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

Regarding the Compact

president.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 203 posts

Re: Regarding the Compact

#91

Post by pastel8739 »

dartharva wrote: post #28

From MIT's financials ( https://facts.mit.edu/operating-financials/ ): Operating Revenue: $5.07B, out of which - Federal funding (sponsored support): $2.30B Operating Costs: $4.78B, out of which - Sponsored research expenditure: $2.10B Additionally, they seem to have $24.57B worth of endowed funds and get gifts and pledges of net ~$0.6B every year. Looks like they can wane off their dependence on federal funding if o…

I really find it surprising how often people bring up endowments as if they are a resource that can be spent. The purpose of an endowment is to produce revenue via investment income; that investment income is already reflected in the operating revenue under "Investment return to operations". MIT cannot and should not spend their endowment beyond this investment income; doing so would jeopardize the long-term viability of MIT.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#92

Post by dotnet00 »

kjksf wrote: post #73
boplicity wrote: post #3

Remember, fascism is not an ideology or philosophical idea. It is a system of government. Gaining control of academia is a core part of this system. I applaud MIT for standing up to this. I hope the other universities involved also resist. We'll see.

Given that leftists have gained control of academia, are democrats fascists? My claim of "leftists control academia" is based on data on political affiliation / donations by staff at major universities which is 80-90% democrats.

Pretty massive difference between "the federal government is using its influence to try to compel academia into bending the knee to it and it's fascistic methods of operating" and "most academics aren't in favor of the party that still doesn't believe in vaccines, hates them or their colleagues for having the wrong skin color and doesn't see any value in the liberal arts".

Re: Regarding the Compact

#93

Post by nostrademons »

tencentshill wrote: post #7
boplicity wrote: post #3

Remember, fascism is not an ideology or philosophical idea. It is a system of government. Gaining control of academia is a core part of this system. I applaud MIT for standing up to this. I hope the other universities involved also resist. We'll see.

The nine universities include: Vanderbilt University Dartmouth College the University of Pennsylvania the University of Southern California Massachusetts Institute of Technology the University of Texas at Austin the University of Arizona Brown University the University of Virginia

Interesting. I first heard about this from Newsom's statement that any university that signed it would lose California education funds instantly, but the only California university on it is the private USC. Thought for sure that at least UC Berkeley, UCLA, and Stanford would be on it, but I guess not. Maybe they chose USC because it seems to have a bit more of a conservative bent than most California schools.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#94

Post by runako »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #34

I am affiliated and have been affiliated with several top universities, including the two in Cambridge, MA. I'm an academic. I say that because this stuff directly affects my career prospects. The Compact itself can be found here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/1... It's short, I ask that you read it before commenting. It's too bad MIT has taken this stance. I think the Compact is overall…

Can you imagine the conservatives at MIT (they are there!) being happy that MIT outsourced price-setting and hiring decisions to the White House?

This Compact aims to radically reshape the management of higher education. In that, it is anything but conservative. Conservatives should reject it for that reason alone.

> "if you want federal funding, you'll do this stuff"

There's another piece that keeps getting lost. That is: the US government has a set of policy goals it is trying to accomplish. Outsourcing to third parties some parts of the work of getting there is a cash-light approach. As an American, I think this is better than e.g. the DoD building duplicate capacity (and competing for researchers) at multiples of the cost.

In one sense, MIT gets federal funding in the same way that Raytheon gets federal funding (and there are DoD asset tags at MIT to prove it).

This isn't just MIT getting funding, it's also the US buying some capacity from MIT. It's a mutually beneficial transaction.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#96

Post by dem_bones »

runako wrote: post #53
wavemode wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> threatening to use "lawful force" against minors What's the context here?

The text of the Compact: > Signatories commit to using lawful force if necessary to prevent these violations and to swift, serious, and consistent sanctions for those who commit them. Many students enter college as minors, so this is asking colleges to commit to using force against minors while only talking about hypothetical events.

What's wrong with that? They're still covered by the law.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#97

Post by dem_bones »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #31
smrtinsert wrote: post #2

Is there any precedent in US history for what the administration is asking of the nations top universities? Incredible they have to deal with this.

Yes, the Biden Administration's promulgation of a Title IX interpretation that, among other things, would have compelled certain kinds of speech: https://speechfirst.org/case/title-ix/ One example of many: it would have been a punishable offense to refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns.

[flagged]

Re: Regarding the Compact

#98

Post by dem_bones »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #39
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you injured if you can't misgender someone?

Compelled speech is a bright line the U.S. has, so far, managed not to cross. We should be trying as hard as we can not to cross that line. You may not see the harm in this particular instance, but establishing "we'll just force them to say it and punish them if they don't" as a tool in any government's toolbox is a very, very bad idea.

[flagged]

Re: Regarding the Compact

#99

Post by dem_bones »

kjksf wrote: post #87
sgentle wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Careful not to fall into the "People's Democratic Republic" trap: the way something is described and its purported aims are not at all the same as its actual effects (and, often, not even its intended ones). Politics is, in many cases, the art of selling you a box of spoons with "forks" printed on the label. Instead of asking "does this agreement sound nice?", ask what power it gives, to whom, and what might they wan…

There was a wave of violent disruptions across many universities under the guise of protests. "protestors" took over libraries, disrupted lectures, vandalized university property, used the power of the mob to intimidate students who disagreed. The universities have rules against all of that but failed to stop it, leading to weeks long disruptions on campus. There are videos of all that on the internet. And you're pla…

[flagged]

Re: Regarding the Compact

#100

Post by kjksf »

baked_beanz wrote: post #50
periodjet wrote: post #23

This seems like a reasonable response by MIT. I’m struggling to understand where the core disagreement lies though. Would someone who is opposed to this “compact” care to explain their view? I’m not interested in baseless name-calling (“fascist” etc) but I am interested in cogent reasoning. I didn’t read the compact itself, but I did read the wikipedia article about it, and it seems to be a very positive set of crite…

My main objections are to the following points: - Specifically calling out protecting "conservative ideas" in their section on creating an "intellectually open campus environment". This is a dog whistle that makes it patently clear which viewpoints will be protected, and which won't. See what happened to Mahmoud Khalil for a recent example of how this will work in practice. - Preventing admissions of foreign students…

Your "I don't know what words mean" is very selective.

So you don't know what "hostile to US" means.

Do you know what "Unwelcome verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct based on protected characteristics" means? This is one of the many vague prescriptions in MIT code of conduct.

If I make a sour face at a gay person, is it "unwelcome nonverbal conduct"? Should I be punished for that? But not punished for shouting "from the river to the sea" i.e. demanding annihilation of Israel?

Is your argument that we should just scrap all code of conducts because it is by nature open to interpretation?

Or you just object to those that tickle your politics?

Post reply on HN