I dunno, Snark, I have to look at the evidence of what was actually happening here as against the leaker’s rhetorical characterization of it. The words you quoted above certainly sound like the latter. Yes, to the extent that even one of the favored group gets or would have got funding as a result of the letter, then in a zero-sum world, someone else wouldn’t have got it. That’s wrong, and we are in agreement it’s wrong. Perhaps, as you suggest, even Rachael Ward agrees it’s wrong - or in any event can only be justified by the supposed good effects. The magnitudes involved matter, however, given all the moving parts, serendipities and other preferences in play here. Whether the leaker’s “strong claims” are more than “strong rhetoric” has to at least be considered and not bought literally and at face value in all their extremity. I advise skepticism - a strong U of C virtue.