3 ms·

"In fact, it is neither strategic for the university, nor respectful of the donors’ intent. It is neither financially responsible/prudent, nor is it permissible

"In fact, it is neither strategic for the university, nor respectful of the donors’ intent. It is neither financially responsible/prudent, nor is it permissible." Did the donors intend to have the entire university system ground down to the point where the ability to fund the donors' plans is completely gone? Donors funding programs to encourage research in to areas of science the Trump administration wants to outlaw... they should just ... sit on the money? Return the money to donors and say "sorry, 49% of voters decided that your family's wishes are illegal"? You want to fund weather research in to climate change, and set up a legacy endowment with your university. Research in to that is outlawed in 2027. What should the university do now, knowing this sort of thing is coming? The article was about covid. This is about an actual attack on the essence of what makes the universities attractive to donations in the first place.

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
The point is that there's neither as much money nor as much flexibility as people imagine there to be. We shouldn't be flippant about these attacks because these institutions have what appear to be (but functionally are not really) giant war chests.
- mgkimsal 2y ago
  I'm not flippant about it, and do not take the suggestion of using some endowment money for 'non-specified purposes' lightly. I don't think it should be completely off the table. The Trump administration has relied on people and companies responding to their aggression and violation of norms within the bounds of normalcy. None of this is normal. We are being gish galloped with attacks on all fronts of societal norms at once - threatening law firms, universities, students, immigrants. Attack the powerless and those with some power to protect those powerless at the same time.
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    I don't think we disagree on any of this. I was taking issue with this framing: "I don't think the institution will run out of money any time soon. It's a $50bn prop trading firm with a university attached."

sorcerer-mar 2y ago

The point is that there's neither as much money nor as much flexibility as people imagine there to be. We shouldn't be flippant about these attacks because these institutions have what appear to be (but functionally are not really) giant war chests.

mgkimsal 2y ago
I'm not flippant about it, and do not take the suggestion of using some endowment money for 'non-specified purposes' lightly. I don't think it should be completely off the table. The Trump administration has relied on people and companies responding to their aggression and violation of norms within the bounds of normalcy. None of this is normal. We are being gish galloped with attacks on all fronts of societal norms at once - threatening law firms, universities, students, immigrants. Attack the powerless and those with some power to protect those powerless at the same time.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  I don't think we disagree on any of this. I was taking issue with this framing: "I don't think the institution will run out of money any time soon. It's a $50bn prop trading firm with a university attached."