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.

Please tell us more.
/s

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.

Who do you think makes the money on the vaccines developed so far? It is not the govmt. It is the private institutions. So why should the public fund this. Let big pharma fund it.

Most vaccine research fails. Like almost all of it. The best they can do to have a snowballs chance is build on their failures where they have all of their proprietary data, and on all of the publicly funded research. The "market" has not been able to solve research funding. That is why government funding is critical.

Now let's all be very honest with ourselves. Considering the stakes do you want Parkinson's research being done students at Harvard or by students at our local community colleges? We can build the best and newest labs wherever we want but the best students and researchers want to congregate and work together. That is the great power of these schools. They are where our genius nerds can talk about folding proteins over breakfast cereal every morning with whoever happens to be sitting nearby. That doesn't happen at commuter colleges or at colleges where most students are learning 9-5 job skills

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.

Absolutely correct.

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: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.

Who do you think makes the money on the vaccines developed so far? It is not the govmt. It is the private institutions. So why should the public fund this. Let big pharma fund it.

Defind Harvard.

Why Harvard thinks it's entitled to all that tax money???

This administration has, just in the past few months, defunded and closed investigations into far right domestic antisemitic terrorist groups. Think about that for a minute, please. How is this is about protecting Jewish students when, at the same time, the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies have completely stopped pursuing the people who gun down innocents in their houses of worship???

This is so clearly not actually about antisemitism.

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:Something tells me Harvard will be just fine.

That's cool. They can do whatever they want as long as not a single dime of my tax money goes there.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Harvard has hundreds of billions in endowments. They can support their own programs without 9 biillion in government funds.

Agreed. You don’t want to follow government rules then carry on with your billions. The way Jewish students were and are treated is horrible. I cannot imagine how they feel. Also the lack of viewpoint diversity is anti college and finally this is being brought to forefront. So interesting all the whining when for years there was no move at all to be inclusive to all viewpoints. Trump needs to continue to advocate for safety for all students.

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.

Harvard has hundreds of billions in endowments. They can support their own programs without 9 biillion in government funds.

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?”