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

Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes

harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Post by hnburnsy »

ren_engineer wrote: post #355
bretpiatt wrote: post #32

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…

those endowments, especially for the Ivy League schools, aren't liquid at all. They'd take a massive haircut if they had to start pulling funds from it

If this is the case then they really are not for the benefit of students?

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

#502

Post by impossiblefork »

os2warpman wrote: post #431
porphyra wrote: post #261

Merit-based admission sounds good to me. Harvard is vigorously defending its "right" to continue to deny admissions to highly qualified Asian applicants out of nothing but pure racism, and somehow they are the good guys?

Merit is not easily definable. Standardized tests are bullshit, IQ tests are phrenology, class rankings are not comparable across school districts. Someone who was president of every club at school may be less able than a kid who had to flip burgers in the evenings to help make rent. Merit to a university may mean "someone whose charisma and social connections will bring great repute to the institution" more than "a…

Standardized test reliably predict academic success. IQ tests similarly.

Here in Sweden, if you do well enough on the entrance exam, we simply let you in, even to the best universities. This means that people other than hoop-jumpers have a chance.

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

#503

Post by namaria »

areoform wrote: post #139
outer_web wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Habeas corpus - still in effect unless you're already in El Salvador.

It's not. The rubicon has already been crossed. If you asked some of the framers of the US constitution - beyond all other factors, unelected powers etc - what was the one defining trait of the government structure they wished to avoid; they'd have replied with arbitrary imprisonment and the suspension of due process. Please don't take my word for it, hear it from the Prosecutor's Prosecutor. The SCOTUS justice, form…

> The framers held certain rights to be unalienable from human beings - something that no government can take away

Unless, of course, the government considers you to be 2/3 of a person

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

#504

Post by kashunstva »

nine_k wrote: post #309
tikhonj wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government, on the other hand, has every right to put conditions its counterparty should conform to in order to get money from the government. It really doesn't. There are both normal laws and Constitutional restrictions on how the government can make decisions, and the reasons it can have for making those decisions. I'm very much not an expert here, but this includes restrictions on viewpoint discrimination in…

I agree! The government is not entitled to set arbitrary conditions. But it's entitled to set some. I suspect that some acts of Congress require the government to set some conditions on providing governmental funding, as the Constitution prescribes: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46827

> is not entitled to set arbitrary conditions

Indeed, but most of these conditions _are_ arbitrary and often mutually-conflicting. Mask ban? What is the scientific basis for this?

The government already set numerous conditions on research funding relating to accounting, ethical conduct and so forth. Attaching conditions that are only tangentially related to the purpose of the funding is almost arbitrary by definition.

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

#505

Post by gruez »

hnburnsy wrote: post #498
gruez wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

>...much of the money is reserved for a particular purpose I would assume that a tax on an endowment would be like a capital gains tax, i.e., taxed on the investment growth. Is the growth 'reserved for a particular purpose'?

It's reserved because the donation was earmarked for a specific purpose (eg. a business program or whatever), not because they reserved 30% on tax owing.

>Is the growth 'reserved for a particular purpose'?

It's probably safe to assume donors are competent enough that such glaring loopholes don't exist. After all, the concept of endowments being used as long term savings, rather than spent immediately, isn't exactly a new concept. Failing to take this into account would mean any earmarks are void after a few decades.

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

#506

Post by peterbecich »

pqtyw wrote: post #450
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LoL - why it makes any sense to do this for universities and not billionaires is beyond me, but I'm sure half the country can explain it to me like I'm 5.

Doesn't this tax only apply to "net investment income"/realized gains? Billionaires technically already have to pay it at a higher rate. And well they generally do? I mean when they personally actually sell stock and or receive dividends and interest.

Agreed. For the revenue tax activists want from billionaires, it would necessitate a wealth tax, which I believe is unconstitutional. The non-profit tax exemption fight is about "income taxes" which billionaires already have to pay (but avoid). So it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

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

#507

Post by hnburnsy »

paulpauper wrote: post #367
bretpiatt wrote: post #32

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…

80% of the endowment funds are heavily restricted as per donor requests and cannot be used unconditionally.

Could you give us some of these restrictions? This seems like a BS excuse to not support the students.

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

#508

Post by palmotea »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #440
robocat wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans Are Floating Plans To Raise the Endowment Tax. Here’s What You Need To Know : https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/2/11/increasing-endo... Proposed College Endowment Tax Hike: What to Know : https://thecollegeinvestor.com/52851/proposed-college-endowm... College endowments are typically tax-exempt, but a 2017 law imposed a 1.4% tax on investment income for a small group of wealthy private universities.…

LoL - why it makes any sense to do this for universities and not billionaires is beyond me, but I'm sure half the country can explain it to me like I'm 5.

>> College endowments are typically tax-exempt, but a 2017 law imposed a 1.4% tax on investment income for a small group of wealthy private universities.

> LoL - why it makes any sense to do this for universities and not billionaires is beyond me, but I'm sure half the country can explain it to me like I'm 5.

Because they already do it for billionaires: unlike university endowments, billionaire investment income is not tax-exempt by default, it's already subject to income tax [1].

[1] At least theoretically, ignoring the loopholes and tax-dodges billionaires can take advantage of with literal armies of accountants.

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

#509

Post by Loughla »

bhouston wrote: post #210
greasegum wrote: post #76

It's just words, obviously contradicted by many of Harvard's recent actions, but all I can think is what a fucking lay-up. If only Columbia's administration had half a spine they would have responded similarly.

> all I can think is what a fucking lay-up I am nervous about the US right now. So many cases are going to end up at the Supreme Court that is controlled by conservatives. It may not be the lay-up you think it is. Also what happens if Trump just decides to ignore a court loss as he did with the recent deportation of Kilmar Garcia?

It will take a majority of states, and their military backing, forcefully overthrowing Trump.

I really hate to be alarmist, but it does feel more and more that we're headed to massive, coordinated state against state violence.

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

#510

Post by hnburnsy »

nineplay wrote: post #288
kweingar wrote: post #224

The aggregate demands of the administration are confusing and contradictory. They seem to be simultaneously asking for: - an end to diversity initiatives - a new diversity initiative for diverse points of view - a new policy of not admitting international students with certain points of view - ending speech-control policies - auditing the speech of certain departments and programs - ending discipline of students who…

The demands of the administration are the demands of a bully who doesn't want your lunch money, he just wants you to know he can take it away at any time.

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."

Any organization is probably in violation of any number of rules and regulations due to the sheer number of them.

Post reply on HN