3 ms·
They’re tax exempt organizations. I don’t think they have a “right to exist” nor to have absolute control of association just like we don’t allow their director
by throwup238 2y ago
They’re tax exempt organizations. I don’t think they have a “right to exist” nor to have absolute control of association just like we don’t allow their directors to self deal.
They are allowed to exist because they provide the public a benefit, which is degraded by legacy admissions depriving the deserving members of the general public of those slots.
- seneca 2y ago[flagged]
- jltsiren 2y agoInstitutions, as legal entities, are created by government regulations. In the absence of such regulations, all organizations would be based on voluntary contracts between private individuals. And the people forming the organization, regardless of whether you call them members, shareholders, or trustees, would ultimately be fully responsible for the actions of the organization.
- sangnoir 2y agoYour reply is reductive: Stanford is not some run-of-the-mill LLC - they have a charter legislated into state law, granting privileges not given(!) to most other self-organized groups in the state. Saying this is not authoritarian - that's just stating historical fact. You and a few billionaire friends can't incorporate, buy land and automatically have the legal cover that Stanford has; so no, Stanford has no right to exist in it's current, highly privileged form
- throwup238 2y agoThey're tax exempt. If they want to throw off the yoke of so-called authoritarianism, they're free to reincorporate as public benefit corporations and pay taxes on all the capital they've been hoarding.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoSeems like the public benefit is clear. The benefit provided by a non-profit need not be available to all. In fact, they are allowed to be extremely exclusive. Why should private schools be treated different?
- moomin 2y ago“ When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”