Wealthy donors pull funding from from Harvard and U Penn for failure to denounce “antisemitism”

[Anonymous]

I just read two articles— see links — about wealthy donors yanking funding from universities that apparently failed to speak out against antisemitism in ways that satisfied the donors. Huntsman — the U Penn donor — was quoted as saying” Silence is antisemitism”. While obviously the donors are free to do as they wish, reading about these recent events has me wondering what sorts of strings get attached to sizable donations — even beyond having buildings and chairs named after donors and assuring that their family members leap the line when it comes to admissions.

When did universities start publicly proclaiming political stances? How many millions is the expected going rate for a Harvard imprimatur? When did the supposed “silence” of what is supposedly a complex and diverse community come to mean “antisemitism “ — and what else might such silences mean ….concerning global and political issues rather than the functioning of the universities themselves? Has demanding official stances in line with donations been the norm all along?

I get donating for a science lab, or a crew tank, or scholarships. These — possibly assumed but perhaps not explicitly discussed — strings attached seem quite different.


https://www.businessinsider.com/jon-huntsman-family-stops-donations-penn-university-antisemitism-israel-response-2023-10

https://www.businessinsider.com/wexner-foundation-pulls-funding-from-harvard-over-stance-israel-hamas-attacks-2023-10

[Anonymous]

if universities had stayed politically neutral then you’d be right. but they dug themselves this hole by deciding that the university shoild take sides instead of being an institution that creates a space for all sides.

[Anonymous]

OP, did you feel the same way about all the liberals insisting "silence is violence," and condemning anyone who didn't signal agreement on social media? We'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:if universities had stayed politically neutral then you’d be right. but they dug themselves this hole by deciding that the university shoild take sides instead of being an institution that creates a space for all sides.

Could you say more about that? How / when did they decide “that the university should take sides ….” ? Individual faculty might speak out, but how common is it for a university to speak out as an entity— beyond topics like the functioning and values of the university itself — such as proclaiming creating “a space for all sides” as an academic or cultural value?
Is it typical for university presidents or staff in other roles to issue official, public proclamations?

I’m trying to ask these questions in a general way — although I get that any responses might have to focus on these specific schools and events. (OP)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if universities had stayed politically neutral then you’d be right. but they dug themselves this hole by deciding that the university shoild take sides instead of being an institution that creates a space for all sides.

Could you say more about that? How / when did they decide “that the university should take sides ….” ? Individual faculty might speak out, but how common is it for a university to speak out as an entity— beyond topics like the functioning and values of the university itself — such as proclaiming creating “a space for all sides” as an academic or cultural value?
Is it typical for university presidents or staff in other roles to issue official, public proclamations?

I’m trying to ask these questions in a general way — although I get that any responses might have to focus on these specific schools and events. (OP)

This can all be learned with some very simple googling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if universities had stayed politically neutral then you’d be right. but they dug themselves this hole by deciding that the university shoild take sides instead of being an institution that creates a space for all sides.

Could you say more about that? How / when did they decide “that the university should take sides ….” ? Individual faculty might speak out, but how common is it for a university to speak out as an entity— beyond topics like the functioning and values of the university itself — such as proclaiming creating “a space for all sides” as an academic or cultural value?
Is it typical for university presidents or staff in other roles to issue official, public proclamations?

I’m trying to ask these questions in a general way — although I get that any responses might have to focus on these specific schools and events. (OP)

What’s the point of buying a spot in the board of directors if you can’t push your agenda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if universities had stayed politically neutral then you’d be right. but they dug themselves this hole by deciding that the university shoild take sides instead of being an institution that creates a space for all sides.

Could you say more about that? How / when did they decide “that the university should take sides ….” ? Individual faculty might speak out, but how common is it for a university to speak out as an entity— beyond topics like the functioning and values of the university itself — such as proclaiming creating “a space for all sides” as an academic or cultural value?
Is it typical for university presidents or staff in other roles to issue official, public proclamations?

I’m trying to ask these questions in a general way — although I get that any responses might have to focus on these specific schools and events. (OP)

This can all be learned with some very simple googling.

I’m sure it can. So can many things. If you’re not up for a somewhat individualized exchange, I can get that. If you’re the PP, thanks for responding to my questions.

[Anonymous]

Huntsman’s statement, and actions, were morally courageous. Also, a trustee quit, shaming the place along the way. It’d just a weird school. And it can’t quite shrug these donors off like Harvard can. Hence, maybe, the, ok, i realllly, realllly condemn Hamas (stomps feet) … please come back now?

To be fair, I thought Penn’s statement was better than the Vatican’s. That’s some mealy mouthed both-sides stuff there.

[Anonymous]

It would interesting if they turned around and gave the money they would have given to these institutions to a vehicle that would actually help the current situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read two articles— see links — about wealthy donors yanking funding from universities that apparently failed to speak out against antisemitism in ways that satisfied the donors. Huntsman — the U Penn donor — was quoted as saying” Silence is antisemitism”. While obviously the donors are free to do as they wish, reading about these recent events has me wondering what sorts of strings get attached to sizable donations — even beyond having buildings and chairs named after donors and assuring that their family members leap the line when it comes to admissions.

When did universities start publicly proclaiming political stances? How many millions is the expected going rate for a Harvard imprimatur? When did the supposed “silence” of what is supposedly a complex and diverse community come to mean “antisemitism “ — and what else might such silences mean ….concerning global and political issues rather than the functioning of the universities themselves? Has demanding official stances in line with donations been the norm all along?

I get donating for a science lab, or a crew tank, or scholarships. These — possibly assumed but perhaps not explicitly discussed — strings attached seem quite different.


https://www.businessinsider.com/jon-huntsman-family-stops-donations-penn-university-antisemitism-israel-response-2023-10

https://www.businessinsider.com/wexner-foundation-pulls-funding-from-harvard-over-stance-israel-hamas-attacks-2023-10

I thought “silence is violence” is a university slogan these days. Or does that not apply when the victims are Jewish?

[Anonymous]

I do not think that schools are in any way obligated to issue statements. So I don’t go as far as the silence = antisemitism side. But, if a school chooses to weigh in, it damn well better lead with a clear condemnation of Hamas’ terrorist attacks. Anything short of that is morally repulsive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not think that schools are in any way obligated to issue statements. So I don’t go as far as the silence = antisemitism side. But, if a school chooses to weigh in, it damn well better lead with a clear condemnation of Hamas’ terrorist attacks. Anything short of that is morally repulsive.

I also think that if you are going to take the stance that silence is violence and then you are silent in the face of massacres like this, that is effectively an endorsement of the massacre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would interesting if they turned around and gave the money they would have given to these institutions to a vehicle that would actually help the current situation.

Interesting to whom?

[Anonymous]

They could take the money and give it to support grief therapy for the victims' families, or donate it to the morale fund for the IDF, or to help reservists who have come back. Lots of other uses for that money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think that schools are in any way obligated to issue statements. So I don’t go as far as the silence = antisemitism side. But, if a school chooses to weigh in, it damn well better lead with a clear condemnation of Hamas’ terrorist attacks. Anything short of that is morally repulsive.

I also think that if you are going to take the stance that silence is violence and then you are silent in the face of massacres like this, that is effectively an endorsement of the massacre.

Ok—yes, you’re right. I hadn’t thought of that.