Harvard's lawsuit against the Trump administration

 Read it and weep for our country:

"7. Defendants’ actions are unlawful. The First Amendment does not permit the Government to “interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance,” Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707, 741 (2024), nor may the Government “rely[] on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech,” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 189 (2024) (citation omitted). The Government’s attempt to coerce and control Harvard disregards these fundamental First Amendment principles, which safeguard Harvard’s “academic freedom.” Asociacion de Educacion Privada de P.R., Inc. v. Garcia-Padilla, 490 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2007). A threat such as this to a university’s academic freedom strikes an equal blow to the research conducted and resulting advancements made on its campus.
8. The Government’s actions flout not just the First Amendment, but also federal laws
and regulations. The Government has expressly invoked the protections against discrimination
contained in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a basis for its actions. Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus. But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism and Title VI compliance. Moreover, Congress in Title VI set forth detailed procedures that the Government “shall” satisfy before revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1. Those procedures effectuate Congress’s desire that “termination of or refusal to grant or to continue” federal financial assistance be a remedy of last resort. Id. The Government made no effort to follow those procedures—nor the procedures provided for in Defendants’ own agency regulations—before freezing Harvard’s federal funding.
9. These fatal procedural shortcomings are compounded by the arbitrary and
capricious nature of Defendants’ abrupt and indiscriminate decision..."

Food: from luxuries to tragedies--chocolate and peanut butter at the opposite ends of human welfare

Below are two stories about food, that couldn't be more different (although the foods, chocolate and peanut butter, have some connection when times are good).

 The (sort of) luxury story, from the Guardian comes with a picture of bonbons:

 US chocolate prices surge amid soaring cocoa costs and tariffs
Price of cocoa – chocolate’s key ingredient – has climbed over past year and tariffs on imports will keep prices high  by Lauren Aratani

 And here's the tragedy, reported on in The Atlantic

‘In Three Months, Half of Them Will Be Dead’
Elon Musk promised to preserve lifesaving aid to foreign children. Then the Trump administration quietly canceled it. By Hana Kiros

"As DOGE was gutting USAID in February, it alarmed the global-health community by issuing stop-work orders to the two American companies that make a lifesaving peanut paste widely recognized as the best treatment for malnutrition"

...

"The move reneged on an agreement to provide about 3 million children with emergency paste over approximately the next year. What’s more, according to the two companies, the administration has also not awarded separate contracts to shipping companies, leaving much of the food assured by the original reinstated contracts stuck in the United States."

The Mystery of the Ultimatum Game, by Kayoko Kobayashi,

 I get very little snail mail these days, but every now and then an interesting book arrives.  The latest is the English translation of the prizewinning book (originally in Japanese) by Kayoko Kobayashi, an economist at Nanzan University. (The link is to her English language webpage, but Google translate is still helpful...)

 The Mystery of the Ultimatum Game. Why We Are Predictably Irrational by Kayoko Kobayashi, Springer, 2025.

"The original Japanese edition won the Nikkei Prize for Economics Books (the 64th Nikkei-Keizai Tosho Bunka award) in 2021, an accolade bestowed upon an outstanding economics book published in a given year. Furthermore, this edition also received the Takashima Kunio Jiyu Prize Encouragement Award in 2024."

While the book invites one to think about "irrationality," the introductory chapter ends with a brief encomium towards the traditional notion of economic rationality, as exhibited by those mythical creatures, homo economicus, also known as the Econ.

"I will close with a modest defense of the Econ.  I said earlier that the Econ might not be much fun to be around. Yet the Econ is also a good person, and in some sense an amazing one.  The Econ does not get jealous. The Econ does not deprecate himself in comparison with others. He does not abandon hope for the future nor sink into despair. He is the kind of person who, no matter how hopeless the situation may seem, doe not dwell on the past but calmly assess the present, focuses solely on the future, and pursues what needs to be done with unwavering determination, choosing the best course of action from the options available."

 

One Nation One Swap: National kidney exchange in India

 In India, the National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization (NOTTO) wrote this week to all the State organizations (the SOTTOs) announcing the plan to form a nationwide kidney exchange program, called the "Uniform One Nation One Swap Transplant Program."

This has been the work of many people for a long time.  Of particular importance has been and will continue to be Dr. Vivek Kute from IKDRC Ahmedabad

 Here's the story in the Hindustan Times.

 NOTTO writes to states, UTs to implement swap organ transplant

Here's the letter itself:

#########

Earlier post:

Tuesday, February 27, 2024  Stanford Impact Labs announces support for kidney exchange in Brazil, India, and the U.S.

MAID in the Netherlands, together

 The Guardian publishes a moving photo, and an interview with the photographer about his parents' decision to avail themselves of medical aid in dying, together.

My parents holding hands after their assisted deaths: Martin Roemers’ most personal photograph Interview by Charlotte Jansen   16 Apr 2025

 

 

"They had a good life and a very happy marriage, but the last years were difficult. They were both sick and exhausted. Both had heart failure, my mother had a lot of pain. Both were in a really bad shape. They still lived in their own house but life was getting harder and harder, even with help. They did not want to go to a nursing home and neither wanted to live without the other – they wanted to step out of life together. They were afraid one would die naturally and the other would be left behind. They were very close, and did everything together, really everything – so it made sense they would leave this life together

 

"In the Netherlands, where assisted dying is legal, this is possible if you have a very good reason. My mother always said: ”We will stay with you as long as we can, until we can see no other way out.” Physicians have to be convinced that the patient is suffering unbearably and has no chance of recovery. My parents were independently evaluated by different doctors, and it was granted to both of them.

 

"It’s a very long process but once the decision was made, it all happened very fast. They picked a date, and it was a week later – much sooner than I had thought. My father wanted to go out to dinner somewhere, and on the last evening before they would die, we were able to do that. My father was a very optimistic and worry-free person who would always laugh at our jokes, until the end. He was visibly enjoying his dinner that evening – that was good".