Why are progressives not bothered more by this?
I can provide links if you'd like to learn. I'm just on mobile right now and it's a pain.
It would help, though, if you could describe in what way people should be bothered.
In the case of Harvard and many other institutions, it's a tax-dodge, and nothing more. Same thing with non-profit hospitals whose administrators pay themselves seven-figure salaries.
What does this article have to do with nonprofits in general?
Also the board of the nonprofit sets salaries for admin
> ... the National Association of College and University Business Officers issues a report on ... where the money [endowments] generate ends up. ... About 48 percent of investment income went to student aid ... about a quarter of the money ... went to academic programs and maintaining facilities.
To claim it's a "tax dodge, and nothing more" without elaborating is absurd.
I won't argue further with someone more interested in inflammatory statements than actually discussing.
How much of that "student aid" just covers some of the astronomical tuition Harvard charges?
What do you mean by tax dodge, in this context?
How familiar are you with taxes? Off the top of my head, people who work for non-profits have to pay withholdings and income taxes, just like the rest of us. Generally, 'business' expenses for both non-profit and for-profit organizations (whether a McDonalds, university, church) are tax-deductible. Tax rules differ between states, but being a non-profit doesn't automatically exempt you from collecting and forwarding other forms of tax, such as sales tax.
Is the issue that you don't think that any university - or perhaps specifically Harvard? - should be granted non-profit status? If that’s the case, then I'm curious what you think about the same question for religion-affiliated universities and non-profit organizations whose missions you agree with?
No, some of them operate like genuine non-profits by promoting some public good and compensate their executives only modestly. For example, the Salvation Army.
If our society lacks education we end up having people question the utility of 501(c)(3) status of universities.
People have screamed that Universities tuition fees are too expensive for the RoI. It’s a separate bipartisan issue.
You know what doesn't fall within the rubric of existing laws (or things that anyone who respect the rule of law and controlled government should be comfortable with)? Trump unilaterally using the federal agencies under his control to vengefully, punitively attack a major public institution just because he wants it to do whatever his latest personal tantrum has dictated.
His whimsical funding cuts are indeed illegal (1) and even if you agree with the government not funding certain institutions in certain ways, i'd call it a bad fucking idea to claim that the president should break his government's own federal laws to do so.
1 https://www.thefire.org/news/faq-responding-common-questions...
Every leftist I know believes that education should be free and universally accessible. That holding capital (especially with the intent to make more capital, which is what an endowment is) is morally wrong. And that we should tax wealthy people and corporations to fund things like healthcare and education.
Constructing a strawman like this (inventing a position that progressives do not hold) and then trying to point out the hippocracy in that position is classic logical fallacy territory.
Better question is why aren't conservatives bothered by any of this?
Federal funds comes with strings attached and administrations change. If the usefulness of the work has proven itself now, then other sources can fund it. This won't really be controversial or require grandstanding or debate soon, because it will be the status quo.
Yes, its also disruptive to many programs to cut off funding in this way. I think decoupling is for the better. This university daytraded tax free up to a $50bn endowment, for a rainy day. They just need to get liquid and plug the budget gap, which they are starting to do. Donors and other sources can be leveraged too.
For example I don’t remember the detail exactly but this professors insistence to study extremophiles has directly translated to many improvements in medicine.
Non profits
Various agencies in every municipal government
Various agencies in every state government
Various agencies in every other nation’s national government
markoman•8mo ago
uhhhd•8mo ago
uhhhd•8mo ago
Key Allegations: 1. Hostile Environment: The complaint describes a campus atmosphere where pro-Hamas students and faculty have organized demonstrations featuring antisemitic slogans and calls for violence against Jews and Israel. These protests have reportedly disrupted classes and occupied campus spaces, creating an environment of fear and intimidation for Jewish students. 2. Administrative Inaction: Despite numerous complaints and reports of antisemitic incidents, the university administration is accused of failing to take appropriate disciplinary actions against perpetrators. The plaintiffs argue that this inaction amounts to deliberate indifference, exacerbating the hostile environment. 3. Double Standards: The lawsuit claims that Harvard enforces its anti-discrimination policies selectively, protecting other minority groups while neglecting the safety and rights of Jewish students. This alleged inconsistency is presented as evidence of institutional bias. 4. Faculty Conduct: Certain faculty members are accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric in their teachings and public statements, further contributing to the hostile climate on campus. 5. Failure to Uphold Policies: The plaintiffs contend that Harvard has not adhered to its own stated policies on discrimination and harassment, thereby breaching contractual obligations to its students.
Legal Claims: • Violation of Title VI: The university is accused of failing to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, as mandated by federal law. • Breach of Contract: By not enforcing its anti-discrimination policies, Harvard is alleged to have breached its contractual commitments to provide a safe educational environment. • Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The plaintiffs argue that the university’s actions, or lack thereof, violate the fundamental expectations of fairness and protection owed to students.
Braxton1980•8mo ago
-----
My concern is that Anti-Zionism is being conflated with Anti-Semitism by the complainants in order to
1. Bolster their case wrongfully by increasing the number of incidents
2. Defend the Israeli government
3. Expand Anti-Semitism to include Anti-Zionism in court decisions making future criticism of Israel dangerous
For example the complaint you linked to opens with
".. Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and slaughtered, tortured, raped, burned, and mutilated 1,200 people—including infants, children, and the elderly"
Unnecessary details to the situation because if their claims against Harvard are valid the source of the anti-Semitism is irrelevant (edit: meaning anger at Israel's response to the attack)
This means it was placed at the beginning of the complaint to illicit an emotional reaction/reminder of the horrific event.
Edit: Just to add that if a person is criticizing Israel and a Jewish person feels threatened or avoids campus because of it that's not anti-Semitism.
uhhhd•8mo ago
Braxton1980•8mo ago
"I'd like to open my case against John Smith for murder your honor. My only piece of evidence that he committed this horrific crime is that he was accused of it. I rest my case"
>And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.
By all who were there or just some? Being the protest was open to all how can you lump all protestors together because of the views of some.
>intentionally obtuse
Because I avoided generalizations?
const_cast•8mo ago
No actually I think it's right on the money.
Some vaguely brown people being very mad at Israel does not antisemitism make.
Are they denying the Holocaust? Are they saying Jews should die? Or... are they saying Israel is committing a genocide? Are they blaming those particular jews running Israel?
I think we all know it's almost entirely the latter, and almost none of the former.
Jensson•8mo ago
Quite a lot of people are. Just because some don't doesn't mean that others aren't.
const_cast•8mo ago
However, you don't need to be antisemitic to be anti-Zionist. There are pretty much infinite reasons to denounce Israel, and the state seems to be making more every day.
If I, or anyone else, wanted to make a poignant argument against Israel we could simple gesture to the pile of crimes against humanity the state has committed. We wouldn't need to resort to antisemitism.
slater•8mo ago
uhhhd•8mo ago
Braxton1980•8mo ago
"opposition to the establishment or support of the state of Israel"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Zionism
>Its eliminationist rhetoric and plainly bigoted.
There are some who think Israel shouldn't exist others who think their government is wrong.
If a person thinks all Israelis should be murdered then that's wrong. This is not the whole representation of Anti-Zionism but you are trying to make it
You can only be bigoted against a person or group of people, not a country or government.
pasttense01•8mo ago
biimugan•8mo ago
There's a very easy determination to be made here about which students are or are not being victimized. If my knowledge of current events is still accurate, not a single pro-Israel student has been extra-judicially kidnapped and imprisoned. Pro-Israel Jewish students very well may feel victimized or scared. But put into perspective, I can imagine that pro-Palestinian students feel it much more so.
AlecSchueler•8mo ago
The rhetoric at the top nowadays is that Israel == the Jewish people, and the will of Israel == the needs of the Jews. To criticise their policy is anti-Semitic.