pull down to refresh

Around the Harvard vs. Trump mudslinging, this is absolutely the only correct view.
Govs, insofar as they have business existing at all, have no business funding universities. (Actually, Harvard isn't a university; in the age of fiat financialization of everything (#743123), it's a hedge fund with some "educational" activities on the side.)
Background:
The Trump administration has found itself in a dispute with Harvard University. It began when the President’s team sent several Ivy League universities a list of changes they expected the schools to make. The move is part of a new right-wing strategy which recognizes that we currently live under a vague, necessarily politicized system of civil rights law and aims to begin interpreting civil rights laws in ways more in line with the values and social aims of the right.
Reasonable:
Harvard, however, refused to abide by the administration’s demands. As a result, Trump froze a little over $2 billion in federal funds going to the school last week and $1 billion earlier this week while threatening to withhold all $9 billion the Ivy League school receives from the federal government each year if they refuse to agree to the President’s demands.
Defund the police? no thanks, but defund the goddamn Ivys!

"The showdown is largely being framed as either a battle to protect academic freedom from an authoritarian president or an overdue effort to rescue one of the nation’s oldest universities from the radical far-left administrators leading it off course."

Beyond being blatantly unjust, the federal money pouring into higher education is the main factor behind the exploding cost of college in recent decades.
Relevant side info: Harvard has an endowment of some $50 bil, and operating revenue of about 6.5 bil. No need for extra taxpayer funds, THANK YOU VERY MUCH

"There is only one genuine and permanent solution to these problems. Halt all federal funding—direct and indirect—for these “private” colleges and universities."

Fucking right.
As long as these schools rely on politicians to fund their operations, they will always be politicized. There is no escaping that. And, on the other side, even if Trump is totally victorious and gets Harvard to capitulate on everything, there is functionally nothing stopping the next Democrat to win the presidency from reversing everything Trump did.
this territory is moderated
This should be part of the dismantling of the Department of Education. If universities even just had to rely on state funding, rather than federal, far less would flow to the Ivies.
reply
This is a fantastic point!
reply
Just popped into my head, while reading the post.
reply
Where do we want the researchers to reside? Nowhere near the future talent pool?
reply
let's make some new institutions
reply
Agree, but cannot be done overnight. But will not do it in without the shock. I get it now.
reply
Good luck with Donald Pinochet Trumps economic miracle.
All the best and brightest are already leaving the USA.
USA is looking more and more like a Banana Republic.
reply
Can you point to any successful economy where the government does not invest in and fund education and research?
This Libertarian nonsense that the state is not crucial to the wealth of nations is not backed by any evidence.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @nout 22h
Chile during Pinochet era. Massively reduced money flowing to education and yet resulted in a economic marvel. Side effects were the killings as part of Pinochets dictatorship.
reply
The claim that General Pinochet begat an economic powerhouse was one of those utterances whose truth rested entirely on its repetition.
The claim that Pinochet ruled for the benefit of the country can no longer be sustained.
In 1973, the year General Pinochet brutally seized the government, Chile’s unemployment rate was 4.3%. In 1983, after ten years of free-market modernization, unemployment reached 22%. Real wages declined by 40% under military rule.
In 1970, 20% of Chile’s population lived in poverty. By 1990, the year “President” Pinochet left office, the number of destitute had doubled to 40%. Quite a miracle.
Pinochet did not destroy Chile’s economy all alone. It took nine years of hard work by the most brilliant minds in world academia, a gaggle of Milton Friedman’s trainees, the Chicago Boys. Under the spell of their theories, the General abolished the minimum wage, outlawed trade union bargaining rights, privatized the pension system, abolished all taxes on wealth and on business profits, slashed public employment, privatized 212 state industries and 66 banks and ran a fiscal surplus.
Freed of the dead hand of bureaucracy, taxes and union rules, the country took a giant leap forward … into bankruptcy and depression. After nine years of economics Chicago style, Chile’s industry keeled over and died. In 1982 and 1983, GDP dropped 19%. The free-market experiment was kaput, the test tubes shattered. Blood and glass littered the laboratory floor.
Yet, with remarkable chutzpah, the mad scientists of Chicago declared success. In the US, President Ronald Reagan’s State Department issued a report concluding, “Chile is a casebook study in sound economic management.” Milton Friedman himself coined the phrase, “The Miracle of Chile.” Friedman’s sidekick, economist Art Laffer, preened that Pinochet’s Chile was, “a showcase of what supply-side economics can do.”
reply
deleted by author