Core Viewpoint - Harvard University has won a preliminary injunction allowing it to continue accepting international students during the ongoing legal proceedings against the Trump administration's actions to block such admissions [1][3]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Federal Judge Allison Burroughs issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration's efforts to prevent Harvard from accepting international students, allowing the university to maintain its admissions during the case [1][3]. - Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security after it revoked the university's certification to accept foreign students and process their visa applications, which affected approximately 7,000 international students [3][4]. - The judge noted that the federal government retains the right to review Harvard's eligibility to accept international students through normal legal procedures [3][4]. Group 2: Government Actions and Responses - The Trump administration attempted to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to study at Harvard through a new announcement, which Harvard challenged in court [4][6]. - Harvard's legal team argued that the Trump administration's policies violated the university's rights to due process and academic freedom, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act [6][7]. - The university expressed that the government's actions created an atmosphere of "profound fear, anxiety, and confusion" among international students [6][7]. Group 3: Future Implications - Harvard anticipates a more binding ruling from the judge in the coming days, while continuing to develop contingency plans for international students [4][5]. - If the Trump administration persists with its actions, the case may escalate to the Supreme Court, where Harvard is expected to have a strong chance of success based on constitutional grounds [7]. - Harvard is also pursuing a separate lawsuit regarding the suspension of federal funding by the Trump administration, with the first hearing scheduled for July 21 [7].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing conflict between the U.S. government and universities, particularly focusing on the actions taken by the Trump administration against institutions like Columbia University and Harvard, highlighting the clash between multiculturalism and free speech [1][2][4]. Group 1: Government Actions Against Universities - The Trump administration targeted Columbia University, withdrawing $400 million in federal funding due to alleged inaction against anti-Semitic harassment [2][4]. - Other universities, including Northwestern, Pennsylvania, and Cornell, faced funding suspensions totaling $7.9 billion, $1.75 billion, and $1 billion respectively, for similar reasons [4]. - The government also revoked visas for over 300 international students accused of supporting Hamas [4]. Group 2: Response from Universities - Columbia University initially complied with several government demands, including disciplinary actions against protesting students and academic oversight of certain departments [2][4]. - Harvard University publicly rejected government demands, leading to the freezing of over $2.2 billion in federal funding and threats to revoke its tax-exempt status [6]. Group 3: Broader Implications - The actions against universities are seen as part of a larger strategy to undermine institutions perceived as aligned with Democratic values, reflecting a political divide in the U.S. [8][9]. - The government’s approach has led to significant cuts in funding for scientific research and education, impacting institutions like the CDC and NIH, which have seen budget cuts of 44% and staff reductions [7][8]. - Concerns are raised about the potential loss of talent, as international students may choose to study elsewhere, jeopardizing the U.S.'s leadership in science and technology [11]. Group 4: Cultural and Ideological Conflicts - The conflict is rooted in deeper ideological divides, with universities often viewed as bastions of liberalism and Democratic support, while the Trump administration seeks to redefine American identity and values [12][13]. - The article emphasizes that the ongoing tensions could have long-lasting effects on the U.S.'s global influence and attractiveness as a destination for international students [10][13].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a legal battle between Harvard University and the Trump administration regarding the revocation of Harvard's international student enrollment status, highlighting the implications for academic freedom and government overreach in educational policies [1][2][8]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - A federal judge in Massachusetts, Allison Burroughs, indicated that a preliminary injunction will be issued to prevent the Trump administration from revoking Harvard's international student enrollment status [1]. - The Trump administration had previously notified Harvard that its "Student and Exchange Visitor Program" (SEVP) certification would be revoked, requiring international students to leave within 72 hours [2]. - The judge emphasized the need to maintain the status quo to protect Harvard and its international students until the administrative process is completed [3]. Group 2: Government Actions and Implications - The government altered its stance before the hearing, allowing Harvard 30 days to contest the revocation, but the judge deemed it necessary to protect the university's rights [3]. - If Harvard can provide evidence that the government's actions were motivated by dissatisfaction with its liberal stance, the court may rule that the government's actions violate constitutional rights, including the First Amendment (freedom of speech and academic freedom) and the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection) [5][21]. Group 3: Broader Context - The conflict represents a broader clash between liberal universities, exemplified by Harvard, and a conservative government, with Harvard symbolizing elite education and liberal values [9][10]. - The Trump administration's policies targeting higher education institutions aim to weaken the structural advantages of liberal universities in the U.S. discourse and knowledge systems [13][14]. - Harvard's financial dependence on federal funding for research and student loans complicates its autonomy, as federal funding constitutes approximately 11% of its total operating revenue [18][19]. Group 4: Future Legal Landscape - Harvard is also challenging the Trump administration's decision to freeze approximately $3 billion in federal research funding, with a hearing scheduled for July 2025 [17]. - The case is expected to progress through the U.S. federal court system, potentially reaching the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is known for its liberal leanings [28][29]. - The outcome of this legal battle may have significant implications for the relationship between academic institutions and government policies, particularly regarding academic freedom and institutional autonomy [8][30].

Group 1: Core Issues in Higher Education - Columbia University has faced significant backlash during graduation ceremonies, particularly directed at its new president, Claire Shipman, amid ongoing political tensions related to the Israel-Palestine conflict [4][10] - The university's leadership has been criticized for perceived capitulation to political pressures, particularly from the Trump administration, which has led to a loss of federal funding and increased scrutiny of international students [1][12] - The absence of graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, who was detained for supporting Palestine, has become a focal point for protests, highlighting the intersection of student rights and government policies [8][10] Group 2: Responses from Educational Institutions - Educational leaders are urged to form alliances among top universities to collectively address pressures from the government, rather than negotiating individually, which could lead to unfavorable outcomes [14][19] - The American Association of Colleges and Universities emphasizes the need for strategic thinking regarding the long-term impacts of government actions on higher education, advocating for clear communication with stakeholders [15][18] - There is a growing sentiment among university leaders that while financial independence is crucial, yielding to government control could undermine academic integrity and research advancements [17][18] Group 3: Political Climate and Its Impact - The Trump administration's policies have created a climate of fear among international students, prompting discussions about the future of higher education in the U.S. [19][21] - Despite the aggressive stance of the Trump administration, there is an acknowledgment that the economic contributions of international students are significant, suggesting that the administration may reconsider its approach [21][23] - The ongoing political discourse indicates that while immediate pressures are intense, the long-term viability of U.S. higher education remains a priority for both institutions and the government [21][23]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the escalating conflict between the Trump administration and Harvard University, focusing on the implications for international students and the broader academic landscape in the U.S. [2][15] Group 1: Trump's Actions Against Harvard - The Trump administration has initiated a series of actions against Harvard, including freezing over $2.2 billion in federal funding and threatening to revoke the university's tax-exempt status [6][7]. - On May 22, the Trump administration announced the cancellation of Harvard's eligibility for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SVEP), effectively banning the university from enrolling international students [7][15]. - Harvard has responded by filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that the government's actions violate the First Amendment and other federal laws, and have a "direct and devastating impact" on over 7,000 visa holders [7][8]. Group 2: Legal Implications and Harvard's Position - Legal experts suggest that Harvard has a strong chance of winning the case, as the Trump administration's actions may conflict with constitutional rights related to freedom of speech and academic freedom [9][15]. - The article highlights that the government's administrative measures must adhere to due process and proportionality principles, which may not be met in this case [8][9]. - The temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge indicates that the court may prioritize the protection of students' interests while reviewing the legality of the Trump administration's actions [8][9]. Group 3: Broader Implications for Higher Education - The conflict raises concerns about the future of international students in U.S. higher education, as they represent a significant source of tuition revenue and talent [15][16]. - The article notes that international students make up over 27% of Harvard's student body and contribute to the academic and financial vitality of U.S. universities [15]. - Experts warn that aggressive policies against international students could harm the U.S.'s global standing in higher education and its economic interests [15][16].

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving Pang Donglai and the online criticism from Douyin jade blogger "Chai Dui Dui" has concluded with Pang Donglai emerging victorious, as evidenced by the reopening of their official website after a temporary closure [1]. Company Response - Pang Donglai swiftly responded to the allegations by filing a lawsuit against Chai Dui Dui for "commercial defamation and reputation infringement," seeking compensation of no less than 5 million [1]. - The company publicly disclosed its pricing standards for Hetian jade, revealing that the comprehensive gross profit margin for its jewelry department is only 15% to 16%, and that jade sales account for just 0.34% of the group's total revenue [1]. Industry Context - The retail industry is currently facing significant downward economic pressure, with intense competition among major e-commerce platforms and brick-and-mortar stores [2]. - Despite these challenges, Pang Donglai has achieved remarkable sales success, attributed to its customer-centric philosophy and employee treatment [2]. Social Media and Public Perception - The incident highlights the challenges companies face in the age of social media, where any individual can voice criticism, leading to potential reputational damage [2][3]. - The need for companies to differentiate between malicious, unfounded accusations and constructive criticism is emphasized, advocating for legal action against the former while maintaining composure in the face of the latter [2]. Supply Chain Management - The criticisms raised by Chai Dui Dui, although deemed unfounded, point to broader issues within the jade industry, such as the prevalence of substandard products and the difficulty consumers face in discerning quality [3]. - It is suggested that Pang Donglai should enhance its supply chain management and oversight in the jade sector, potentially involving third-party verification to establish itself as a trustworthy platform for jade transactions [3].

Group 1 - Musk's acquisition of Twitter was driven by three main reasons: his heavy usage of the platform, the belief that a better Twitter could benefit humanity, and having excess capital which can lead to mistakes [3] - Twitter provided Musk a platform to communicate directly with the public, bypassing traditional media, which he believes is controlled by special interest groups [4][5] - Musk's acquisition was not primarily for profit but to ensure a solid foundation for free speech, reflecting his obsession with the platform and a desire to reshape it [8] Group 2 - After acquiring Twitter, Musk initiated significant changes, including massive layoffs, comparing Twitter's engineering team to Tesla's, and suggesting that half of Twitter's 7,500 employees should be let go [9] - Musk's management style involved micro-managing operations, requiring employees to work in the office and monitoring attendance, which deviated from the previous remote work policy [21][22] - Musk's approach to cost-cutting included closing offices and investigating whether employees were legitimate, revealing past wasteful practices at Twitter [11][13][14] Group 3 - Musk's political views shifted during the pandemic, leading him to engage in political debates on Twitter, often aligning with right-wing figures and opposing progressive movements [15] - His management decisions at Twitter were often driven by intuition rather than data, leading to controversial changes such as altering the verification system and reacting angrily to advertisers' concerns [17][18][20] - The valuation of Twitter dropped significantly after Musk's acquisition, with Fidelity reducing its valuation from $19 billion to $11.8 billion, indicating challenges in the company's performance under his leadership [24] Group 4 - Musk's leadership style at Twitter has been characterized by a desire for control, leading to decisions that may not align with the platform's social dynamics, as opposed to the technical challenges faced by his other companies [26][27] - The narrative surrounding Musk's actions at Twitter suggests a complex interplay of power, money, and decision-making that may not yield the desired outcomes [27]

《费加罗报》评论认为，欧洲人对马斯克政治立场的反感是用户大幅流失的主要原因。自马斯克收购 X 平台以来，抵制该平台的声音持续高涨。马斯克以"言论自由"为由，大幅放松内容审查政策，致使不少 用户认为该平台变得"充斥仇恨言论且有害"，进而选择离开。报道称，马斯克与美国总统特朗普的"深 度捆绑"加剧了欧洲人的厌恶情绪。法媒列举了马斯克令欧洲民众最为反感的几项举动，比如在集会场 合疑似行"纳粹礼"、领导美国"政府效率部"、干预英国内政、支持德国极右翼选择党等。 自去年11月起至今，《法兰西西部报》《新观察家》《西南报》《世界报》等多家法国主流媒体陆续宣 布退出X平台。今年1月，巴黎市政府也宣布正式关闭其在该平台的账号。巴黎市政府表示，自马斯克 收购X后，该平台"削弱了事实和客观信息的传播"，并"助长了仇恨言论和虚假信息，缺乏监管问题等 日益严重"。 【环球时报驻法国特派记者 于超凡】法国《费加罗报》近日报道称，马斯克旗下的社交平台X今年第一 季度在法国流失了270万用户，欧盟其他国家也有不少人停用该平台。 4月末，X平台按照欧盟《数字服务法案》（DSA）的要求，披露了过去半年在欧洲的运营情况。报告 显示，法国是该平台 ...

TikTok 上诉，请求法院审查法案的合宪性。 翻译、校对丨实习生徐煜萌 编辑丨龚方毅 今年 4 月 24 日，拜登签署 TikTok "不卖就禁" 的法案，270 天的倒计时正式启动。 中国外交部对此表示，法案的通过让美国站在了公平竞争原则和国际经贸规则的对立面。 两周后，TikTok 和字节跳动向美国哥伦比亚特区联邦巡回上诉法院提交诉状 —— 这场四年前就开 始的对决也进入了新的一轮。 在诉状里，TikTok 和字节跳动详细回溯事件、质疑禁令的合宪性并给出论证，要求美国法院裁定 美国国会通过的法案违宪、阻止美国司法部实施该禁令。而这很可能只是漫长法庭冲突的第一 步。 我们全文翻译了该法律文书，并在不改变原意的前提下适当编辑，以尽可能完整呈现 TikTok 和字 节跳动的论述。 严格来说，这封法律文书是 "请愿书"，因为其核心诉求是请求法院判定《法案》违宪进而解除禁 令。这不同于此前《华为诉美国政府》一案，当时华为是发起诉讼，明确要求赔偿。我们在翻译 时保留了原法律文书 "请愿书""请愿人" 等法律名词。 以下是 TikTok 和字节跳动请愿书的全文翻译。 美国哥伦比亚特区联邦巡回上诉法院 请愿人 TikT ...