Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’
The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.
What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.
The govt-university partnership for research was put in place post WW2 and is the basis of the innovation ecosystem of the United States. It has been extremely productive for America. If the govt wants to break that partnership by imposing limitations on the college, they are free to do so.
If the country doesn’t want premier research universities, we won’t have premier research universities. No university can afford to fund this on their own for the good of the United States.
What we won’t have is premier research universities where free expression is stifled. Those two things don’t work together. If you want creativity and big ideas out of people, you can’t tell them what to think like the govt is trying to do right now.
Free expression at Harvard is at 0%
They shouldn't get any taxpayer money with their multi-billion dollar endowment.
Stop the false narrative that the government is just "giving" money to universities.
The government wants services/research from private and public universities that the government cannot do itself. The government puts out a request for proposals to the general population to get those services. Various university professors with expertise and resources to do the work submit proposals. The government reviews them all and picks the one they deem best to give them the services they need.
This helps the university because it attracts student who are interested in that area of research, and it helps fund the process of furthering that area of research deemed important by Congress. And it helps our country because the government is getting the results it asked for, in addition to attracting and developing the best and brightest in academia and research, which is a huge asset to the country. Destroying this process is very bad for the United States.
Yes, he government is the paying customer. It's not obligated to pay Harvard.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’
The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.
What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.
Sounds like you skipped the letter with the Trump admin’s demands. In the second link.
I literally quoted from the article.
No one is forcing Harvard to do anything.
Harvard is throwing a hissy fit because it wants to do certain things AND get taxpayer funds.
Doesn’t work like that.
You truly do not get it. There's a lot more at stake than Harvard. Colleges like Hillsdale are fine because they don't do cutting edge research that costs millions of dollars year in and year out. You are supporting the tactics of an authoritarian regime that is telling scholars and students what and how they should think, and allowing the mobs to take out people with whom you disagree. If you are in favor of these cuts because you are fearful of antisemitism or you think that Harvard is full of antisemites, you are foolish. Putin and Orban, and Mao all used these oppressive tactics. You're siding with the Devil, who will have no scruples turning on Jews when convenient.
Exactly this. Jews have just become a convenient excuse for repression and censorship by budding fascists and their right-wing toadies.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’
The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.
What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.
The govt-university partnership for research was put in place post WW2 and is the basis of the innovation ecosystem of the United States. It has been extremely productive for America. If the govt wants to break that partnership by imposing limitations on the college, they are free to do so.
If the country doesn’t want premier research universities, we won’t have premier research universities. No university can afford to fund this on their own for the good of the United States.
What we won’t have is premier research universities where free expression is stifled. Those two things don’t work together. If you want creativity and big ideas out of people, you can’t tell them what to think like the govt is trying to do right now.
Free expression at Harvard is at 0%
They shouldn't get any taxpayer money with their multi-billion dollar endowment.
Stop the false narrative that the government is just "giving" money to universities.
The government wants services/research from private and public universities that the government cannot do itself. The government puts out a request for proposals to the general population to get those services. Various university professors with expertise and resources to do the work submit proposals. The government reviews them all and picks the one they deem best to give them the services they need.
This helps the university because it attracts student who are interested in that area of research, and it helps fund the process of furthering that area of research deemed important by Congress. And it helps our country because the government is getting the results it asked for, in addition to attracting and developing the best and brightest in academia and research, which is a huge asset to the country. Destroying this process is very bad for the United States.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’
The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.
What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.
The govt-university partnership for research was put in place post WW2 and is the basis of the innovation ecosystem of the United States. It has been extremely productive for America. If the govt wants to break that partnership by imposing limitations on the college, they are free to do so.
If the country doesn’t want premier research universities, we won’t have premier research universities. No university can afford to fund this on their own for the good of the United States.
What we won’t have is premier research universities where free expression is stifled. Those two things don’t work together. If you want creativity and big ideas out of people, you can’t tell them what to think like the govt is trying to do right now.
Free expression at Harvard is at 0%
They shouldn't get any taxpayer money with their multi-billion dollar endowment.
Anonymous wrote:Let’s put this in perspective. If a Harvard grad were to manage its endowment and earn 4.25% then that would cover the $2.2B.
So, send the money to help support public education and let Harvard do its own thing.
There are enough R1 public institutions to pick up the slack.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Harvard has hundreds of billions in endowments. They can support their own programs without 9 biillion in government funds.
Ok. And they will keep and retain all rights to their medical innovations, cancer treatments, etc., going forward. No more cheap labor for the government and no more technology available to them. Harvard can retain all rights. Public can no longer re rice the benefits or vaccines developed by this private institution.
Harvard is not the only does that in the world. Government can have better deal elsewhere anytime.
Trump decided to benefit big pharma. If you're looking to him to negotiate lower prices for drugs like insulin or obesity drugs, you are supporting the wrong party.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Harvard has hundreds of billions in endowments. They can support their own programs without 9 biillion in government funds.
Ok. And they will keep and retain all rights to their medical innovations, cancer treatments, etc., going forward. No more cheap labor for the government and no more technology available to them. Harvard can retain all rights. Public can no longer re rice the benefits or vaccines developed by this private institution.
Harvard is not the only does that in the world. Government can have better deal elsewhere anytime.
Anonymous wrote:People need to understand that for years all these colleges have moved in a hostile manner against Jews and also Christians. This is on top of allowing aggressive treatment of conservatives. Remember what happened at Stanford and also years back at Middlebury.
This was not a one day let’s get tough. Colleges should be places of expression but the violence and censorship has been appalling and more people are for the government saying enough than against. I am actually surprised to see so much support on DCUM which is pretty liberal. Can you imagine what people think beyond our liberal bubble here?
Anonymous wrote:People need to understand that for years all these colleges have moved in a hostile manner against Jews and also Christians. This is on top of allowing aggressive treatment of conservatives. Remember what happened at Stanford and also years back at Middlebury.
This was not a one day let’s get tough. Colleges should be places of expression but the violence and censorship has been appalling and more people are for the government saying enough than against. I am actually surprised to see so much support on DCUM which is pretty liberal. Can you imagine what people think beyond our liberal bubble here?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’
The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.
What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.
The govt-university partnership for research was put in place post WW2 and is the basis of the innovation ecosystem of the United States. It has been extremely productive for America. If the govt wants to break that partnership by imposing limitations on the college, they are free to do so.
If the country doesn’t want premier research universities, we won’t have premier research universities. No university can afford to fund this on their own for the good of the United States.
What we won’t have is premier research universities where free expression is stifled. Those two things don’t work together. If you want creativity and big ideas out of people, you can’t tell them what to think like the govt is trying to do right now.
Free expression at Harvard is at 0%
They shouldn't get any taxpayer money with their multi-billion dollar endowment.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The letter to Harvard contains two phrases that are concerning - ideological capture and viewpoint diversity. Neither of these are real things. They are weasel words invented by the Trump administration. Ask any Trumper “if it’s real, it should be measurable. What percent of the faculty has been ideologically captured and how did you measure it? Can you draw me a graph? When you say that there needs to be viewpoint diversity how are you measuring it? How would you know if you have achieved it? Would that mean that half of the Divinity School faculty needs to be an atheist? What percentage of the economics department at George Mason should be Marxist? Half, right?”
+1000 there is no need for an anti-vaccine viewpoint to be represented in the medical school unless it's about how to talk to anti-vaccine patients and their parents. Just like there's no need to have a professor who doesn't believe in evolution on faculty in the biology dept.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So dumb. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”’
The government isn’t saying that. No one is forcing Harvard to do anything. They have a billion dollar endowment and can do as they please.
What they can’t do is foster an educational atmosphere of harassment and expect the taxpayers to finance it.
The govt-university partnership for research was put in place post WW2 and is the basis of the innovation ecosystem of the United States. It has been extremely productive for America. If the govt wants to break that partnership by imposing limitations on the college, they are free to do so.
If the country doesn’t want premier research universities, we won’t have premier research universities. No university can afford to fund this on their own for the good of the United States.
What we won’t have is premier research universities where free expression is stifled. Those two things don’t work together. If you want creativity and big ideas out of people, you can’t tell them what to think like the govt is trying to do right now.