Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 311 posts

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#151

Post by otterley »

xracy wrote: post #145
otterley wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Trump is breaking the law. I'm no expert in NSF funding, but Congress may well have delegated its authority over how the funds in the pool are to be allocated and distributed to the executive. If someone has more knowledge to contribute, that'd be most welcome.

Take a read of the constitution? Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions." Feels like you're just ignoring what they have to say in the guise of "asking for more knowledge" when you don't actually know if they don't have the knowledge because of your own lack of expertise. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Po...

> Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions.”

Because they said “Trump is literally breaking the law.” That hasn’t been established yet.

I happen to be an attorney as well as a hacker, and I worked in a Federal district court, so perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt that I just might know what I’m talking about. If you have legitimate questions of your own, I’d be happy to try to answer them.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#152

Post by codexb »

Kapura wrote: post #11

This framing conveniently ignores the question of whether the president should have the authority to single-handedly withhold funding for universities, broadly considered to be one of the foundational pillars of America's strength in the 20th century. While I think it's interesting and answers the specific question it raises, it's wild that the economist has just accepted that the president has dictatorial powers.

At some level, someone needs to have discretion on which grants to award and not award. You can call it "dictatorial", but I don't see how it's any less dictatorial if the decision-maker is some faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat vs a President that is accountable to voters. Surely, grants were being denied before for other reasons.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#153

Post by dcrazy »

mrkstu wrote: post #125
jimbokun wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

Sort of. He would still be breaking the law, it’s just that if it’s an ‘official act’ then the judiciary can’t do anything about it, just Congress via impeachment.

I think that opinion would have been less controversial if the President hadn’t openly advertised his intent to violate the law repeatedly. It’s not like the courts are rendered powerless if the President violates the law; any judgments they render are still binding on the parties, even if they require the parties act in ways contrary to the executive’s interpretation of the law. That still means something as long people continue to respect the judiciary. The dangerous game we’re playing is finding out whether that respect will continue.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#154

Post by xracy »

aag wrote: post #122
Kapura wrote: post #11

This framing conveniently ignores the question of whether the president should have the authority to single-handedly withhold funding for universities, broadly considered to be one of the foundational pillars of America's strength in the 20th century. While I think it's interesting and answers the specific question it raises, it's wild that the economist has just accepted that the president has dictatorial powers.

The Economist has articles on that subject already. They do their homework. Here's just one: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/04/24/who-will-...

You don't go and decide a case on the merits when you've thrown it out on standing.

Addressing the other question is a pre-requisite to considering the one included in this piece. And given that they are ignoring the presumable answer to the other question, they have not justified the existence of this article.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#155

Post by amanaplanacanal »

trollbridge wrote: post #144
timewizard wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On #3 "government gets a pretty awesome license" seems disingenuous. From what I've witnessed some specific agencies get to use that license in a rather limited way. It's often not broadly available to the public and commercial rights tend to be reserved to the University. Is that actually what most people would think of as "pretty awesome?" On #4, "more often than not" and "offers great accessible licensing" seems e…

Yeah, my experience is the patent gets licenced to some private entity that then squeezes a profit of it. The public sure doesn’t “benefit”. I’d prefer to see such funding going to state universities, not private ones.

The public benefits by access to treatments that wouldn't exist had the research not been done.

On the other hand I agree that research funded by tax dollars should not be patented and should be available to all.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#156

Post by otterley »

runako wrote: post #147
otterley wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Trump is breaking the law. I'm no expert in NSF funding, but Congress may well have delegated its authority over how the funds in the pool are to be allocated and distributed to the executive. If someone has more knowledge to contribute, that'd be most welcome.

Clear example here is USAID. Congress has directed, as recently as March 2025, that a specific amount of funds be spent on the statutory goals of the US Agency for International Development. (I have not checked, but I am sure federal law also goes into some detail about what tasks USAID needs to perform.) I do not imagine it is congruent with the law to simply fire all the staff and shut down USAID (or "merge" it int…

The situations are a little different.

With NSF grants, the question is whether the President can redistribute funding away from applicants affiliated with specific institutions he doesn’t like (my first approximation: probably).

With USAID, the question is whether the President has the authority to disband an entire Agency established and appropriated by Congress (22 U.S.C. 6563) (my first approximation: probably not).

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#157

Post by lesuorac »

codexb wrote: post #152
Kapura wrote: post #11

This framing conveniently ignores the question of whether the president should have the authority to single-handedly withhold funding for universities, broadly considered to be one of the foundational pillars of America's strength in the 20th century. While I think it's interesting and answers the specific question it raises, it's wild that the economist has just accepted that the president has dictatorial powers.

At some level, someone needs to have discretion on which grants to award and not award. You can call it "dictatorial", but I don't see how it's any less dictatorial if the decision-maker is some faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat vs a President that is accountable to voters. Surely, grants were being denied before for other reasons.

Do you honestly think Trump is individually reviewing grants?

Trump with help of various groups makes political appointees who either individually oversee grant reviews or administrate individuals that do. These people are just as faceless and unaccountable as with any other president ...

The difference here is that Congress who is much more accountable to voters deliberated and wrote laws authorizing various funding which is being completely overridden by the branch of government that is supposed to carry out the law.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#158

Post by dani__german »

mmooss wrote: post #140
bitwize wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This question was not raised when the Obama administration dictated procedures and evidentiary standards to universities in cases of sexual assault, with threats of being found liable under Title IX for noncompliance. Well it was raised by some on the right, and then dismissed because, you know, the right, and who wants to defend campus rapists anyway? Those Duke University lacrosse kids should have hung -- even if t…

This unlimited relativism is bizarre. If Trump invaded Canada, is his argument that Roosevelt invaded Germany? There is a difference between one and the other. What does the Duke lacrosse case have to do with it?

To show that these questions have been asked before, and when the social issue at stake is one that leftists champion, very very few on the left are willing to stand up to presidential authority in any way.

When the same exact power is used in a way that leftists by fiat deem "bad", there is no limit of the amount of pettiness, name calling, obstruction, and general ill will they will put to use to stop the president from doing something. in this case, it is to uphold Civil Rights law against a clear and ongoing violation.

This poster should have realized though that the way to win in politics hasn't been "debating the left" or crying "what if the roles were reversed?!" for some time now. Thats the way to be a principled loser, and be called all sorts of names in the process.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#159

Post by DrillShopper »

codexb wrote: post #152
Kapura wrote: post #11

This framing conveniently ignores the question of whether the president should have the authority to single-handedly withhold funding for universities, broadly considered to be one of the foundational pillars of America's strength in the 20th century. While I think it's interesting and answers the specific question it raises, it's wild that the economist has just accepted that the president has dictatorial powers.

At some level, someone needs to have discretion on which grants to award and not award. You can call it "dictatorial", but I don't see how it's any less dictatorial if the decision-maker is some faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat vs a President that is accountable to voters. Surely, grants were being denied before for other reasons.

> At some level, someone needs to have discretion on which grants to award and not award

Then that person should not be a politician or political appointee who judges on the merits and not on the votes it will bring.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#160

Post by eastbound »

mmooss wrote: post #140
bitwize wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This question was not raised when the Obama administration dictated procedures and evidentiary standards to universities in cases of sexual assault, with threats of being found liable under Title IX for noncompliance. Well it was raised by some on the right, and then dismissed because, you know, the right, and who wants to defend campus rapists anyway? Those Duke University lacrosse kids should have hung -- even if t…

This unlimited relativism is bizarre. If Trump invaded Canada, is his argument that Roosevelt invaded Germany? There is a difference between one and the other. What does the Duke lacrosse case have to do with it?

Duke lacrosse what the epitome of “Guilty because male”… which made the wind turn around and you have a situation to deal with now. All of this because people don’t want the left’s “Guilty because male” or “because [race]” solution, and they made it known through the ballots.

For those who don’t know: Under Title IX, in summary, accusers of rape have all rights for their case to be treated by internal boards in the uni, which means no due trial with merits or proof, which is blatantly unconstitutional but the left didn’t care at the time. Oh yeah and not only seizing the girl’s phone as evidence is forbidden too, but even showing the man’s phone with the conversation with the girl, because it would impede on the girl’s privacy. So some poor Lacrosse players got accused, adulthoods were already ruined, the women admitted to lying, and this is the case with probably all accused without due process during the 2013-2025 period.

And Title IX is still enforced.

Post reply on HN