Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?
No, and we already know the courts think this is true.
Great, I look forward to telling the NRA what to do from now on. As well as every country club in existence. Since I pay taxes.
Totally logical, right?
You said that for the discrimination against Asian case as well right? LOL
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?
No, and we already know the courts think this is true.
Great, I look forward to telling the NRA what to do from now on. As well as every country club in existence. Since I pay taxes.
Totally logical, right?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?
No, and we already know the courts think this is true.
Great, I look forward to telling the NRA what to do from now on. As well as every country club in existence. Since I pay taxes.
Totally logical, right?
Anonymous wrote:By height
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?
No, and we already know the courts think this is true.
Great, I look forward to telling the NRA what to do from now on. As well as every country club in existence. Since I pay taxes.
Totally logical, right?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?
No, and we already know the courts think this is true.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The idea that this SC would allow a federal ban on legacy admissions to stand is pretty laughable. Freedom of association.
It's not actually banning.
They still have all the freedom.
However, just no government grant, accreditation, funding, etc.
They are not entitled to that.
Anonymous wrote:The idea that this SC would allow a federal ban on legacy admissions to stand is pretty laughable. Freedom of association.
Anonymous wrote:By height
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a member of a NOVA family that just started earning $250, with a high stats kid that was turned down by "elite" schools and is now attending an OOS public, who cares?! If privates simply want undergraduates of the haves and have-nots, with Cal, Michigan and UVA pretending, who am I to argue? Life isn't fair. Thousands of alternatives. Confident kid number 1 will make them all look foolish in the end.
Again privates can do whatever they want, just not on dime of my hard earned middle class money.
Hence, the Merit Act - Merit-Based Educational Reforms and Institutional Transparency
https://nypost.com/2024/01/11/news/bipartisan-congress-aims-to-defund-colleges-over-legacy-admissions/
Make sense? Fair enough? Got it?
Privates still benefit from public support in the form of financial aid, including loan guarantees, research grants, and other benefits like tax exempt status.
You don't have any idea what research grants are.
You don't take any issue with any other tax-exempt non-profit.
You want to change an entire system simply on the hope it increases YOUR particular kid's chances of Harvard from 5% to 5 1/4%.
You want to do this on the backs of the poor.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?
No, and we already know the courts think this is true.
Anonymous wrote:Is there any aspect of how a private university operates that you shouldn't be able to control by virtue of being a taxpayer?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are making a legal argument. What specifically makes them ineligible for 501(c)(3) status under the Internal Revenue Code?
I’m not a non-profit lawyer but I would argue that they are deceptive in purpose. Their primary goal is to maximize returns for their billions in endowment, not to educate (e.g. a private interest that benefits the Harvard Corp.). Essentially, their primary purpose isn’t to educate any more, it’s to maximize the endowment.
The lack of transparency does not permit independent evaluation of whether these schools are in fact primarily dedicated to education and whether that is working or not.