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

291–300 of 311 posts

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

#291

Post by blitzar »

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…

Universities are research institutions with loss leading teaching operations on the side.

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

#292

Post by snickerbockers »

UncleMeat wrote: post #117
snickerbockers wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. This is not true. They can also stop him if what he is doing is illegal . Statute can absolutely constrain the executive.

okay but that's not my point. The point is that their rulings are supposed to be based on their interpretations of the relevant laws, and that judges are not supposed to issue rulings solely on the basis that they don't like what the government is doing even if it is obviously stupid. The OP's basis for why the president shouldn't be allowed to do this was that publicly funded universities are "foundational pillars of America's strength in the 20th century".

I wouldn't be surprised if trump has in some way violated statute in relation to freedom of speech or academic independence but unless somebody makes a compelling argument that he has, he is a representative of the people operating under the authority granted to him as president, and being a wreckless fool doesn't change that.

I don't particularly like what he's been doing in his second term so far but in online discourse I've seen this worrying trend recently where people think that unelected bureaucrats who were hired because other unelected bureaucrats liked their resumes should be able to hamstring the president and overrule him (i think the strangest thing i've seen was people opining that the CIA should be getting involved). I think it's important to remember that the checks and balances in the US constitution are between the three branches of the federal government, and most of the big bureaus/departments/etc are under the executive branch which he is the sole executive of for the next four years.

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

#293

Post by rayiner »

gamblor956 wrote: post #280
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…

You're not wrong. If the President does not follow a federal law, he is not performing an official act, and he is not immune from criminal liability. If he chooses to continue to ignore the law, the solution isn't the courts. It's the Second Amendment, which was added to the Bill of Rights as a check on exactly this (though the Founders intended for it to be exercised through the States' militias, not the citizens di…

So we should’ve used the 2A because Biden ignored immigration law?

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

#295

Post by DrillShopper »

rayiner wrote: post #270
DrillShopper wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also would have been much less controversial that, when asked, the Trump lawyer during oral arguments specifically dodged the question if the president can deploy Seal Team 6 to kill a political opponent. That choice is very telling as to what the next steps probably are, and none of them are good for this country.

The majority’s response to that is far more compelling than the dissent’s Seal Team Six hypothetical: > The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); se…

> If President didn’t have immunity for official acts, Trump could easily have relied on that broad statute to prosecute him for opening the border and thus “impairing” the function of ICE

Trump still wants to do this and the court will let him because you have to be incredibly naive or willingly ignorant to think that that this Supreme Court will apply the laws equally without regard to political party.

> t would’ve meant that the Presidency would become subordinate to prosecutors

Oh no, the President would have to follow the same laws as everyone else, how horrible!/s

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

#296

Post by mcmcmc »

op00to wrote: post #251
HDThoreaun wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What does it matter if they are faster? The pertinent question is if private research has a direct public benefit

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

#297

Post by UncleMeat »

snickerbockers wrote: post #292
UncleMeat wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. This is not true. They can also stop him if what he is doing is illegal . Statute can absolutely constrain the executive.

okay but that's not my point. The point is that their rulings are supposed to be based on their interpretations of the relevant laws, and that judges are not supposed to issue rulings solely on the basis that they don't like what the government is doing even if it is obviously stupid. The OP's basis for why the president shouldn't be allowed to do this was that publicly funded universities are "foundational pillars o…

And we have laws that say that the government cannot make obviously stupid decisions in a lot of domains. For example, a number of challenges to DOGE's activities have been under the Administrative Procedure Act, which limits how the government is able to make changes to regulation and staffing.

The mechanism that Trump is using to deny funding for the universities he hates is through statute. Courts can conclude that this action does not match the statute.

> I don't particularly like what he's been doing in his second term so far but in online discourse I've seen this worrying trend recently where people think that unelected bureaucrats who were hired because other unelected bureaucrats liked their resumes should be able to hamstring the president and overrule him

I'm very sorry, but this is the law. This is not just vibes. If you do not like this, then advocate for changing the law. But you are doing the precise thing that you are insisting that others are doing here.

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

#298

Post by rayiner »

DrillShopper wrote: post #295
rayiner wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority’s response to that is far more compelling than the dissent’s Seal Team Six hypothetical: > The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); se…

> If President didn’t have immunity for official acts, Trump could easily have relied on that broad statute to prosecute him for opening the border and thus “impairing” the function of ICE Trump still wants to do this and the court will let him because you have to be incredibly naive or willingly ignorant to think that that this Supreme Court will apply the laws equally without regard to political party. > t would’ve…

> Oh no, the President would have to follow the same laws as everyone else, how horrible

“Laws” aren’t magic. If you could just have “laws” and trust prosecutors to enforce them fairly and neutrally, then the entire constitutional structure, with three branches and checks and balances, is pointless. You would just have prosecutors as basically the government’s “microkernel” and then the other three branches on top.

The framers didn’t create that system because they understood that you can’t trust prosecutors either—they’re political too! Our system is designed like a game of rock-paper-scissors, where the checks on each branch come from the other branches, not prosecutors enforcing “the law.”

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

#299

Post by rayiner »

runako wrote: post #269
rayiner wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse. Thos…

> The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse. Right, that's where this discussion started. What we are looking at right now is the erosion of that second piece, Congress's power of the purse. The Constitutional checks and balances (not the 20th-century stuff you detail) doesn't work as well without this key Article I power. I hav…

It wasn’t done based on principle but laziness. Congress undoubtedly has the power to leave some particulars of how to spend money up to the President. But Congress has abused that power to basically provide the executive with giant slush funds with only the vaguest directions as to how to use that money. Congress can take that power back at any time.

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

#300

Post by SoftTalker »

xracy wrote: post #180
SoftTalker wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You include expenses for lab and facilities in your grant budget rather than as "overhead" ?

That's not how facilities work or are accounted for. Facilities are common to all of the university. It doesn't make sense to force this individual requirement on each grant when the University has hundreds of ways it is using a given building or lab equipment.

This is what accountants do. They match expenses to income. It shouldn't be that hard.

J. Random Professor is using lab #12 for his group. Apportion the overall building expenses by square foot to his grant budgets, or something along those lines.

Post reply on HN