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

231–240 of 311 posts

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

#231

Post by MisterBastahrd »

onepointsixC wrote: post #95
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…

Obama threatened, but did not make good on those threats. Trump is threatening and actively withholding funds even to Columbia which bent the knee, because these are institutions which are seen as political enemies by the administration.

If the carrot is no different than the stick, then why chase carrots?

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

#232

Post by treis »

mmooss wrote: post #219
treis wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't unresolved. They were dropped by the state. The initial prosecutor was disbarred and (briefly) went to jail for his misconduct.

What you describe is that they are unresolved - there was no evidence, verdict. That was all suppressed, including by attacking the prosecutor. Why not clear their names in court? Prosecutors in every other circumstance wield almost unchecked power - except when the children of the powerful might end up in court. Name another prosecutor treated in this way.

Name another one that has acted so egregiously.

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

#233

Post by otterley »

rayiner wrote: post #206
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 word "dictatorial" doesn't apply here. What we're talking about is government funding being provided to private universities. And Congress hasn't appropriated specific amounts of money to specific universities. It has created a pool of funds and given the executive branch discretion to allocate those funds. The powers of the executive branch are invested in the president. See Article II, Section 1 ("The executive…

> There is nothing "dictatorial" about the President withholding taxpayer dollars from a university that is in violation of the law

Hey now, wait a minute. Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated.

You’re clearly an intelligent person; there’s no need to try to sneak bullshit in through the back door. Let the strength of your arguments and facts speak for themselves. And make sure they are actual facts.

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

#234

Post by indoordin0saur »

e40 wrote: post #27
steveBK123 wrote: post #9

I am not a fan of the orange man. But I think its an interesting question if the feds should be funding rich Ivies with small numbers of students vs more efficient state universities which educated 100s of thousands each at a fraction of the cost per student. All of the Ivy League combined educate 65k undergrads. SUNY by comparison educates 5x that many at a tuition of 1/5th to 1/10th depending on in/out of state and…

It's unfortunate that a rational discussion could not be had before the cuts were made. I can see a scenario where you and I and many others agree with cuts to many organizations.

Bureaucratic organizations and special interests there are entrenched. The people managing some of these endowments are getting annual compensations competitive with the best hedge funds. If we had a rational discussion they'd just work to run out the clock and keep the status quo.

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

#235

Post by rayiner »

otterley wrote: post #233
rayiner wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "dictatorial" doesn't apply here. What we're talking about is government funding being provided to private universities. And Congress hasn't appropriated specific amounts of money to specific universities. It has created a pool of funds and given the executive branch discretion to allocate those funds. The powers of the executive branch are invested in the president. See Article II, Section 1 ("The executive…

> There is nothing "dictatorial" about the President withholding taxpayer dollars from a university that is in violation of the law Hey now, wait a minute. Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated. You’re clearly an intelligent person; there’s no need to try to sneak bullshit in through the bac…

> Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated.

Didn't SFFA clearly establish that? The Supreme Court outright reversed the bench trial ruling, which had found that Harvard and UNC's programs comported with Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause.

You have a point that I should've said "was found to have violated" rather than "is in violation." Whether Harvard is still violating the law is debatable. But I'm not sure Title VI withholding can't be predicated on a recent violation.

Regardless, as you know, the government routinely uses the threat of legal action for suspected violations to coerce compliance. Virtually every FDA/SEC/CFTC/etc. enforcement action starts with a letter along the lines of: "you're in violation of the law, do X, Y, and Z, or else we'll take action."

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

#236

Post by runako »

rayiner wrote: post #223
runako wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I do not imagine it is congruent with the law to simply fire all the staff and shut down USAID (or "merge" it into State). The Fourth Circuit allowed the administration to proceed: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/28/appeals-court-usaid... That is not a final word on the constitutionality of dissolving USAID, but it's an indication that the Court didn't believe plaintiffs had a high likelihood of success on th…

The recent SCOTUS opinion that the President's official actions are not bound by the laws of man does provide a clear line of sight to really any action taken by the Executive branch. So it may not really even be productive to discuss limits on Executive power anymore.

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

#237

Post by indoordin0saur »

primer42 wrote: post #37

As I understand it, billionaires take out loans with their stock/investments as collateral to get cash without selling said assets. Why can't universities do the same? Or is my understanding of billionaire money shenanigans incorrect?

Or just use the endowment directly. Quick napkin math says that Harvard could make tuition free for all undergrads for 26 years with what they current have. Originally this money was meant to be spent on education but they just let it grow forever. Some of their hedge fund managers are approaching 8-figure annual compensation packages and I can't help but assume this is part of what has corrupted the university. Citadel LLC has $65 billion AUM, while Harvard has $53 billion while getting special tax-exemptions.

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

#238

Post by otterley »

rayiner wrote: post #235
otterley wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is nothing "dictatorial" about the President withholding taxpayer dollars from a university that is in violation of the law Hey now, wait a minute. Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated. You’re clearly an intelligent person; there’s no need to try to sneak bullshit in through the bac…

> Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated. Didn't SFFA clearly establish that? The Supreme Court outright reversed the bench trial ruling, which had found that Harvard and UNC's programs comported with Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause. You have a point that I should've said "was found…

It’s not reasonable to characterize SFFA as a finding of wrongdoing on Harvard’s part.

At the time, universities were adhering to existing law (Bakke and Grutter cases). The Court then overturned its own precedent and decided that what was once acceptable under its own law was no longer so. The text of the Equal Protection clause didn’t change; the only thing that changed was the Court’s interpretation of it.

So it’s not like Harvard was operating in bad faith or being malicious, which is the characterization suggested by your “violation” language. (Not to mention that every university in America that considered race in their admissions process, despite not being a named party to the suit, was similarly situated—probably most universities in the country.) And there’s no evidence to suggest that Harvard didn’t respond appropriately and in a timely fashion to the new law.

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

#239

Post by boothby »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #134
boothby wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Statute can absolutely constrain the executive. This is an open question. The judicial branch has authority, on paper. But without means of enforcing that authority, it cannot truly constrain the executive.

Congress has a jail. He's already refused to answer to a subpoena. They can arrest him any time they want.

Congress has a jail, sure. But I and the comment I was responding to were regarding the judiciary.

To put a finer point on it: if the president orders somebody to do something in violation of federal law, and then pardons them, can the law be enforced?

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

#240

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

bootsmann wrote: post #224
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is true only to the extent that Congress delegates its power to the executive. Directly or indirectly the people of the United States have power over all three branches. One can easily make strong arguments that the problem here is both that Congress as abdicated its powers to the executive (rather than delegated), and that the people have ignored that Congress should retain those powers while focusing on the p…

> If some bureau or department fails to spend all of its budget, has the president somehow committed some treason-adjacent crime, or is that just thriftiness? Yes, he has. It is not the presidents power to judge whether the money he spent in defiance of congress is sufficient, it is congress that holds this power. If congress thinks they should spend less, they can settle this by changing the budget. What would you s…

>What would you say if the next democratic president simply refused to spend a single dollar assigned to ICE to "be thrifty"?

I'd be thrilled. There's $6 billion that they spend on DEA every year that I'd be happy if it was just pocketed by Trump and spent on hookers or something. Normalize this, please.

The perverse incentives people will defend so that they can obey the letter (but not the spirit) of the law are downright bizarre. You're all getting everything you deserve, too bad I'm getting it with you.

Post reply on HN