Anonymous wrote:From Trump’s Truth Social this morning:
Why isn’t Harvard saying that almost 31% of their students are from FOREIGN LANDS, and yet those countries, some not at all friendly to the United States, pay NOTHING toward their student’s education, nor do they ever intend to. Nobody told us that! We want to know who those foreign students are, a reasonable request since we give Harvard BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, but Harvard isn’t exactly forthcoming. We want those names and countries. Harvard has $52,000,000, use it, and stop asking for the Federal Government to continue GRANTING money to you!
Why does it matter who those students are? In fact, you already know who they are, they have student visas. Go find out. And if, by saying Harvard has $52,000,000 he’s referring to their endowment, he’s off by three orders of magnitude. It $52 billion. Finally, the government doesn’t grant money to Harvard, they pay Harvard for research, which hopefully benefits society and the world.
What a dope.
In the meantime, Harvard is offering free classes in an effort to educate the ignorant masses. They are definitely the good guys here.
Apparently they need to offer a primer on university finances.
Do they? They seem to be doing fine.
Free to the clueless public.
Misinformation--like Trump implying that foreign students attend for free--is tough to fight.
I don't care if they pay their own way or not. We don't need to import agitators and educate them.
So you want to send 1,100,000 tuition-paying students away because a handful broke a few rules?
I think you need to re-evaluate the priorities in your life.
You put words in my mouth. I was referring to the agitators.
The universities handle the discipline of the "agitators," just like students committing whatever other sort of infraction.
The campus protests would not have been meaningfully different without foreign students.
The federal government *definitely* has better ways to be spending our taxpayer-supported resources.
Just because Trump is annoyed because some schools rejected his child is not sane justification for all this ridiculous drama.
That is precisely the issue: Harvard failed to discipline the violent and bullying antisemitic behavior exhibited by some students and faculty.
They even acknowledged this in a study they published a few months ago.
If this violation of civil rights were occurring against Black individuals on campus, there would be widespread support for withholding funding and visas.
It's justified to invest in demonstrating that the U.S. will not tolerate such behavior, and it's appropriate to withhold billions of dollars in grants.
Trump is so concerned about anti- semitism that he gave this guy a full pardon:
Wearing a Tshirt is totally the same thing as allowing pro-hamas violence against Jewish students.
A couple of problems with your analogy: (1) “pro-hamas” is a extremist Zionist talking point bearing no resemblance to the protesters on the Harvard campus who are opposed to Israel’s policies and actions and (2) there was no violence against Jewish students on the Harvard campus. Beyond that, solid work, ig.
The excuse of “feeling unsafe” or “feeling unwelcome” is the purported basis of this shitstorm. Feelings. Feelings.
Those expressing those feelings should take it up with the snowflake authorities and the defunct DEI office.
On a completely different note, I do find it interesting that the party of micro aggressions is now the party of “show us the physical violence “.
Thats it, carry on.
Oh, the inversion works both ways …
The party of “own the lib snowflakes!” and “DEI is racist!” is now the party of “we won’t stand for exactly one group saying they feel unsafe or unwelcome!” What could be more DEI snowflakery?!
And that one group - in spectacular DEI fashion, by the way - has long insisted that they alone possess the right to define what constitutes a harm committed against them.
Anonymous wrote:Please specify what the “antisemitic” events were that occurred at Harvard.
If you keep lying about it will not become a truth.
The gross thing is that you wish we were “antisemitic” so you can keep crying wolf BUT we are not. We care about ending the genocide in Palestine. That is not being anti-Jewish.
You can keep asking this until you’re blue in the face, but you won’t get a response. I’ve tried several times.
DP.
Antisemitic events at Harvard (all links to Harvard Crimson):
The things described in that editorial are wrong. In some cases, consequences happened -- eg, an employee was fired. In others, something should have been done more or sooner.
BUT, despite the editorial being recent, all of the incidents cited are more than a year old. That would indicate that Harvard has righted the disciplinary ship, because the underlying issue has not eased up at all.
Both Kestenbaum (the editorial writer) and a couple of posters above are wrong: Garber cannot "he can simply dip into its $53 billion endowment to fund the research." Endowments are not just big slush funds able to be spent when and how a university president wants. They are under a gazillion different restrictions depending on what strings were attached to donations.
Destroying the university is wrong over a more-or-less solved problem is insanity. Kestenbaum is justifiably angry over inappropriate behavior against Jews by a few perpetrators. Note though that while these incidents should never have happened, they were hardly widespread when you consider a community of more than 50,000 over a year and a half. Trump is angry, and who knows why.
They both want retribution, and the sort of jolting, destructive retribution they want is out of line and inappropriate to the situation. Oddly, both the antisemitic incidents and Trump's quest are both manifestations of the out-of-control follow-on to cancel culture -- the "your side is wrong so you need to be destroyed" craziness that is also lies at the heart of the Israeli-Gazan conflict.
Harvard won't be destroyed for touching their funds.
It's nonsense to spout that. They are NOT ENTITLED to tax payer monies.
Your centers of power are being put on notice. Don't like it, too bad.
DP. Look, I’m no fan of much of what happens at elite universities, but on balance they do FAR more good than harm to America.
Reform, not destruction, is the correct course of action here.
What good has come from these elite universities? I’ve asked several times, what benefits they have bestowed upon the average American, but so far no one has been able to give one proof point.
Second, Trump did ask for reform and Harvard said drop dead. And they are welcome to take that stance, but they are not welcomed to taxpayers money.
PP here. I’ve linked to this article several times in this thread, but here’s a partial list from a professor who’s quite critical of Harvard.
“ Why does this matter? For all its foibles, Harvard (together with other universities) has made the world a better place, significantly so. Fifty-two faculty members have won Nobel Prizes, and more than 5,800 patents are held by Harvard. Its researchers invented baking powder, the first organ transplant, the programmable computer, the defibrillator, the syphilis test and oral rehydration therapy (a cheap treatment that has saved tens of millions of lives). They developed the theory of nuclear stability that has saved the world from Armageddon. They invented the golf tee and the catcher’s mask. Harvard spawned “Sesame Street,” The National Lampoon, “The Simpsons,” Microsoft and Facebook.
Ongoing research at Harvard includes methane-tracking satellites, robotic catheters, next-generation batteries and wearable robotics for stroke victims. Federal grants are supporting research on metastasis, tumor suppression, radiation and chemotherapy in children, multidrug-resistant infections, pandemic prevention, dementia, anesthesia, toxin reduction in firefighting and the military, the physiological effects of spaceflight and battlefield wound care. Harvard’s technologists are pushing innovations in quantum computing, A.I., nanomaterials, biomechanics, foldable bridges for the military, hack-resistant computer networks and smart living environments for the elderly. One lab has developed what may be a cure for Type 1 diabetes.”
I’d counter that if the federal government paid for the research on those things, they should be owned by the American people. Specially the patents that Harvard claims, that taxpayers funded.
Instead we pay for the research and get charged astronomical prices to have access the same things we funded.
PP.
Fair point and led me to do some reading.
Prior to enactment of the Bayh Dole Act in 1980, government did retain ownership. However, the government failed to license most of its patents, resulting in 95% of government-owned patents being unused in 1980.
The Act was designed to get innovations to the market for public use by granting ownership to the grantee.
Worth revisiting this arrangement? Absolutely.
But if the choices are (a) have innovation and let private entities benefit, or (b) end government funding and throttle innovation? I’ll take option (a) every time.
This is a good question. However, theirs is nothing about research grants that applies uniquely to Harvard (or Columbia).
I agree with this too. Nothing on the list is unique to Harvard. Any medical school with an academic medical center can do the health discoveries.
And since the majority of the taxpayers funding is going to cover overhead, I’d be willing to bet you can find just about any university, especially in the lower cost areas, to spend that money on their research overhead.
Money follows money and Harvard has grown used to be the favorite child. But they allowed their institutions to be overrun by ideology, so now it’s someone’s else’s turn.
You don't realize how rare true talent is in rigorous medical and scientific fields. Most people are not capable of being a highly productive medical researcher just like most people will never be Lebron James. People think this assumption that extreme talent is easily replaceable is absurd when discussing sports, but somhow they delude themselves into thinking the same is not true for intelligence.
Anonymous wrote:Please specify what the “antisemitic” events were that occurred at Harvard.
If you keep lying about it will not become a truth.
The gross thing is that you wish we were “antisemitic” so you can keep crying wolf BUT we are not. We care about ending the genocide in Palestine. That is not being anti-Jewish.
You can keep asking this until you’re blue in the face, but you won’t get a response. I’ve tried several times.
DP.
Antisemitic events at Harvard (all links to Harvard Crimson):
The things described in that editorial are wrong. In some cases, consequences happened -- eg, an employee was fired. In others, something should have been done more or sooner.
BUT, despite the editorial being recent, all of the incidents cited are more than a year old. That would indicate that Harvard has righted the disciplinary ship, because the underlying issue has not eased up at all.
Both Kestenbaum (the editorial writer) and a couple of posters above are wrong: Garber cannot "he can simply dip into its $53 billion endowment to fund the research." Endowments are not just big slush funds able to be spent when and how a university president wants. They are under a gazillion different restrictions depending on what strings were attached to donations.
Destroying the university is wrong over a more-or-less solved problem is insanity. Kestenbaum is justifiably angry over inappropriate behavior against Jews by a few perpetrators. Note though that while these incidents should never have happened, they were hardly widespread when you consider a community of more than 50,000 over a year and a half. Trump is angry, and who knows why.
They both want retribution, and the sort of jolting, destructive retribution they want is out of line and inappropriate to the situation. Oddly, both the antisemitic incidents and Trump's quest are both manifestations of the out-of-control follow-on to cancel culture -- the "your side is wrong so you need to be destroyed" craziness that is also lies at the heart of the Israeli-Gazan conflict.
Harvard won't be destroyed for touching their funds.
It's nonsense to spout that. They are NOT ENTITLED to tax payer monies.
Your centers of power are being put on notice. Don't like it, too bad.
DP. Look, I’m no fan of much of what happens at elite universities, but on balance they do FAR more good than harm to America.
Reform, not destruction, is the correct course of action here.
What good has come from these elite universities? I’ve asked several times, what benefits they have bestowed upon the average American, but so far no one has been able to give one proof point.
Second, Trump did ask for reform and Harvard said drop dead. And they are welcome to take that stance, but they are not welcomed to taxpayers money.
PP here. I’ve linked to this article several times in this thread, but here’s a partial list from a professor who’s quite critical of Harvard.
“ Why does this matter? For all its foibles, Harvard (together with other universities) has made the world a better place, significantly so. Fifty-two faculty members have won Nobel Prizes, and more than 5,800 patents are held by Harvard. Its researchers invented baking powder, the first organ transplant, the programmable computer, the defibrillator, the syphilis test and oral rehydration therapy (a cheap treatment that has saved tens of millions of lives). They developed the theory of nuclear stability that has saved the world from Armageddon. They invented the golf tee and the catcher’s mask. Harvard spawned “Sesame Street,” The National Lampoon, “The Simpsons,” Microsoft and Facebook.
Ongoing research at Harvard includes methane-tracking satellites, robotic catheters, next-generation batteries and wearable robotics for stroke victims. Federal grants are supporting research on metastasis, tumor suppression, radiation and chemotherapy in children, multidrug-resistant infections, pandemic prevention, dementia, anesthesia, toxin reduction in firefighting and the military, the physiological effects of spaceflight and battlefield wound care. Harvard’s technologists are pushing innovations in quantum computing, A.I., nanomaterials, biomechanics, foldable bridges for the military, hack-resistant computer networks and smart living environments for the elderly. One lab has developed what may be a cure for Type 1 diabetes.”
I’d counter that if the federal government paid for the research on those things, they should be owned by the American people. Specially the patents that Harvard claims, that taxpayers funded.
Instead we pay for the research and get charged astronomical prices to have access the same things we funded.
PP.
Fair point and led me to do some reading.
Prior to enactment of the Bayh Dole Act in 1980, government did retain ownership. However, the government failed to license most of its patents, resulting in 95% of government-owned patents being unused in 1980.
The Act was designed to get innovations to the market for public use by granting ownership to the grantee.
Worth revisiting this arrangement? Absolutely.
But if the choices are (a) have innovation and let private entities benefit, or (b) end government funding and throttle innovation? I’ll take option (a) every time.
This is a good question. However, theirs is nothing about research grants that applies uniquely to Harvard (or Columbia).
I agree with this too. Nothing on the list is unique to Harvard. Any medical school with an academic medical center can do the health discoveries.
And since the majority of the taxpayers funding is going to cover overhead, I’d be willing to bet you can find just about any university, especially in the lower cost areas, to spend that money on their research overhead.
Money follows money and Harvard has grown used to be the favorite child. But they allowed their institutions to be overrun by ideology, so now it’s someone’s else’s turn.
You don't realize how rare true talent is in rigorous medical and scientific fields. Most people are not capable of being a highly productive medical researcher just like most people will never be Lebron James. People think this assumption that extreme talent is easily replaceable is absurd when discussing sports, but somhow they delude themselves into thinking the same is not true for intelligence.
Right? “Anyone can do the medical discoveries.” Lol.
Anonymous wrote:Please specify what the “antisemitic” events were that occurred at Harvard.
If you keep lying about it will not become a truth.
The gross thing is that you wish we were “antisemitic” so you can keep crying wolf BUT we are not. We care about ending the genocide in Palestine. That is not being anti-Jewish.
You can keep asking this until you’re blue in the face, but you won’t get a response. I’ve tried several times.
DP.
Antisemitic events at Harvard (all links to Harvard Crimson):
The things described in that editorial are wrong. In some cases, consequences happened -- eg, an employee was fired. In others, something should have been done more or sooner.
BUT, despite the editorial being recent, all of the incidents cited are more than a year old. That would indicate that Harvard has righted the disciplinary ship, because the underlying issue has not eased up at all.
Both Kestenbaum (the editorial writer) and a couple of posters above are wrong: Garber cannot "he can simply dip into its $53 billion endowment to fund the research." Endowments are not just big slush funds able to be spent when and how a university president wants. They are under a gazillion different restrictions depending on what strings were attached to donations.
Destroying the university is wrong over a more-or-less solved problem is insanity. Kestenbaum is justifiably angry over inappropriate behavior against Jews by a few perpetrators. Note though that while these incidents should never have happened, they were hardly widespread when you consider a community of more than 50,000 over a year and a half. Trump is angry, and who knows why.
They both want retribution, and the sort of jolting, destructive retribution they want is out of line and inappropriate to the situation. Oddly, both the antisemitic incidents and Trump's quest are both manifestations of the out-of-control follow-on to cancel culture -- the "your side is wrong so you need to be destroyed" craziness that is also lies at the heart of the Israeli-Gazan conflict.
Harvard won't be destroyed for touching their funds.
It's nonsense to spout that. They are NOT ENTITLED to tax payer monies.
Your centers of power are being put on notice. Don't like it, too bad.
DP. Look, I’m no fan of much of what happens at elite universities, but on balance they do FAR more good than harm to America.
Reform, not destruction, is the correct course of action here.
What good has come from these elite universities? I’ve asked several times, what benefits they have bestowed upon the average American, but so far no one has been able to give one proof point.
Second, Trump did ask for reform and Harvard said drop dead. And they are welcome to take that stance, but they are not welcomed to taxpayers money.
PP here. I’ve linked to this article several times in this thread, but here’s a partial list from a professor who’s quite critical of Harvard.
“ Why does this matter? For all its foibles, Harvard (together with other universities) has made the world a better place, significantly so. Fifty-two faculty members have won Nobel Prizes, and more than 5,800 patents are held by Harvard. Its researchers invented baking powder, the first organ transplant, the programmable computer, the defibrillator, the syphilis test and oral rehydration therapy (a cheap treatment that has saved tens of millions of lives). They developed the theory of nuclear stability that has saved the world from Armageddon. They invented the golf tee and the catcher’s mask. Harvard spawned “Sesame Street,” The National Lampoon, “The Simpsons,” Microsoft and Facebook.
Ongoing research at Harvard includes methane-tracking satellites, robotic catheters, next-generation batteries and wearable robotics for stroke victims. Federal grants are supporting research on metastasis, tumor suppression, radiation and chemotherapy in children, multidrug-resistant infections, pandemic prevention, dementia, anesthesia, toxin reduction in firefighting and the military, the physiological effects of spaceflight and battlefield wound care. Harvard’s technologists are pushing innovations in quantum computing, A.I., nanomaterials, biomechanics, foldable bridges for the military, hack-resistant computer networks and smart living environments for the elderly. One lab has developed what may be a cure for Type 1 diabetes.”
I’d counter that if the federal government paid for the research on those things, they should be owned by the American people. Specially the patents that Harvard claims, that taxpayers funded.
Instead we pay for the research and get charged astronomical prices to have access the same things we funded.
PP.
Fair point and led me to do some reading.
Prior to enactment of the Bayh Dole Act in 1980, government did retain ownership. However, the government failed to license most of its patents, resulting in 95% of government-owned patents being unused in 1980.
The Act was designed to get innovations to the market for public use by granting ownership to the grantee.
Worth revisiting this arrangement? Absolutely.
But if the choices are (a) have innovation and let private entities benefit, or (b) end government funding and throttle innovation? I’ll take option (a) every time.
This is a good question. However, theirs is nothing about research grants that applies uniquely to Harvard (or Columbia).
I agree with this too. Nothing on the list is unique to Harvard. Any medical school with an academic medical center can do the health discoveries.
And since the majority of the taxpayers funding is going to cover overhead, I’d be willing to bet you can find just about any university, especially in the lower cost areas, to spend that money on their research overhead.
Money follows money and Harvard has grown used to be the favorite child. But they allowed their institutions to be overrun by ideology, so now it’s someone’s else’s turn.
PP here. Perhaps wasn't clear, because you completely.
What I meant is that if you think that grants given to Harvard or Columbia don't generate sufficient returns to the public, then you need to make changes for ALL grants to all universities.
Harvard is not uniquely bad in generating grants (and that is not why Trump wants to halt the grants -- he just wants to punish for the fun of it).
On the contrary, I think Harvard has made incredible contributions to the world.
And like another poster said above, top research talent is rare. You are a bozo if you think just any old Joe can cure your cancer.
Anonymous wrote:Please specify what the “antisemitic” events were that occurred at Harvard.
If you keep lying about it will not become a truth.
The gross thing is that you wish we were “antisemitic” so you can keep crying wolf BUT we are not. We care about ending the genocide in Palestine. That is not being anti-Jewish.
You can keep asking this until you’re blue in the face, but you won’t get a response. I’ve tried several times.
DP.
Antisemitic events at Harvard (all links to Harvard Crimson):
The things described in that editorial are wrong. In some cases, consequences happened -- eg, an employee was fired. In others, something should have been done more or sooner.
BUT, despite the editorial being recent, all of the incidents cited are more than a year old. That would indicate that Harvard has righted the disciplinary ship, because the underlying issue has not eased up at all.
Both Kestenbaum (the editorial writer) and a couple of posters above are wrong: Garber cannot "he can simply dip into its $53 billion endowment to fund the research." Endowments are not just big slush funds able to be spent when and how a university president wants. They are under a gazillion different restrictions depending on what strings were attached to donations.
Destroying the university is wrong over a more-or-less solved problem is insanity. Kestenbaum is justifiably angry over inappropriate behavior against Jews by a few perpetrators. Note though that while these incidents should never have happened, they were hardly widespread when you consider a community of more than 50,000 over a year and a half. Trump is angry, and who knows why.
They both want retribution, and the sort of jolting, destructive retribution they want is out of line and inappropriate to the situation. Oddly, both the antisemitic incidents and Trump's quest are both manifestations of the out-of-control follow-on to cancel culture -- the "your side is wrong so you need to be destroyed" craziness that is also lies at the heart of the Israeli-Gazan conflict.
Harvard won't be destroyed for touching their funds.
It's nonsense to spout that. They are NOT ENTITLED to tax payer monies.
Your centers of power are being put on notice. Don't like it, too bad.
DP. Look, I’m no fan of much of what happens at elite universities, but on balance they do FAR more good than harm to America.
Reform, not destruction, is the correct course of action here.
What good has come from these elite universities? I’ve asked several times, what benefits they have bestowed upon the average American, but so far no one has been able to give one proof point.
Second, Trump did ask for reform and Harvard said drop dead. And they are welcome to take that stance, but they are not welcomed to taxpayers money.
PP here. I’ve linked to this article several times in this thread, but here’s a partial list from a professor who’s quite critical of Harvard.
“ Why does this matter? For all its foibles, Harvard (together with other universities) has made the world a better place, significantly so. Fifty-two faculty members have won Nobel Prizes, and more than 5,800 patents are held by Harvard. Its researchers invented baking powder, the first organ transplant, the programmable computer, the defibrillator, the syphilis test and oral rehydration therapy (a cheap treatment that has saved tens of millions of lives). They developed the theory of nuclear stability that has saved the world from Armageddon. They invented the golf tee and the catcher’s mask. Harvard spawned “Sesame Street,” The National Lampoon, “The Simpsons,” Microsoft and Facebook.
Ongoing research at Harvard includes methane-tracking satellites, robotic catheters, next-generation batteries and wearable robotics for stroke victims. Federal grants are supporting research on metastasis, tumor suppression, radiation and chemotherapy in children, multidrug-resistant infections, pandemic prevention, dementia, anesthesia, toxin reduction in firefighting and the military, the physiological effects of spaceflight and battlefield wound care. Harvard’s technologists are pushing innovations in quantum computing, A.I., nanomaterials, biomechanics, foldable bridges for the military, hack-resistant computer networks and smart living environments for the elderly. One lab has developed what may be a cure for Type 1 diabetes.”
I’d counter that if the federal government paid for the research on those things, they should be owned by the American people. Specially the patents that Harvard claims, that taxpayers funded.
Instead we pay for the research and get charged astronomical prices to have access the same things we funded.
PP.
Fair point and led me to do some reading.
Prior to enactment of the Bayh Dole Act in 1980, government did retain ownership. However, the government failed to license most of its patents, resulting in 95% of government-owned patents being unused in 1980.
The Act was designed to get innovations to the market for public use by granting ownership to the grantee.
Worth revisiting this arrangement? Absolutely.
But if the choices are (a) have innovation and let private entities benefit, or (b) end government funding and throttle innovation? I’ll take option (a) every time.
This is a good question. However, theirs is nothing about research grants that applies uniquely to Harvard (or Columbia).
I agree with this too. Nothing on the list is unique to Harvard. Any medical school with an academic medical center can do the health discoveries.
And since the majority of the taxpayers funding is going to cover overhead, I’d be willing to bet you can find just about any university, especially in the lower cost areas, to spend that money on their research overhead.
Money follows money and Harvard has grown used to be the favorite child. But they allowed their institutions to be overrun by ideology, so now it’s someone’s else’s turn.
[Fixing my errors. Sorry. Rushing]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Please specify what the “antisemitic” events were that occurred at Harvard.
If you keep lying about it will not become a truth.
The gross thing is that you wish we were “antisemitic” so you can keep crying wolf BUT we are not. We care about ending the genocide in Palestine. That is not being anti-Jewish.
You can keep asking this until you’re blue in the face, but you won’t get a response. I’ve tried several times.
DP.
Antisemitic events at Harvard (all links to Harvard Crimson):
The things described in that editorial are wrong. In some cases, consequences happened -- eg, an employee was fired. In others, something should have been done more or sooner.
BUT, despite the editorial being recent, all of the incidents cited are more than a year old. That would indicate that Harvard has righted the disciplinary ship, because the underlying issue has not eased up at all.
Both Kestenbaum (the editorial writer) and a couple of posters above are wrong: Garber cannot "he can simply dip into its $53 billion endowment to fund the research." Endowments are not just big slush funds able to be spent when and how a university president wants. They are under a gazillion different restrictions depending on what strings were attached to donations.
Destroying the university is wrong over a more-or-less solved problem is insanity. Kestenbaum is justifiably angry over inappropriate behavior against Jews by a few perpetrators. Note though that while these incidents should never have happened, they were hardly widespread when you consider a community of more than 50,000 over a year and a half. Trump is angry, and who knows why.
They both want retribution, and the sort of jolting, destructive retribution they want is out of line and inappropriate to the situation. Oddly, both the antisemitic incidents and Trump's quest are both manifestations of the out-of-control follow-on to cancel culture -- the "your side is wrong so you need to be destroyed" craziness that is also lies at the heart of the Israeli-Gazan conflict.
Harvard won't be destroyed for touching their funds.
It's nonsense to spout that. They are NOT ENTITLED to tax payer monies.
Your centers of power are being put on notice. Don't like it, too bad.
DP. Look, I’m no fan of much of what happens at elite universities, but on balance they do FAR more good than harm to America.
Reform, not destruction, is the correct course of action here.
What good has come from these elite universities? I’ve asked several times, what benefits they have bestowed upon the average American, but so far no one has been able to give one proof point.
Second, Trump did ask for reform and Harvard said drop dead. And they are welcome to take that stance, but they are not welcomed to taxpayers money.
PP here. I’ve linked to this article several times in this thread, but here’s a partial list from a professor who’s quite critical of Harvard.
“ Why does this matter? For all its foibles, Harvard (together with other universities) has made the world a better place, significantly so. Fifty-two faculty members have won Nobel Prizes, and more than 5,800 patents are held by Harvard. Its researchers invented baking powder, the first organ transplant, the programmable computer, the defibrillator, the syphilis test and oral rehydration therapy (a cheap treatment that has saved tens of millions of lives). They developed the theory of nuclear stability that has saved the world from Armageddon. They invented the golf tee and the catcher’s mask. Harvard spawned “Sesame Street,” The National Lampoon, “The Simpsons,” Microsoft and Facebook.
Ongoing research at Harvard includes methane-tracking satellites, robotic catheters, next-generation batteries and wearable robotics for stroke victims. Federal grants are supporting research on metastasis, tumor suppression, radiation and chemotherapy in children, multidrug-resistant infections, pandemic prevention, dementia, anesthesia, toxin reduction in firefighting and the military, the physiological effects of spaceflight and battlefield wound care. Harvard’s technologists are pushing innovations in quantum computing, A.I., nanomaterials, biomechanics, foldable bridges for the military, hack-resistant computer networks and smart living environments for the elderly. One lab has developed what may be a cure for Type 1 diabetes.”
I’d counter that if the federal government paid for the research on those things, they should be owned by the American people. Specially the patents that Harvard claims, that taxpayers funded.
Instead we pay for the research and get charged astronomical prices to have access the same things we funded.
PP.
Fair point and led me to do some reading.
Prior to enactment of the Bayh Dole Act in 1980, government did retain ownership. However, the government failed to license most of its patents, resulting in 95% of government-owned patents being unused in 1980.
The Act was designed to get innovations to the market for public use by granting ownership to the grantee.
Worth revisiting this arrangement? Absolutely.
But if the choices are (a) have innovation and let private entities benefit, or (b) end government funding and throttle innovation? I’ll take option (a) every time.
This is a good question. However, theirs is nothing about research grants that applies uniquely to Harvard (or Columbia).
I agree with this too. Nothing on the list is unique to Harvard. Any medical school with an academic medical center can do the health discoveries.
And since the majority of the taxpayers funding is going to cover overhead, I’d be willing to bet you can find just about any university, especially in the lower cost areas, to spend that money on their research overhead.
Money follows money and Harvard has grown used to be the favorite child. But they allowed their institutions to be overrun by ideology, so now it’s someone’s else’s turn.
PP here. Perhaps I wasn't clear, because you misunderstood completely.
What I meant is that if you think that grants given to Harvard or Columbia don't generate sufficient returns to the public, then you need to make changes for ALL grants to all universities.
Harvard is not uniquely bad in generating grants (and that is not why Trump wants to halt the grants -- he just wants to punish for the fun of it).
On the contrary, I think Harvard has made incredible contributions to the world.
And like another poster said above, top research talent is rare. You are a bozo if you think just any old Joe can cure your cancer.
Also, the majority of grant money does NOT go to overhead.
Anonymous wrote:Please specify what the “antisemitic” events were that occurred at Harvard.
If you keep lying about it will not become a truth.
The gross thing is that you wish we were “antisemitic” so you can keep crying wolf BUT we are not. We care about ending the genocide in Palestine. That is not being anti-Jewish.
You can keep asking this until you’re blue in the face, but you won’t get a response. I’ve tried several times.
DP.
Antisemitic events at Harvard (all links to Harvard Crimson):
The things described in that editorial are wrong. In some cases, consequences happened -- eg, an employee was fired. In others, something should have been done more or sooner.
BUT, despite the editorial being recent, all of the incidents cited are more than a year old. That would indicate that Harvard has righted the disciplinary ship, because the underlying issue has not eased up at all.
Both Kestenbaum (the editorial writer) and a couple of posters above are wrong: Garber cannot "he can simply dip into its $53 billion endowment to fund the research." Endowments are not just big slush funds able to be spent when and how a university president wants. They are under a gazillion different restrictions depending on what strings were attached to donations.
Destroying the university is wrong over a more-or-less solved problem is insanity. Kestenbaum is justifiably angry over inappropriate behavior against Jews by a few perpetrators. Note though that while these incidents should never have happened, they were hardly widespread when you consider a community of more than 50,000 over a year and a half. Trump is angry, and who knows why.
They both want retribution, and the sort of jolting, destructive retribution they want is out of line and inappropriate to the situation. Oddly, both the antisemitic incidents and Trump's quest are both manifestations of the out-of-control follow-on to cancel culture -- the "your side is wrong so you need to be destroyed" craziness that is also lies at the heart of the Israeli-Gazan conflict.
Harvard won't be destroyed for touching their funds.
It's nonsense to spout that. They are NOT ENTITLED to tax payer monies.
Your centers of power are being put on notice. Don't like it, too bad.
DP. Look, I’m no fan of much of what happens at elite universities, but on balance they do FAR more good than harm to America.
Reform, not destruction, is the correct course of action here.
What good has come from these elite universities? I’ve asked several times, what benefits they have bestowed upon the average American, but so far no one has been able to give one proof point.
Second, Trump did ask for reform and Harvard said drop dead. And they are welcome to take that stance, but they are not welcomed to taxpayers money.
PP here. I’ve linked to this article several times in this thread, but here’s a partial list from a professor who’s quite critical of Harvard.
“ Why does this matter? For all its foibles, Harvard (together with other universities) has made the world a better place, significantly so. Fifty-two faculty members have won Nobel Prizes, and more than 5,800 patents are held by Harvard. Its researchers invented baking powder, the first organ transplant, the programmable computer, the defibrillator, the syphilis test and oral rehydration therapy (a cheap treatment that has saved tens of millions of lives). They developed the theory of nuclear stability that has saved the world from Armageddon. They invented the golf tee and the catcher’s mask. Harvard spawned “Sesame Street,” The National Lampoon, “The Simpsons,” Microsoft and Facebook.
Ongoing research at Harvard includes methane-tracking satellites, robotic catheters, next-generation batteries and wearable robotics for stroke victims. Federal grants are supporting research on metastasis, tumor suppression, radiation and chemotherapy in children, multidrug-resistant infections, pandemic prevention, dementia, anesthesia, toxin reduction in firefighting and the military, the physiological effects of spaceflight and battlefield wound care. Harvard’s technologists are pushing innovations in quantum computing, A.I., nanomaterials, biomechanics, foldable bridges for the military, hack-resistant computer networks and smart living environments for the elderly. One lab has developed what may be a cure for Type 1 diabetes.”
I’d counter that if the federal government paid for the research on those things, they should be owned by the American people. Specially the patents that Harvard claims, that taxpayers funded.
Instead we pay for the research and get charged astronomical prices to have access the same things we funded.
PP.
Fair point and led me to do some reading.
Prior to enactment of the Bayh Dole Act in 1980, government did retain ownership. However, the government failed to license most of its patents, resulting in 95% of government-owned patents being unused in 1980.
The Act was designed to get innovations to the market for public use by granting ownership to the grantee.
Worth revisiting this arrangement? Absolutely.
But if the choices are (a) have innovation and let private entities benefit, or (b) end government funding and throttle innovation? I’ll take option (a) every time.
This is a good question. However, theirs is nothing about research grants that applies uniquely to Harvard (or Columbia).
I agree with this too. Nothing on the list is unique to Harvard. Any medical school with an academic medical center can do the health discoveries.
And since the majority of the taxpayers funding is going to cover overhead, I’d be willing to bet you can find just about any university, especially in the lower cost areas, to spend that money on their research overhead.
Money follows money and Harvard has grown used to be the favorite child. But they allowed their institutions to be overrun by ideology, so now it’s someone’s else’s turn.
You don't realize how rare true talent is in rigorous medical and scientific fields. Most people are not capable of being a highly productive medical researcher just like most people will never be Lebron James. People think this assumption that extreme talent is easily replaceable is absurd when discussing sports, but somhow they delude themselves into thinking the same is not true for intelligence.
Of course I do. I didn’t say set it up at the fairgrounds. But places like the University of Maryland, or Duke, Cleveland Clinic, etc are just as capable.
Anonymous wrote:Please specify what the “antisemitic” events were that occurred at Harvard.
If you keep lying about it will not become a truth.
The gross thing is that you wish we were “antisemitic” so you can keep crying wolf BUT we are not. We care about ending the genocide in Palestine. That is not being anti-Jewish.
You can keep asking this until you’re blue in the face, but you won’t get a response. I’ve tried several times.
DP.
Antisemitic events at Harvard (all links to Harvard Crimson):
The things described in that editorial are wrong. In some cases, consequences happened -- eg, an employee was fired. In others, something should have been done more or sooner.
BUT, despite the editorial being recent, all of the incidents cited are more than a year old. That would indicate that Harvard has righted the disciplinary ship, because the underlying issue has not eased up at all.
Both Kestenbaum (the editorial writer) and a couple of posters above are wrong: Garber cannot "he can simply dip into its $53 billion endowment to fund the research." Endowments are not just big slush funds able to be spent when and how a university president wants. They are under a gazillion different restrictions depending on what strings were attached to donations.
Destroying the university is wrong over a more-or-less solved problem is insanity. Kestenbaum is justifiably angry over inappropriate behavior against Jews by a few perpetrators. Note though that while these incidents should never have happened, they were hardly widespread when you consider a community of more than 50,000 over a year and a half. Trump is angry, and who knows why.
They both want retribution, and the sort of jolting, destructive retribution they want is out of line and inappropriate to the situation. Oddly, both the antisemitic incidents and Trump's quest are both manifestations of the out-of-control follow-on to cancel culture -- the "your side is wrong so you need to be destroyed" craziness that is also lies at the heart of the Israeli-Gazan conflict.
Harvard won't be destroyed for touching their funds.
It's nonsense to spout that. They are NOT ENTITLED to tax payer monies.
Your centers of power are being put on notice. Don't like it, too bad.
DP. Look, I’m no fan of much of what happens at elite universities, but on balance they do FAR more good than harm to America.
Reform, not destruction, is the correct course of action here.
What good has come from these elite universities? I’ve asked several times, what benefits they have bestowed upon the average American, but so far no one has been able to give one proof point.
Second, Trump did ask for reform and Harvard said drop dead. And they are welcome to take that stance, but they are not welcomed to taxpayers money.
PP here. I’ve linked to this article several times in this thread, but here’s a partial list from a professor who’s quite critical of Harvard.
“ Why does this matter? For all its foibles, Harvard (together with other universities) has made the world a better place, significantly so. Fifty-two faculty members have won Nobel Prizes, and more than 5,800 patents are held by Harvard. Its researchers invented baking powder, the first organ transplant, the programmable computer, the defibrillator, the syphilis test and oral rehydration therapy (a cheap treatment that has saved tens of millions of lives). They developed the theory of nuclear stability that has saved the world from Armageddon. They invented the golf tee and the catcher’s mask. Harvard spawned “Sesame Street,” The National Lampoon, “The Simpsons,” Microsoft and Facebook.
Ongoing research at Harvard includes methane-tracking satellites, robotic catheters, next-generation batteries and wearable robotics for stroke victims. Federal grants are supporting research on metastasis, tumor suppression, radiation and chemotherapy in children, multidrug-resistant infections, pandemic prevention, dementia, anesthesia, toxin reduction in firefighting and the military, the physiological effects of spaceflight and battlefield wound care. Harvard’s technologists are pushing innovations in quantum computing, A.I., nanomaterials, biomechanics, foldable bridges for the military, hack-resistant computer networks and smart living environments for the elderly. One lab has developed what may be a cure for Type 1 diabetes.”
I’d counter that if the federal government paid for the research on those things, they should be owned by the American people. Specially the patents that Harvard claims, that taxpayers funded.
Instead we pay for the research and get charged astronomical prices to have access the same things we funded.
PP.
Fair point and led me to do some reading.
Prior to enactment of the Bayh Dole Act in 1980, government did retain ownership. However, the government failed to license most of its patents, resulting in 95% of government-owned patents being unused in 1980.
The Act was designed to get innovations to the market for public use by granting ownership to the grantee.
Worth revisiting this arrangement? Absolutely.
But if the choices are (a) have innovation and let private entities benefit, or (b) end government funding and throttle innovation? I’ll take option (a) every time.
This is a good question. However, theirs is nothing about research grants that applies uniquely to Harvard (or Columbia).
I agree with this too. Nothing on the list is unique to Harvard. Any medical school with an academic medical center can do the health discoveries.
And since the majority of the taxpayers funding is going to cover overhead, I’d be willing to bet you can find just about any university, especially in the lower cost areas, to spend that money on their research overhead.
Money follows money and Harvard has grown used to be the favorite child. But they allowed their institutions to be overrun by ideology, so now it’s someone’s else’s turn.
You don't realize how rare true talent is in rigorous medical and scientific fields. Most people are not capable of being a highly productive medical researcher just like most people will never be Lebron James. People think this assumption that extreme talent is easily replaceable is absurd when discussing sports, but somhow they delude themselves into thinking the same is not true for intelligence.
Of course I do. I didn’t say set it up at the fairgrounds. But places like the University of Maryland, or Duke, Cleveland Clinic, etc are just as capable.
Harvard isn’t a vacuum that holds all the talent.
All of those places apply for grants and all of them get grants. Why do you think Harvard is the only institution that successfully requires medical research grants?
Anonymous wrote:Please specify what the “antisemitic” events were that occurred at Harvard.
If you keep lying about it will not become a truth.
The gross thing is that you wish we were “antisemitic” so you can keep crying wolf BUT we are not. We care about ending the genocide in Palestine. That is not being anti-Jewish.
You can keep asking this until you’re blue in the face, but you won’t get a response. I’ve tried several times.
DP.
Antisemitic events at Harvard (all links to Harvard Crimson):
The things described in that editorial are wrong. In some cases, consequences happened -- eg, an employee was fired. In others, something should have been done more or sooner.
BUT, despite the editorial being recent, all of the incidents cited are more than a year old. That would indicate that Harvard has righted the disciplinary ship, because the underlying issue has not eased up at all.
Both Kestenbaum (the editorial writer) and a couple of posters above are wrong: Garber cannot "he can simply dip into its $53 billion endowment to fund the research." Endowments are not just big slush funds able to be spent when and how a university president wants. They are under a gazillion different restrictions depending on what strings were attached to donations.
Destroying the university is wrong over a more-or-less solved problem is insanity. Kestenbaum is justifiably angry over inappropriate behavior against Jews by a few perpetrators. Note though that while these incidents should never have happened, they were hardly widespread when you consider a community of more than 50,000 over a year and a half. Trump is angry, and who knows why.
They both want retribution, and the sort of jolting, destructive retribution they want is out of line and inappropriate to the situation. Oddly, both the antisemitic incidents and Trump's quest are both manifestations of the out-of-control follow-on to cancel culture -- the "your side is wrong so you need to be destroyed" craziness that is also lies at the heart of the Israeli-Gazan conflict.
Harvard won't be destroyed for touching their funds.
It's nonsense to spout that. They are NOT ENTITLED to tax payer monies.
Your centers of power are being put on notice. Don't like it, too bad.
DP. Look, I’m no fan of much of what happens at elite universities, but on balance they do FAR more good than harm to America.
Reform, not destruction, is the correct course of action here.
What good has come from these elite universities? I’ve asked several times, what benefits they have bestowed upon the average American, but so far no one has been able to give one proof point.
Second, Trump did ask for reform and Harvard said drop dead. And they are welcome to take that stance, but they are not welcomed to taxpayers money.
PP here. I’ve linked to this article several times in this thread, but here’s a partial list from a professor who’s quite critical of Harvard.
“ Why does this matter? For all its foibles, Harvard (together with other universities) has made the world a better place, significantly so. Fifty-two faculty members have won Nobel Prizes, and more than 5,800 patents are held by Harvard. Its researchers invented baking powder, the first organ transplant, the programmable computer, the defibrillator, the syphilis test and oral rehydration therapy (a cheap treatment that has saved tens of millions of lives). They developed the theory of nuclear stability that has saved the world from Armageddon. They invented the golf tee and the catcher’s mask. Harvard spawned “Sesame Street,” The National Lampoon, “The Simpsons,” Microsoft and Facebook.
Ongoing research at Harvard includes methane-tracking satellites, robotic catheters, next-generation batteries and wearable robotics for stroke victims. Federal grants are supporting research on metastasis, tumor suppression, radiation and chemotherapy in children, multidrug-resistant infections, pandemic prevention, dementia, anesthesia, toxin reduction in firefighting and the military, the physiological effects of spaceflight and battlefield wound care. Harvard’s technologists are pushing innovations in quantum computing, A.I., nanomaterials, biomechanics, foldable bridges for the military, hack-resistant computer networks and smart living environments for the elderly. One lab has developed what may be a cure for Type 1 diabetes.”
I’d counter that if the federal government paid for the research on those things, they should be owned by the American people. Specially the patents that Harvard claims, that taxpayers funded.
Instead we pay for the research and get charged astronomical prices to have access the same things we funded.
PP.
Fair point and led me to do some reading.
Prior to enactment of the Bayh Dole Act in 1980, government did retain ownership. However, the government failed to license most of its patents, resulting in 95% of government-owned patents being unused in 1980.
The Act was designed to get innovations to the market for public use by granting ownership to the grantee.
Worth revisiting this arrangement? Absolutely.
But if the choices are (a) have innovation and let private entities benefit, or (b) end government funding and throttle innovation? I’ll take option (a) every time.
This is a good question. However, theirs is nothing about research grants that applies uniquely to Harvard (or Columbia).
I agree with this too. Nothing on the list is unique to Harvard. Any medical school with an academic medical center can do the health discoveries.
And since the majority of the taxpayers funding is going to cover overhead, I’d be willing to bet you can find just about any university, especially in the lower cost areas, to spend that money on their research overhead.
Money follows money and Harvard has grown used to be the favorite child. But they allowed their institutions to be overrun by ideology, so now it’s someone’s else’s turn.
You don't realize how rare true talent is in rigorous medical and scientific fields. Most people are not capable of being a highly productive medical researcher just like most people will never be Lebron James. People think this assumption that extreme talent is easily replaceable is absurd when discussing sports, but somhow they delude themselves into thinking the same is not true for intelligence.
Of course I do. I didn’t say set it up at the fairgrounds. But places like the University of Maryland, or Duke, Cleveland Clinic, etc are just as capable.
Harvard isn’t a vacuum that holds all the talent.
All of those places apply for grants and all of them get grants. Why do you think Harvard is the only institution that successfully requires medical research grants?
Anonymous wrote:Please specify what the “antisemitic” events were that occurred at Harvard.
If you keep lying about it will not become a truth.
The gross thing is that you wish we were “antisemitic” so you can keep crying wolf BUT we are not. We care about ending the genocide in Palestine. That is not being anti-Jewish.
You can keep asking this until you’re blue in the face, but you won’t get a response. I’ve tried several times.
DP.
Antisemitic events at Harvard (all links to Harvard Crimson):
The things described in that editorial are wrong. In some cases, consequences happened -- eg, an employee was fired. In others, something should have been done more or sooner.
BUT, despite the editorial being recent, all of the incidents cited are more than a year old. That would indicate that Harvard has righted the disciplinary ship, because the underlying issue has not eased up at all.
Both Kestenbaum (the editorial writer) and a couple of posters above are wrong: Garber cannot "he can simply dip into its $53 billion endowment to fund the research." Endowments are not just big slush funds able to be spent when and how a university president wants. They are under a gazillion different restrictions depending on what strings were attached to donations.
Destroying the university is wrong over a more-or-less solved problem is insanity. Kestenbaum is justifiably angry over inappropriate behavior against Jews by a few perpetrators. Note though that while these incidents should never have happened, they were hardly widespread when you consider a community of more than 50,000 over a year and a half. Trump is angry, and who knows why.
They both want retribution, and the sort of jolting, destructive retribution they want is out of line and inappropriate to the situation. Oddly, both the antisemitic incidents and Trump's quest are both manifestations of the out-of-control follow-on to cancel culture -- the "your side is wrong so you need to be destroyed" craziness that is also lies at the heart of the Israeli-Gazan conflict.
Harvard won't be destroyed for touching their funds.
It's nonsense to spout that. They are NOT ENTITLED to tax payer monies.
Your centers of power are being put on notice. Don't like it, too bad.
DP. Look, I’m no fan of much of what happens at elite universities, but on balance they do FAR more good than harm to America.
Reform, not destruction, is the correct course of action here.
What good has come from these elite universities? I’ve asked several times, what benefits they have bestowed upon the average American, but so far no one has been able to give one proof point.
Second, Trump did ask for reform and Harvard said drop dead. And they are welcome to take that stance, but they are not welcomed to taxpayers money.
PP here. I’ve linked to this article several times in this thread, but here’s a partial list from a professor who’s quite critical of Harvard.
“ Why does this matter? For all its foibles, Harvard (together with other universities) has made the world a better place, significantly so. Fifty-two faculty members have won Nobel Prizes, and more than 5,800 patents are held by Harvard. Its researchers invented baking powder, the first organ transplant, the programmable computer, the defibrillator, the syphilis test and oral rehydration therapy (a cheap treatment that has saved tens of millions of lives). They developed the theory of nuclear stability that has saved the world from Armageddon. They invented the golf tee and the catcher’s mask. Harvard spawned “Sesame Street,” The National Lampoon, “The Simpsons,” Microsoft and Facebook.
Ongoing research at Harvard includes methane-tracking satellites, robotic catheters, next-generation batteries and wearable robotics for stroke victims. Federal grants are supporting research on metastasis, tumor suppression, radiation and chemotherapy in children, multidrug-resistant infections, pandemic prevention, dementia, anesthesia, toxin reduction in firefighting and the military, the physiological effects of spaceflight and battlefield wound care. Harvard’s technologists are pushing innovations in quantum computing, A.I., nanomaterials, biomechanics, foldable bridges for the military, hack-resistant computer networks and smart living environments for the elderly. One lab has developed what may be a cure for Type 1 diabetes.”
I’d counter that if the federal government paid for the research on those things, they should be owned by the American people. Specially the patents that Harvard claims, that taxpayers funded.
Instead we pay for the research and get charged astronomical prices to have access the same things we funded.
PP.
Fair point and led me to do some reading.
Prior to enactment of the Bayh Dole Act in 1980, government did retain ownership. However, the government failed to license most of its patents, resulting in 95% of government-owned patents being unused in 1980.
The Act was designed to get innovations to the market for public use by granting ownership to the grantee.
Worth revisiting this arrangement? Absolutely.
But if the choices are (a) have innovation and let private entities benefit, or (b) end government funding and throttle innovation? I’ll take option (a) every time.
This is a good question. However, theirs is nothing about research grants that applies uniquely to Harvard (or Columbia).
I agree with this too. Nothing on the list is unique to Harvard. Any medical school with an academic medical center can do the health discoveries.
And since the majority of the taxpayers funding is going to cover overhead, I’d be willing to bet you can find just about any university, especially in the lower cost areas, to spend that money on their research overhead.
Money follows money and Harvard has grown used to be the favorite child. But they allowed their institutions to be overrun by ideology, so now it’s someone’s else’s turn.
You don't realize how rare true talent is in rigorous medical and scientific fields. Most people are not capable of being a highly productive medical researcher just like most people will never be Lebron James. People think this assumption that extreme talent is easily replaceable is absurd when discussing sports, but somhow they delude themselves into thinking the same is not true for intelligence.
Of course I do. I didn’t say set it up at the fairgrounds. But places like the University of Maryland, or Duke, Cleveland Clinic, etc are just as capable.
Anonymous wrote:Please specify what the “antisemitic” events were that occurred at Harvard.
If you keep lying about it will not become a truth.
The gross thing is that you wish we were “antisemitic” so you can keep crying wolf BUT we are not. We care about ending the genocide in Palestine. That is not being anti-Jewish.
You can keep asking this until you’re blue in the face, but you won’t get a response. I’ve tried several times.
DP.
Antisemitic events at Harvard (all links to Harvard Crimson):
The things described in that editorial are wrong. In some cases, consequences happened -- eg, an employee was fired. In others, something should have been done more or sooner.
BUT, despite the editorial being recent, all of the incidents cited are more than a year old. That would indicate that Harvard has righted the disciplinary ship, because the underlying issue has not eased up at all.
Both Kestenbaum (the editorial writer) and a couple of posters above are wrong: Garber cannot "he can simply dip into its $53 billion endowment to fund the research." Endowments are not just big slush funds able to be spent when and how a university president wants. They are under a gazillion different restrictions depending on what strings were attached to donations.
Destroying the university is wrong over a more-or-less solved problem is insanity. Kestenbaum is justifiably angry over inappropriate behavior against Jews by a few perpetrators. Note though that while these incidents should never have happened, they were hardly widespread when you consider a community of more than 50,000 over a year and a half. Trump is angry, and who knows why.
They both want retribution, and the sort of jolting, destructive retribution they want is out of line and inappropriate to the situation. Oddly, both the antisemitic incidents and Trump's quest are both manifestations of the out-of-control follow-on to cancel culture -- the "your side is wrong so you need to be destroyed" craziness that is also lies at the heart of the Israeli-Gazan conflict.
Harvard won't be destroyed for touching their funds.
It's nonsense to spout that. They are NOT ENTITLED to tax payer monies.
Your centers of power are being put on notice. Don't like it, too bad.
DP. Look, I’m no fan of much of what happens at elite universities, but on balance they do FAR more good than harm to America.
Reform, not destruction, is the correct course of action here.
What good has come from these elite universities? I’ve asked several times, what benefits they have bestowed upon the average American, but so far no one has been able to give one proof point.
Second, Trump did ask for reform and Harvard said drop dead. And they are welcome to take that stance, but they are not welcomed to taxpayers money.
PP here. I’ve linked to this article several times in this thread, but here’s a partial list from a professor who’s quite critical of Harvard.
“ Why does this matter? For all its foibles, Harvard (together with other universities) has made the world a better place, significantly so. Fifty-two faculty members have won Nobel Prizes, and more than 5,800 patents are held by Harvard. Its researchers invented baking powder, the first organ transplant, the programmable computer, the defibrillator, the syphilis test and oral rehydration therapy (a cheap treatment that has saved tens of millions of lives). They developed the theory of nuclear stability that has saved the world from Armageddon. They invented the golf tee and the catcher’s mask. Harvard spawned “Sesame Street,” The National Lampoon, “The Simpsons,” Microsoft and Facebook.
Ongoing research at Harvard includes methane-tracking satellites, robotic catheters, next-generation batteries and wearable robotics for stroke victims. Federal grants are supporting research on metastasis, tumor suppression, radiation and chemotherapy in children, multidrug-resistant infections, pandemic prevention, dementia, anesthesia, toxin reduction in firefighting and the military, the physiological effects of spaceflight and battlefield wound care. Harvard’s technologists are pushing innovations in quantum computing, A.I., nanomaterials, biomechanics, foldable bridges for the military, hack-resistant computer networks and smart living environments for the elderly. One lab has developed what may be a cure for Type 1 diabetes.”
I’d counter that if the federal government paid for the research on those things, they should be owned by the American people. Specially the patents that Harvard claims, that taxpayers funded.
Instead we pay for the research and get charged astronomical prices to have access the same things we funded.
PP.
Fair point and led me to do some reading.
Prior to enactment of the Bayh Dole Act in 1980, government did retain ownership. However, the government failed to license most of its patents, resulting in 95% of government-owned patents being unused in 1980.
The Act was designed to get innovations to the market for public use by granting ownership to the grantee.
Worth revisiting this arrangement? Absolutely.
But if the choices are (a) have innovation and let private entities benefit, or (b) end government funding and throttle innovation? I’ll take option (a) every time.
This is a good question. However, theirs is nothing about research grants that applies uniquely to Harvard (or Columbia).
I agree with this too. Nothing on the list is unique to Harvard. Any medical school with an academic medical center can do the health discoveries.
And since the majority of the taxpayers funding is going to cover overhead, I’d be willing to bet you can find just about any university, especially in the lower cost areas, to spend that money on their research overhead.
Money follows money and Harvard has grown used to be the favorite child. But they allowed their institutions to be overrun by ideology, so now it’s someone’s else’s turn.
You don't realize how rare true talent is in rigorous medical and scientific fields. Most people are not capable of being a highly productive medical researcher just like most people will never be Lebron James. People think this assumption that extreme talent is easily replaceable is absurd when discussing sports, but somhow they delude themselves into thinking the same is not true for intelligence.
Of course I do. I didn’t say set it up at the fairgrounds. But places like the University of Maryland, or Duke, Cleveland Clinic, etc are just as capable.
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
