[flagged]
> Asking to stop harassing Jewish students is not an "assault".
Quite the strawman
Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?
71–80 of 311 posts
Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not withholding cancer research because two countries on the other side of the planet can't get along and make it everyone else's problem shouldn't be difficult either.
I agree 100% - I would point out that it's not the Jewish students who set "encampments".
We already know you think it's the other side's fault. You could have have left out the second part of your comment if you were actually agreeing instead of letting us know again your opinion on who should be blamed.
Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?
#73Earlier 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…
This is true only to the extent that Congress delegates its power to the executive. Per Article I of the Constitution, Congress has the plenary power of the purse. So if it decides to spend $X on something specific , it has to be spent on whatever that something is. The President doesn't have discretion in that case.
In fact, when Congress passes a budget, it’s actually a law that must be executed by the executive. There are actually other laws against impoundment and against the executive changing the budget.
Trump is literally breaking the law but no one really cares to discuss that anymore since the gish gallop has be so quick this term.
Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?
#74I 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…
Too many people think these are funds to just run the universities. By and large, what is being withheld are funds for research.
Federally-funded academic science often looks like:
1. The university + government fund/run a project
2. Project creates new knowledge (cool!)
3. The government gets a pretty awesome license to use that knowledge
4. The government more often than not gives that knowledge away (or offers great accessible licensing), so that
5. Private industry can adapt, apply and commercialize the knowledge, driving new GDP growth and opportunities for improving life, etc.
Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true only to the extent that Congress delegates its power to the executive. Per Article I of the Constitution, Congress has the plenary power of the purse. So if it decides to spend $X on something specific , it has to be spent on whatever that something is. The President doesn't have discretion in that case.
In fact, when Congress passes a budget, it’s actually a law that must be executed by the executive. There are actually other laws against impoundment and against the executive changing the budget. Trump is literally breaking the law but no one really cares to discuss that anymore since the gish gallop has be so quick this term.
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Trump is breaking the law. I'm no expert in NSF funding, but Congress may well have delegated its authority over how the funds in the pool are to be allocated and distributed to the executive.
If someone has more knowledge to contribute, that'd be most welcome.
Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?
#76This 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.
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 they didn't actually rape that girl, they might have... or they might have raped some other girl.
When Orange Man exercises a power he presumes to have, it's "dictatorial", but when "Pen and a Phone" Obama exercised that same power -- together with the people, follow where Obama leads.
Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?
#77This 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.
Why are you citing the these institutions' contribution to the 20th century? We are 25 years past the 20th century, 35 years since the end of the Cold War (which was the spiritual end of the 20th century).
What have these elite institutions contributed to the 1990+ world order?
Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?
#78It is part of the political reality that we live in. Whichever party is currently in power, will inevitably use that power to promote ideas that are favorable to them and to dissuade ideas that they are opposed to.
The same people who are whining about the Trump administration abusing their power by doing these things; were cheering on the Biden administration for doing similar things from the opposite angle.
This is why we have to be very careful when crafting laws. Before passing it because we want our party to use it to help us, we have to imagine what would happen when the opposing party tries to use this law against us.
Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true only to the extent that Congress delegates its power to the executive. Per Article I of the Constitution, Congress has the plenary power of the purse. So if it decides to spend $X on something specific , it has to be spent on whatever that something is. The President doesn't have discretion in that case.
In fact, when Congress passes a budget, it’s actually a law that must be executed by the executive. There are actually other laws against impoundment and against the executive changing the budget. Trump is literally breaking the law but no one really cares to discuss that anymore since the gish gallop has be so quick this term.
Well, it's not that simple. Yes, Congress passes the bill saying that X billions of dollars have to be spent on universities, but that bill does not name every single university in US as beneficiary. That's what executive branch is for: to work out the details of how to implement the law passed by Congress.
So, Trump taking money from Harvard and giving it to say, a community college in Tampa is technically still correct implementation of the law. I mean, it all depends if he can defend his decision in court, because of course he cannot discriminate based on race, ethnicity, political affiliation etc.
Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?
#80It is part of the political reality that we live in. Whichever party is currently in power, will inevitably use that power to promote ideas that are favorable to them and to dissuade ideas that they are opposed to. The same people who are whining about the Trump administration abusing their power by doing these things; were cheering on the Biden administration for doing similar things from the opposite angle. This is…
> cheering on the Biden administration for doing similar things from the opposite angle
What is the #1 thing you consider "a similar thing from an opposite angle?"