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

251–260 of 311 posts

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

#251

Post by op00to »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #193
op00to wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about private research institutes? They don’t really educate anyone, not in the way that people think of when they say education. Why must all funds only go to public organizations?

why should the government pay for that? If people want to do private research thats up to them

Why should the government pay for research? Because the private sector can some times move faster than a public research lab. They may have different capabilities. They have different strengths. They may be more efficient in certain situations. Why is this surprising to you?

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

#252

Post by otterley »

foxglacier wrote: post #250
otterley wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to understand the context in which these laws and Constitutional amendments were written. They were designed and enacted after the Civil War (in the case of the Fourteenth Amendment) and the 1960s (Civil Rights Act, once we determined the Fourteenth Amendment was insufficient) to prevent Black people from being discriminated against. At the time, nobody, including the authors, considered these laws to…

Is that how the law works? Because the Civil Rights Act was written with black people in mind, it only applies to black people even though the wording doesn't specify that? Surely it's quite an obvious omission that they would have written down if that's what they'd wanted. Is it a kind of trick law written to make people think other races are protected but due to how laws are interpreted, it was always known not to…

It is a fair criticism (some would say a defect) of our legal system that legislation is not always as explicit as we would like it to be. Take California's Penal Code 187(a) which defines murder as:

"(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."

It turns out that "malice aforethought" is a term of art that requires no actual malice and not much forethought.

Anyway, if you look at the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act (and courts frequently look to legislative history when interpreting statutes), you'll see that its backers in Congress were concerned about racial segregation, which at the time according to practice separated white people from everyone else (mostly Blacks).

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

#253

Post by otterley »

rayiner wrote: post #249
otterley wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’…

> It’s not reasonable to characterize SFFA as a finding of wrongdoing on Harvard’s part As I understand it, that’s the legal effect of SFFA . SFFA sued Harvard seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that Harvard’s admissions policies violate Title VI. The district court ruled, after bench trial, that Harvard didn’t violate Title VI. The Supreme Court didn’t remand for further proceedings, it outright rev…

> Meaning that it found that Harvard’s procedures did violate Title VI

Declaratory judgments aren't findings of wrongdoing. They're simply words (hence "declaratory") that describe a relationship between the parties of a case. Cases that end in declaratory judgements are also always civil in nature, so I don't believe they can be used to penalize the party later as if they had conducted a criminal act.

> I don’t see any legal reason why an administration couldn’t hold Harvard’s discrimination against students—which happened, even if the Supreme Court changed its mind about whether it was permissible—against Harvard in allocating federal funding.

That would actually be an interesting case. I find it difficult to believe that the Court would allow such an ex post facto application. The problem with this is that anyone who engaged in behavior that was lawful at the time, then subsequently deemed unlawful, could be subject to abrogation of benefits or other penalties. That said, in light of how the Court's makeup has changed in the past 20 years, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if I turn out to be wrong. I would be very sad, though, because it would mean that nobody can be assured that their current conduct, even if lawful at the time, won't be held against them in the future if the law changes later.

> Harvard’s defiant response to SFFA provides a reasonable basis for the administration to believe it has continued to engage in discrimination

I don't think it does. I think Harvard is saying "we will continue to lawfully promote diversity however we can." There's no unlawful action being contemplated, described, or advocated in its response. Costco and Disney, BTW, do the same.

> now that Harvard has decided to fight [Trump’s investigation of Harvard Law Review’s publication policy], the administration will have to prove its belief

You're mixing up two different plot lines. We're discussing NSF and other Federal grant withdrawal resulting from Harvard's failure to implement discretionary measures Trump wants them to take relating to hiring, policy, and curriculum. This other story is about investigating Harvard Law Review, which was announced weeks after the grant rug pull. It seems pretty obvious that Trump is trying to find any angle he can to prevail in his war against the institution.

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

#254

Post by runako »

rayiner wrote: post #241
runako wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is in fact not what the Supreme Court said. It said that the President has immunity for “official acts,” just like Congress members and judges. Say a judge dismisses an indictment of an accused murderer because the police didn’t have a proper search warrant. Then the accused murderer kills someone else. That could fall within the letter of “negligent homicide” laws, but the judge can’t be prosecuted for that bec…

I agree with you here. I also think that (allegedly) ignoring federal statutes while reorganizing the government is pretty clearly an official act. So everything we are discussing is an official act.

If the Executive isn’t bound to follow federal appropriations laws, there’s no principled reason why he should have to follow other federal laws. And as you show, the president has full criminal immunity as well.

What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms.

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

#255

Post by xyzzyz »

runako wrote: post #254
rayiner wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is in fact not what the Supreme Court said. It said that the President has immunity for “official acts,” just like Congress members and judges. Say a judge dismisses an indictment of an accused murderer because the police didn’t have a proper search warrant. Then the accused murderer kills someone else. That could fall within the letter of “negligent homicide” laws, but the judge can’t be prosecuted for that bec…

I agree with you here. I also think that (allegedly) ignoring federal statutes while reorganizing the government is pretty clearly an official act. So everything we are discussing is an official act. If the Executive isn’t bound to follow federal appropriations laws, there’s no principled reason why he should have to follow other federal laws. And as you show, the president has full criminal immunity as well. What ot…

There are all kinds of laws that limit president's conduct, but the point is that there is no way to actually enforce these laws, other than voluntary compliance by the president and his government, and impeachment by legislature. This is by design, that's how the separation of powers works.

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

#256

Post by ryandrake »

dmurray wrote: post #222
physPop wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't law, its journalism, and frankly the article is well written and asks a good question -- why are these (extremely wealthy) universities finances so brittle?

The question is self-answering as soon as you read the first two sentences though. > Columbia...has an endowment of roughly $15bn. Mr Trump’s administration withheld a mere $400m in federal funding. With the best investing in the world, that $15bn might throw off 1 billion a year in perpetuity. $400m (a year) is a very serious chunk of the university's budget.

Exactly... Scaling the numbers down: It's as if a person has $1.5M net worth, and their investments produce $100K per year. They are also simply being handed $40K per year from someone they disagree with, but who otherwise reliably provides that income. Are they just going to turn that money down because of this ethical disagreement? A lot of people wouldn't.

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

#257

Post by nine_k »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #88
nine_k wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fair question, but it's being asked a lot already. Let's imagine that completely legitimate circumstances lead to the US Government stopping the stream of grants to the Ivy League universities. How would they cope, given their enormous endowments that generate significant interest? This question is asked much less, and the answer is much less obvious. Hence the value of TFA.

What's the point of such an abstract question? The university's goals and expected resolution for the problem would always depend critically on why the stream of grants stopped.

A practical turn: can, say, Harvard or Yale answer: "Screw you, government, I don't need your money, go away!"?

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

#258

Post by kbelder »

nickff wrote: post #133
lief79 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last part is accurate, but equating the two is a bit of stretch. The democrats went out their way to do everything by the book. They also generally took the time to understand the systems they were working with. The current presidency went in with the assumption that everything was wasteful, and didn't take the time to understand what they were cutting. Hence, emergency rehires, judicial blocks on firing, etc. Th…

Biden had the bureaucracy on his side (it’s well known that government employees are largely left-Democrats), so he was able to collaborate with it. In his first term, Trump learned that insiders were good at preventing him from accomplishing his goals when he ‘played by the rules’, so now he’s just ignored ‘the system’. Insiders have plainly ignored the law in the past when it was convenient, (see all the agencies w…

>In his first term, Trump learned that insiders were good at preventing him from accomplishing his goals when he ‘played by the rules’, so now he’s just ignored ‘the system’.

This seems obviously what happened, and it may be because of the unprecedented non-consecutive second term. I don't know if Trump's ideology has changed between this term and his previous one, but his tactics certainly have. He clearly came into this term with a plan to do a blitzkreig [unfortunate reference], to make changes at a rate and degree that would cut through all the bureaucratic obstacles he faced the first term.

And it seems mostly successful. The opposition, including many of the employees of the executive branch themselves, were mostly caught off guard. Over the last few weeks, it seems like they are finally starting to form a responsive strategy, and are pushing back more effectively through courts and public opinions. I expect much of this initial push to moderate, such as the tariffs, the funding cuts, but still with lasting changes. Of course, if any of the changes are found to be unlawful, they will get reversed. But that will potentially take years.

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

#259

Post by runako »

xyzzyz wrote: post #255
runako wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you here. I also think that (allegedly) ignoring federal statutes while reorganizing the government is pretty clearly an official act. So everything we are discussing is an official act. If the Executive isn’t bound to follow federal appropriations laws, there’s no principled reason why he should have to follow other federal laws. And as you show, the president has full criminal immunity as well. What ot…

There are all kinds of laws that limit president's conduct, but the point is that there is no way to actually enforce these laws, other than voluntary compliance by the president and his government, and impeachment by legislature. This is by design, that's how the separation of powers works.

These is a different way of stating my point that the President is not bound by laws, only politics.

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

#260

Post by [deleted] »

snickerbockers wrote: post #44
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.

America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy. The executive branch is governed by a single representative elected by the people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the people didn't make a great choice this time but our constitutional republic is also one of the foundational pillars of american strength and trump being an idiot doesn't change that. The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only su…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN