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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by ghusto »

bilbo0s wrote: post #73
ghusto wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

The point of no return is Trump getting a third term That's a little alarmist. It's not going to happen. Things are close to going off the rails and people are understandably troubled with the direction in which the US government is headed. I am as well. But we all need to start turning down the temperature a bit.

This is where I was at, but am believing less and less as the parallels stack up.

I used to tell people to look at Russia if they wanted to see the Nazi script play out, and that this could never happen in the USA. Now I'm reminded of others that weren't taken seriously early enough.

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

#742

Post by tgma »

nine_k wrote: post #49
tgma wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Next step: taxing that endowment (which is a good idea irrespective of the other demands: universities are government-subsidized tax-free hedge funds)

Just consider the tax-exempt status as an indirect subsidy for research and education. I think its ROI is much higher than from any other way the government could use the uncollected amount.

Sure, that's the narrative to manufacture consent from the naive, but I don't buy it at all. Perhaps for very small fledgling universities that makes partial sense; even then I am skeptical. For Harvard, definitely not.

At very least, if your endowment is growing on an inflation-adjusted basis, it does not appear to me that you need further subsidies; your primary business is to be an hedge fund and the treasury of an empire, not education for the masses. Gains should be taxed like a hedge fund at that point.

If you want to subsidize education as a society, there are much better ways: fund research directly and cut through the indirect cost crap (which was popular among academics up until the moment the current administration started advocating for it).

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

#743

Post by WrongAssumption »

deepsun wrote: post #682
hnburnsy wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A new proposal seeks to increase the endowment tax rate to 14% That would be great that Harvard pays %14 on investment income on its 50 billion fund, considering I pay a minimum of 20% on my 'way less than $50 billion' in taxable investments, which was funded by my already taxed earnings, where as Harvard gets much of its endowment funds gifted to it.

But I don't understand why 14%? It should be the same as you, 20%. Same goes for religious organizations, but it would be extremely hard to enforce, as they might say "government is interfering us practicing our religion", as practicing religions helps to not pay taxes and protected by the Constitution.

There are several proposed bills, including one that raises the tax to 21 percent.

https://nehls.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/nehls.house.gov/f...

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

#744

Post by ghusto »

School-Cotton wrote: post #59
ghusto wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 differen…

I get what you mean, and I understand the frustration. We should be more careful with words for exactly the reason you say at the end.

Having said that, the reason I chose to use it here was because I felt it was time, i.e. it has finally become earned. I could defend the usage with anyone who brought that up (and someone's done a thorough job in one of the replies).

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

#745

Post by j_maffe »

OhioMan2943 wrote: post #735
bpicolo wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like it could mean death for Columbia as a desirable college honestly

Probably not, they'll just pump up international student numbers to recoup and basically gut the domestic student experience. There's near infinite demand for American universities overseas even now.

I think you're wrong. I know several bright students that have decided to not go to the US now given the persecution and targeting of international students.

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

#746

Post by tmountain »

hayst4ck wrote: post #465
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…

Authoritarian governments are arbitrary governments, all decisions are made arbitrarily. Consistency is unnecessary. That's the trouble with choosing power as a guiding principle over reason or consent.

The normative government continues to shrink while the prerogative government grows.

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

#747

Post by pfannkuchen »

UncleMeat wrote: post #477
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…

It makes sense if you understand that they aren't focused on general principles. Diversity is bad when it involves non-whites, women, gay people or research involving these groups. Diversity is good when it involves "race realists." Free speech is bad when students are advocating for divestment initiatives. Free speech is good when a professor calls somebody the n-word online. The goal is white supremacy and antifemi…

[flagged]

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

#748

Post by ilrwbwrkhv »

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.

Just wait till the sniffling Marc Andreessen shows up to explain why this will save his small town brethren.

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

#749

Post by theyinwhy »

j_maffe wrote: post #745
OhioMan2943 wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not, they'll just pump up international student numbers to recoup and basically gut the domestic student experience. There's near infinite demand for American universities overseas even now.

I think you're wrong. I know several bright students that have decided to not go to the US now given the persecution and targeting of international students.

You can't expect the brightest minds to study in an authoritarian country.

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

#750

Post by ookblah »

deepsun wrote: post #682
hnburnsy wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A new proposal seeks to increase the endowment tax rate to 14% That would be great that Harvard pays %14 on investment income on its 50 billion fund, considering I pay a minimum of 20% on my 'way less than $50 billion' in taxable investments, which was funded by my already taxed earnings, where as Harvard gets much of its endowment funds gifted to it.

But I don't understand why 14%? It should be the same as you, 20%. Same goes for religious organizations, but it would be extremely hard to enforce, as they might say "government is interfering us practicing our religion", as practicing religions helps to not pay taxes and protected by the Constitution.

because then those churches and schools will just leave the US! /s
Post reply on HN