Ivy League antisemitism, macro, SaaS recovery, Gemini, Figma deal delay + big Friedberg update

The episode opens with Jason saying the Tucker Carlson interview is the year's top episode after Vivek's and may reach a million YouTube views. Sacks calls Carlson intellectually curious, and another host says he disagrees with perhaps half of it but enjoyed it. Asked why they did not push back, one host says the format is to let guests state positions, as with the presidential candidates, and leave hard questions to occasional follow-ups rather than a list of ten criticisms.

I will choose to ask hard questions. But I won't hijack the show.

Jason says the House Education Committee questioned the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT. The clips that spread most showed them declining to say whether calls for the genocide of a particular group violated codes of conduct on bullying and harassment. He adds that Claudine Gay was asked repeatedly whether calls for intifada violated Harvard's code. The passage is garbled in the transcript.

Sacks says he would allow almost any speech, but that the presidents cannot claim free speech as their practice. He cites a FIRE survey in which the Ivy League scored worse than state schools and Harvard came last, with a score the transcript renders as 0.00, and where students reported speakers shouted down or uninvited. He asks whether the answer would have been the same had the question concerned genocide of black or trans people, and answers that it would not.

His explanation is woke identity politics, which sorts groups into victims and oppressors. In his view Jews have been placed with white people as oppressors, which has surprised donors who accepted that framework when they believed antisemitism would be treated as real. This is Sacks's interpretation.

Friedberg says Congress should have asked about cross-burning or hostile statements about other groups to test the presidents' discernment. He adds that many people may believe oppression exists and that disruption is the only response, as with the Boston Tea Party, so presidents fear suppressing it. He stresses that this explains and does not excuse their comments.