“The Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper at one of America’s most prominent universities, is facing a challenge unlike any in its 152-year history,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“Students—particularly those without U.S. citizenship—are asking to have their names removed from articles for fear of backlash by immigration officials.”

“Some requests are simple: Take down a byline from an old opinion column. Others ask editors to scrub entire articles from websites. In other instances, students who might have been quoted in a published story now want their names removed.”

Earth, seen from a distance as a going out of business pet store.
— Village Fetish (@botandy)

We used to be above this. We used to make fun of the in-fighting occurring in autocratic nations. We used to mock the sycophancy of government officials who spent most of their time jockeying for the position of loyalest loyalist, something that usually came packaged with an inordinate amount of backstabbing. We used to think this could only happen in other countries, ones run by dictators, most of them Communist.

Now, we’re indistinguishable from our enemies of the Cold War days (or China, pretty much every day), at least in terms of the upper administration levels. While DOGE goes about gutting the government and Trump violently vacillates on pretty much every big issue, every high-level official’s job is on the line.

The IRS burnt through two acting commissioners in less than two months as Kristi Noem’s DHS pressed for access to millions of immigrants’ tax records. 38-year IRS veteran Doug O’Donnell retired, rather than cave in to the DHS’s initial demand for only 700,000 tax records. His more Trump-friendly replacement, Melanie Krause, similarly resigned when this demand ballooned to seven million tax records.

The pace of replacement has accelerated. The head of the Treasury Department, Scott Bessent, feels he’s the only one allowed to elevate people to the IRS commissioner position, despite Elon Musk and DOGE apparently being given the same power by Donald Trump himself.

It’s Trump loyalist-on-Trump loyalist action, something that’s absolutely sure to return some form of stability to the federal government, as the New York Times reports.

President Trump has replaced the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service after his appointment just days earlier set off a power struggle between Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the billionaire Elon Musk, five people with knowledge of the change said Friday.

Mr. Bessent’s deputy, Michael Faulkender, will be the new acting leader, replacing Gary Shapley, the Treasury Department confirmed on Friday. Mr. Faulkender will be the third acting leader of the agency this week.

Mr. Bessent had complained to Mr. Trump this week that Mr. Musk had done an end run around him to get Mr. Shapley installed as the interim head of the I.R.S...

Just let all the pettiness of this waft over you. Two previous commissioners exited because they disagreed with sharing tax filing data with the DHS. That’s at least a principled stand. The IRS is now on its third commissioner in one week because the head of the Treasury Department complained to his boss that another Trump acolyte has stepped on his administrative toes by moving someone into a slot that now seems incapable of being staffed for more than a few weeks at a time.

Also brace yourself for this impact: tire conspiracy theorist/area bigot Laura Loomer may have had something to do with this new bout of roiling in the Trump administration:

The feud between Mr. Musk and Mr. Bessent went public late Thursday night, when Mr. Musk amplified a social media post from the far-right researcher Laura Loomer accusing Mr. Bessent of colluding with a “Trump hater.”

“Troubling,” Mr. Musk wrote about Mr. Bessent’s meeting John Hope Bryant, the chief executive of the nonprofit Operation HOPE. Mr. Bryant is working on a financial literacy effort with Treasury officials.

Ms. Loomer had called that meeting a “vetting failure.”

Ms. Loomer helped push out several officials from the National Security Council earlier this month, after first attacking some of them online and then meeting with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office and presenting him with a list of those she deemed disloyal.

Batshittery, purges, and apartheid money-wielding interlopes. What a country, as ex-pat Russian comedians used to say.

What’s even more enjoyable (in a gallows humor sort of way… I mean, these people are destroying the government from the inside) is that this sets up a showdown Donald Trump won’t be able to avoid. Does he want Musk to take control of staffing, since he’s supposedly in the “efficiency” business? Or would he rather mollify appointed heads of federal agencies, since they’ll likely be there longer than Musk himself, who’s probably going to go back to private sector well before Trump’s second presidential term has concluded? Or does he want to entertain whatever half-formed notion falls out of Loomer’s mouth the next time she drops by the Oval Office?

However that part of the equations turns out, the bottom line is still the same: this administration will purge anyone who isn’t immediately and wholly loyal. It will generate tons of departmental churn to ensure that this happens. And it will definitely create a talent exodus that will harm the federal system for years to come. When this happens, those loyal to Trump will simply claim the failures they created are failures of the system itself. In the meantime, we’ll have to take what pleasure we can from watching those most enthralled by Trump devour each other to get their tongues up a little higher on the boot they’ll be licking for at least the next four years.

Education Dept. warns schools: Eliminate DEI programs or lose funding

In response to this edict from the Trump administration giving every school district only 10 days to respond, one brave district superintendent wrote this. (Name was withheld for obvious reasons..)

Still Not Signing: A Superintendent’s Response to the Department of Education’s Anti-DEI Ultimatum

The federal government gave us ten days to sign away our values. Here’s our answer.

April 8, 2025

To Whom It May (Unfortunately) Concern at the U.S. Department of Education:

Thank you for your April 3 memorandum, which I read several times — not because it was legally persuasive, but because I kept checking to see if it was satire. Alas, it appears you are serious.

You’ve asked me, as superintendent of a public school district, to sign a “certification” declaring that we are not violating federal civil rights law — by, apparently, acknowledging that civil rights issues still exist. You cite Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, then proceed to argue that offering targeted support to historically marginalized students is somehow discriminatory.

That’s not just legally incoherent — it’s a philosophical Möbius strip of bad faith.

Let me see if I understand your logic:

If we acknowledge racial disparities, that’s racism.

If we help English learners catch up, that’s favoritism.

If we give a disabled child a reading aide, we’re denying someone else the chance to struggle equally.

And if we train teachers to understand bias, we’re indoctrinating them — but if we train them to ignore it, we’re “restoring neutrality”?

How convenient that your sudden concern for “equal treatment” seems to apply only when it’s used to silence conversations about race, identity, or inequality.

Let’s talk about our English learners. Would you like us to stop offering translation services during parent-teacher conferences? Should we cancel bilingual support staff to avoid the appearance of “special treatment”? Or would you prefer we just teach all content in English and hope for the best, since acknowledging linguistic barriers now counts as discrimination?

And while we’re at it — what’s your official stance on IEPs? Because last I checked, individualized education plans intentionally give students with disabilities extra support. Should we start removing accommodations to avoid offending the able-bodied majority? Maybe cancel occupational therapy altogether so no one feels left out?

If a student with a learning disability receives extended time on a test, should we now give everyone extended time, even if they don’t need it? Just to keep the playing field sufficiently flat and unthinking?

Your letter paints equity as a threat. But equity is not the threat. It’s the antidote to decades of failure. Equity is what ensures all students have a fair shot. Equity is what makes it possible for a child with a speech impediment to present at the science fair. It’s what helps the nonverbal kindergartner use an AAC device. It’s what gets the newcomer from Ukraine the ESL support she needs without being left behind.

And let’s not skip past the most insulting part of your directive — the ten-day deadline. A national directive sent to thousands of districts with the subtlety of a ransom note, demanding signatures within a week and a half or else you’ll cut funding that supports… wait for it… low-income students, disabled students, and English learners.

Brilliant. Just brilliant. A moral victory for bullies and bureaucrats everywhere.

So no, we will not be signing your “certification.”

We are not interested in joining your theater of compliance.

We are not interested in gutting equity programs that serve actual children in exchange for your political approval.

We are not interested in abandoning our legal, ethical, and educational responsibilities to satisfy your fear of facts.

We are interested in teaching the truth.

We are interested in honoring our students’ identities.

We are interested in building a school system where no child is invisible, and no teacher is punished for caring too much.

And yes — we are prepared to fight this. In the courts. In the press. In the community. In Congress, if need be.

Because this district will not be remembered as the one that folded under pressure.

We will be remembered as the one that stood its ground — not for politics, but for kids.

Sincerely,

District Superintendent

Still Teaching. Still Caring. Still Not Signing.

“The National Institutes of Health appears to be preparing to prohibit the awarding of new grants to any institutions that have DEI programs or boycott Israeli companies, in what would be an escalation of the Trump administration’s use of research funding as leverage to dismantle activities at universities that it deems discriminatory or antisemitic,” Stat reports.