Live data from Hacker News

Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

harvard.edu

51–60 of 1001 posts

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#51

If you've read history, this rhymes with certain acts that have happened before under certain regimes. Under a non-authoritarian Government, this type of showboating can be dismissed, but when habeas corpus and the right to due process is suspended — such actions take on a very different cast indeed. It's good that Harvard is fighting this. The more people accede, the more they will accelerate down a path where there…

The point of no return is Trump getting a third term. The parallels are strong there.

I was just thinking this morning that we very much needed the USA's help fighting Nazi Germany, but who will we turn to when we're fighting fascists coming from the East _and_ West? (Russia and the USA)

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#53

[flagged]

> The Federal government has always attached conditions in exchange for Federal funding and Federal contracts. This is not dictating. It effectively is. Just look up the history of the drinking age - a classic example of the federal government using extortion tactics to override state rights.

I don't think most people would consider "You can't discriminate based on race", to be extortionary. Instead, its a well accepted principle in most of society.

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#54

With their endowment above $50 billion, combined with Federal plus Non-Federal sponsored revenue at 16% of operating budget, it makes sense to me they just forgo Federal funds and operate independently. If all 16% is canceled, then they'd need to draw an additional $1 billion per year from endowment at current budget levels. That would put them above 7% draw so potentially unsustainable for perpetuity, historically t…

This article lists out why it's not good of an idea as you think.

>Universities’ endowments are not as much help as their billion-dollar valuations would suggest. For a start, much of the money is reserved for a particular purpose, funding a specific professorship or research centre, say. Legal covenants often prevent it from being diverted for other purposes. In any case, the income from an endowment is typically used to fund a big share of a university’s operating costs. Eat into the principal and you eat into that revenue stream.

>What is more, eating into the principal is difficult. Many endowments, in search of higher income, have invested heavily in illiquid assets, such as private equity, property and venture capital. That is a reasonable strategy for institutions that plan to be around for centuries, but makes it far harder to sell assets to cover a sudden budgetary shortfall. And with markets in turmoil, prices of liquid assets such as stocks and government bonds have gyrated in recent days. Endowments that “decapitalise” now would risk crystallising big losses.

More worrying is the fact that the federal government can inflict even more harm aside from cutting off federal funding:

>the Trump administration has many other ways to inflict financial pain on universities apart from withholding research funding. It could make it harder for students to tap the government’s financial-aid programmes. It could issue fewer visas to foreign students, who tend to pay full tuition. With Congress’s help, it could amend tax laws in ways that would hurt universities.

https://archive.is/siUqm

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#57

[flagged]

> The Federal government has always attached conditions in exchange for Federal funding and Federal contracts. This is not dictating. It effectively is. Just look up the history of the drinking age - a classic example of the federal government using extortion tactics to override state rights.

Same with speed limits.

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#59
post #51

If you've read history, this rhymes with certain acts that have happened before under certain regimes. Under a non-authoritarian Government, this type of showboating can be dismissed, but when habeas corpus and the right to due process is suspended — such actions take on a very different cast indeed. It's good that Harvard is fighting this. The more people accede, the more they will accelerate down a path where there…

The point of no return is Trump getting a third term. The parallels are strong there. I was just thinking this morning that we very much needed the USA's help fighting Nazi Germany, but who will we turn to when we're fighting fascists coming from the East _and_ West? (Russia and the USA)

What is your definition of "fascists"?

Edit to explain my point, because I'm getting downvoted (which I don't care about, but I _do_ care if people don't understand my point): fascism was a specific ideology/movement in the 20th century that, other than being right-wing and authoritarian, doesn't bear much resemblance to right-wing authoritarianism today: they have different goals, different motives, promote different policies, etc.

It seems people just use "fascism" as a synonym for "destructive right-wing populism" or even just "bad". And I agree that things like the MAGA movement, or AfD in Germany, ARE bad, and one could even argue that they are just as bad as historical fascism.

But I don't think we should use "fascism" in this way, because it gives ammo to your opponents: the supporters of these right-wing movements can point out that indeed, they are not the same as historical fascism and make you look silly.

Re: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

#60
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of that federal funding is for research, the same as any other R1 university. We all benefit from research findings. Endowments are used for other purposes. There are a few colleges that take no federal funding in order to maintain total independence (mostly for religious reasons). But their research output is virtually zero.

[flagged]

These are important questions, but your skepticism has no roots in firmer grounds. How are you arriving at a ratio of 10:1? Bad faith actor.
Post reply on HN