, when Matthew was rushed to Boston Children's Hospital, comatose and in need of emergency brain surgery for a large hemorrhage. Doctors discovered a 2½-inch skull fracture, a healing wrist fracture, and extensive retinal bleeding. Despite the best efforts of the medical team, the brain swelling and damage were too much to survive. Five days later, following the recommendation of the hospital ethics committee, Matthew died in his parents' arms. The subsequent trial of Woodward became one of the most high-profile court cases of the decade, broadcast live on television and sparking heated debate on both sides of the Atlantic. The prosecution alleged that Woodward, who was 19 at the time, had violently shaken Matthew, causing fatal head injuries - a form of abuse known as 'Shaken Baby Syndrome'. Woodward denied harming him and her defense team argued that Matthew's injuries could have been caused by a pre-existing medical condition or an earlier accident. The case polarized public opinion. In the US, many viewed Woodward as a cold and reckless caregiver who betrayed the family's trust. In the UK, a wave of sympathy grew for Woodward who was far from home, depicted by some as a scapegoat for a tragic accident. After intense deliberation, Woodward was convicted of second-degree murder and faced a potential life sentence. But just days later, Judge Hiller Zobel stunned the world by reducing the conviction to involuntary manslaughter, citing concerns about 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' evidence and lack of proof of intent. Woodward's sentence was set to time served, and she was released after 279 days in jail, returning to Britain a free woman. The decision sparked outrage among some in the American public and left the Eappen family devastated, feeling that justice for Matthew had not been fully served. Woodward now lives back in England and has a daughter. She is married and is known as Louise Elkes after taking her husband's name. In 2022 she was pictured on the school run. At that time Woodward was teaching dance classes. After her manslaughter conviction, Woodward described it as 'a conviction I don't deserve', and said she held out hope that 'in time the truth will come out' and she would be cleared of any wrongdoing. In a later interview, Woodward admitted to 'lightly shaking' the unresponsive baby. The case remains a source of debate to this day, with some medical experts continuing to dispute the science of 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' and advocacy groups calling for greater safeguards for children in care.
