3 ms·

Can you elaborate how you think that applies to this discussion? Seems like you are arguing semantics to me. The Church of Scientology is a considered a non-pr

Can you elaborate how you think that applies to this discussion? Seems like you are arguing semantics to me. The Church of Scientology is a considered a non-profit institution in the U.S. as well. Do you believe that The Church of Scientology is a benevolent actor? I don't. I believe their primary purpose is profit and they are taking advantage of their followers and the U.S. taxpayer in the same way these universities are. The university in this article is "non-profit" as well, but they just granted a $70+ million contract to their football coach. I don't see how you can argue that this is appropriate for a non-profit institution whose priority is education when they are charging their 30,000+ undergraduates six figures to complete a four-year degree at the same time.

harryh 7y ago
You said the motivation was "profit" which means that the owners of the organization make money that they can go spend on themselves as they please. This literally does not happen for the vast majority of universities. What you are describing is more like "growth." And maybe the kinds of growth universities are investing in isn't great right now. That's a fine conversation to have. This isn't just a semantic distinction. The profit motive and the kind of empire building growth motive are two pretty different things. You can see this because there ARE for-profit universities in the US and they act in dramatically different ways than the non-profits.
- ramphastidae 7y ago
  OK, I see. Even so, I think it's still totally fair to say that their behavior shows the priority is revenue or financial growth or enrichment of administrators over education.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  Growth is a much more direct proxy for power than pure cash. Why would we allow someone to gain power without giving back to the society which provides safety nets for that power? I am pretty certain Scientologists enjoy every bit of that money (be it expensive cars, free travel, more followers for your ego) they don’t pay in tax. The same goes for universities: growth without purpose are only there to satisfy the egos of those who manage the money they never earned.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I agree with you but want to pick the nit that while ownership can't treat a nonprofit as a slush fund, management generally can.

harryh 7y ago

You said the motivation was "profit" which means that the owners of the organization make money that they can go spend on themselves as they please. This literally does not happen for the vast majority of universities. What you are describing is more like "growth." And maybe the kinds of growth universities are investing in isn't great right now. That's a fine conversation to have. This isn't just a semantic distinction. The profit motive and the kind of empire building growth motive are two pretty different things. You can see this because there ARE for-profit universities in the US and they act in dramatically different ways than the non-profits.

ramphastidae 7y ago
OK, I see. Even so, I think it's still totally fair to say that their behavior shows the priority is revenue or financial growth or enrichment of administrators over education.
heavenlyblue 7y ago
Growth is a much more direct proxy for power than pure cash. Why would we allow someone to gain power without giving back to the society which provides safety nets for that power? I am pretty certain Scientologists enjoy every bit of that money (be it expensive cars, free travel, more followers for your ego) they don’t pay in tax. The same goes for universities: growth without purpose are only there to satisfy the egos of those who manage the money they never earned.
tptacek 7y ago
I agree with you but want to pick the nit that while ownership can't treat a nonprofit as a slush fund, management generally can.