Like if I want to fund a pet study that I’m interested in, can I just call up Harvard and offer the lab $1M to work on it? I’ve never heard of anyone doing that, but I’m not really sure why it doesn’t exist (which is why I’m asking if anyone else knows).
Office for Sponsored Programs
1033 Massachusetts Avenue
5th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
617-495-5501
osp@harvard.edu"This work was funded in part by NSF Award CNS-2054869 and gifts from Apple, Capital One, Facebook, Google, and Mozilla."
That said, private grant funding is just of a completely different scale than government grant funding. For example, NIH's annual budget is 48 billion and most of that goes to research (https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/organization/budget).
For instance, the Chan Zuckerberg Institute before Zuck decided he had to appear to hate science in order to curry favor with the current regime.
If you want them to do a specific experiment you’ll likely first need to convince them that it’s a good use of their time.
Harvard itself plays approximately zero role in the decision to do a study or not. (There are ethical oversight committees, etc.)
$1M total cost ($600-800k direct cost depending on terms) will buy you a postdoc’s time and effort for 5 years. Unfortunately most labs aren’t set up for a time/money tradeoff, so 5 postdocs for 1 year would be unlikely absent a really exciting project.
It definitely happens quite a bit!
And those tend to be: things that are perceived by the donor as having high immediate returns, things that are perceived by the public as having high immediate returns and thus are good for buying status, and things that provide a convenient channel for the donor to exercise power via the donation, making it away to enjoy wealth while also getting a tax break for it.
Basic science doesn't tend to fit any of those, which is why science funded by private philanthropy is small compared either to government funding of basic science or total private philanthropy.
Two reasons.
First, private philanthropy is neither sustainable nor sufficient in scope.
Second, because government funded science is free from having to produce immediate results in order to satisfy the whims of a specific patron such that funding is continued.
> It seems like an obvious channel for corruption of science.
Yes, relying on private entities to fund scientific research does seem like an obvious channel for corruption.
I agree with you but there's irony (and a possible lesson about motives) in the current situation.
The problem and paradox is that it's hundreds of elected representatives and a handful of judges entirely abdicating their responsibility to make it just one guy.
> I agree with you but there's irony (and a possible lesson about motives) in the current situation.
Quite true, sadly.
I am reminded of an old adage[0]:
In theory there is no difference between theory and
practice, while in practice there is.
We also have a strategic interest in draining intelligent individuals from other countries and nationalizing them in ours, which science funding plays a major part in doing.
One of the reasons why its complicated, however, is that the University environment has changed significantly in the US. What used to be academically-motivated institutions dedicated to the pursuit of education are now, essentially, just boring businesses, with more middle managers than educators. As one example, UCLA has a $9.8B endowment. Their athletics programs brought in $120M last year (though, they spent more, and the university itself had to provide gap funding of $30M. yup.) IPAM was receiving $5M/year in NSF funding (DMS-1925919). One obviously extreme way of looking at this: UCLA could have funded Terrance Tao's mathematics research group for six years with the money they used to save a hundred million dollar athletics program that's somehow still losing money.
This is a priorities issue for universities, through and through. But, Universities have slowly evolved their priorities to bloat their managerial class, which has forced them into impossible financial situations where the only way out is to bias investment into revenue generating verticals like maximizing the size of the student body at any cost on the backs of no-default student loans, international students, and athletics programs. Research takes a back seat.
I am all for public funding of science, but even many university researchers would argue, as a part of the system, that its broken (for reasons which extend even beyond those I've brought up). That's why I struggle to take a solid side on this issue; I want science, but what I want more is a University system that actually takes education and research seriously.
With most actions, there's nothing being remedied, just an assertion of control. The action isn't tied to an improvement goal or a remedy with rationale.
As Tao noted, in cases where a remedy for a wrong is mentioned, the remedies being proposed by the administration do far more harm to any ostensible victims than the original asserted wrongs.
Nothing about their actions is in good faith in terms of improving academics in the US, nor do they even try in most cases to pretend to be trying to improve academics at all.
UCLA paid their head football coach ~$6M/year. Will they ever decide to take any kind of money of that scale and fund Tao's research at IPAM? The reason you'll hear is "its ROI, a great football program generates revenue for the university" but the reality is: like 70% of University athletics programs are unprofitable, including UCLA's football program. Moreover: while I understand that universities have to operate like a business, their business goal must be "to make as much awesome education and research happen"; everything must serve that goal, and it doesn't today. I am extremely unconvinced that hyper-sized athletics programs and millionaire coaches further this goal, especially against the backdrop that they're tremendously and systemically unprofitable for everyone except the coaches, management, and the NCAA.
[1] https://www.nsf.gov/policies/document/indirect-cost-rate
The market can't provide public goods like basic research since it's non-excludable. This is a market failure, causing inefficient allocation of resources.
Therefore, the government has to provide it. This can improve efficiency of resource distribution, if done well.
Whether it's done well is not a foregone conclusion. That's why we need effective and technocratic state capacity, free from corruption and independent of political influence.
> I don’t really understand why so much of science is funded by the government instead of by private philanthropy.
Would would ANY private enterprise (i.e. pharmaceutical company) want to fund research that would enable that?
The immense money (the US spends over $200B a year in cancer 'treatments') that these companies would not be making anymore would deter any such research.
Same goes for many other scientific discoveries. Some are for the greater humanitarian good, not for private enterprise profit maximisation.
Of course any company would take this deal and make a boatload of money (though less than the $200B / year).
Undercutting all its competitors would be a bonus, not a deterrent.
This has happened so many times throughout history. New tech comes in, does the same thing cheaper and better, old companies die out kicking and screaming.
Companies and their shareholders only do things that are profitable.
That is quite the claim !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs
Adding to @eastbound's comment the Soviets were also responsible for the first remote operated "robot" on the moon.
Not sure what relevance the space race has to this topic either!
When applied to medicine that same attitude becomes parasitic: you may be able to make much more money by restricting the distribution of the knowledge that could save people or prevent their suffering. This is where Martin Shkreli and other such characters come in to play.
An Australian nuclear scientist working for the UK Rutherford (New Zealander) labs | Tube Alloys | MAUD program told them how to.
It took a while to convince the US scientists who were mainly interested in making big hot piles for power.
The actual building of atomic weapons (Trinity, Fat Man and Little Boy) took place under a fully authoritarian ultra secret State directed militarily controlled program that cost a significant chunk of national GDP.
The example you chose appears to be both incorrect and the very opposite of whatever point you wanted to make.
Anyways, we have the Internet, I'm not sure it matters _where_ innovations are created anymore. It certainly does not seem to be stopping China on any level.
America is going to have to give up the "World Police" (a.k.a. The Military Industrial Complex) badge and move into it's relative political middle age with a little more care and aplomb than the last 6 decades have allowed for. The haze of WW2 is far behind us now.
The "military industrial complex" is absolutely real. You just don't seem to realize that the MIC is into buying software and social media networks these days and not so much carriers and jet fighters. So your spending analysis is flawed and your outcome analysis is wildly out of touch with actual reality.
It's an extremely infantile view. Bought and paid for by the MIC itself. No wonder you can't recognize the reality of it.
> Bought and paid for by the MIC itself.
One thing you can always use to spot low-trust conspiratorial types is they insist that all bad things are caused by "corporations" and involve money in some vague way, but then they never believe any actual specific information if it conflicts with their vague ideas of evil corporations doing things out there, vaguely.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat...
That's a huge exaggeration. Who would commit naval piracy in the current age? Somalia, with their little boats and AK-47s? China already has a bigger fleet than the US and can easily take on the burden of securing trade routes, since they are the biggest beneficiary.
We already have piracy coming back with the Houthis; China didn't join the alliance with other countries, defended their own ships and ignored everyone else.
That’s just wrong. Xi has explicitly ordered cadres to "tell China’s story well"[1] and build "discourse power" that’s textbook soft-power ambition. Surveys show it’s working, China jumped to #3 in 2024 and #2 in 2025 on brand finance’s global soft power index.
1. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspec...
> We already have piracy coming back with the Houthis; China didn't join the alliance with other countries, defended their own ships and ignored everyone else.
This is NOT piracy. Under UNCLOS Art. 101, piracy requires acts "for private ends" on the high seas. The Houthi campaign is openly political/armed-conflict behavior, so it doesn’t meet the piracy definition (even though it looks like it to laypeople).
My crude take on the underlying root cause is resentment, discontent, and similar feelings. Happiness is reality minus expectations, and a whole lot of folks are unhappy life did not turn out how they thought it would.
https://warwick.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/researchers_point_t...
Nothing in physics requires us to buy into the political documents; if the average person isn't owed anything under the rules, no one is.
Either we're science driven where only politics makes someone special and we should then moderate that because in reality, they are not special, just a button pusher, just a signature. Or we're a bunch of idiots living in a trailer park.
Seems you subscribe to the whole "everything is a mystery to politics" when it's just biology self-selecting and we should fucking moderate that. With violence if necessary. Because fuck them. They aren't owed anything either, they're just manipulating politics.
If the Democrats had been (and had messaged themselves as being) the party of the working class, they would have drained the swamp that Trump's support comes from. Instead, the message was "if you're working class, and you don't support gay marriage and trans people in sports, and you think that abortion is morally wrong, then you are a moral outcast and we are going to destroy your entire culture." They may have been pro-working-class, but they were pro other things more, and those other things were not big concerns for the working class. And many of the working class took a different stance on the cultural issues than the Democratic leadership.
In fact, the Democrats quit cultivating their base, and so their base walked away from them to someone who at least pretended to care about them.
Nationalist populism harvested that. But there has to be something growing before it can be harvested, and nationalist populism didn't sow the seeds.
"Scientific fraud has become an 'industry,' analysis finds"
In addition many scientists involved (like Oppenheimer) later faced political persecution during the McCarthy era.
American atomic research succeeded despite, or perhaps because of, intense state control and funding
I don't particularly think that the secrecy or control of a single group really reflects on the overall culture however. We wouldn't call phreakers authoritarian just because they weren't publishing their exploits in the newspaper or letting any new person fully into their circle.
Also the prosecution and harassment of communists/leftists and minorities in the US during that era is why I stipulated less oppressive rather than unoppressive.
Consider that at the same time the Third Reich also had a nuclear weapons research program, and it went nowhere.
It was so centralized, we effectively had Eleanor Roosevelt as acting President much of the time.
The Manhattan project succeeded because it was consuming a significant portion of the US GDP at the time, the scientists were forced to live on site with their families and every word they said was monitored.
Military projects, especially making the most powerful weapon in history for use in the largest war up to that point, are always done with as much secrecy as is feasible. Living on-site was also practical: the reason the site was as isolated as it was was in part because of secrecy, the families being there was both to improve security and for convenience. Finally, yes, every word they said was monitored. But they were scientists and their families working on top secret machinery of war, which ended up changing the course of history in a significant way, they quite literally ushered in a new age. They knew they were monitored and that this was one part of the price to pay for working on that project.
In contrast with that age: now all our words are monitored, even inane ones that are exchanged between people who would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I'm confused, are you claiming the enemy was not consuming a significant portion of their GDP on their weapons program?
the "necessary but not sufficient" concept applies here.
You can't really enroll graduate students for a 5 year PHD project if their funding can be pulled at a moment's notice like this.
The best and brightest simply aren't going to want to come to the U.S. for an uncertain future where they'll be harassed at the airport every trip and then defunded or deported at any time for "political" reasons (a.k.a. racism, bigotry, religion, ignorance and anti-intellectualism).
Amazingly, we're only 200 days into this administration.
We have 3 years, 5 months and 12 days left, assuming we still have free and fair elections in 2028.
For the next several years, the administration is going to continue to dismantle our country's foundations brick by brick, enabled by Congress and SCOTUS. The attack on immigrants is in full swing, but the total takeover of science, public education, universities and mass media is actually just beginning.
Hopefully people remember this for next time.
Nah, there was nothing "poor communication" about it. It was very well done bad faith communication from bad actors. It was intentional lies. This was not a fault of communication of these institutions. They can not match the lies machine from well founded and motivated political groups. And that is about it.
Hopefully people who have voted for this and defending this remember this as the beginning of the end of American exceptionalism. It's certainly not happening any time soon. Maybe decades later but these things will be remembered in the same way as Mccarthyism.
American exceptionalism has always been a weird delusion, I don't see that ending. USA not being a market leader in <whatever>, now that can end and it's starting to happen for sure.
Trust of our institutions, scientific and other, had been deliberately destroyed by anti-intellectual political hacks over the past few decades. Some from appealing to regressive religious fundamentalism, but much just shameless ignorant grandstanding of painting the complex world as unfair. And it's mostly those same hacks who are now supporting the wanton burning of our societal institutions while continuing to whitewash it as "conservatism".
Sorry, the fault here lays entirely with the fascists - most especially with the people supporting them who should have known better.
The midterms are in 2026. A swapped House (and/or Senate, but less likely) would drastically shift power.
What exactly do you think will change? The administration is already ignoring the law with impunity. Unless there's a big enough swing so that impeachment and conviction is a reality, Congress will have essentially zero impact.
Around 40% of the country still supports the president unconditionally. They are truly ecstatic with what's happened so far. The other 60% are being gerrymandered so their majority status is inconsequential. If Republicans do lose the House, it'll most likely be by a small margin, and the current Congress will rush through a bunch of laws to be signed that will make the next one as useless as possible.
And even if there was in fact a huge swing allowing Congress to try and stop the White House's wrecking ball, the amount of damage between now and January 2027 will be monumental and irreversible.
> The administration is already ignoring the law with impunity
Can you provide an example where they've ignored a Supreme Court ruling?
And the histrionics around this are uniquely relative to modern norms. Look up the shenanigans around Marbury v Madison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Backgroun...
Joisting for power between federal branches (and with states, historically) has been a constant in American democracy more often (most of its history) than not (1970s+).
> Around 40% of the country still supports the president unconditionally
Yes, such is the danger of personality cults in democracies.
> The other 60% are being gerrymandered so their majority status is inconsequential.
Gerrymandering has always been a finger on the scales of elections, and will continue to be, until such time as Congress puts a stop to it (though debatable they have the power). https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/
> the amount of damage between now and January 2027 will be monumental and irreversible.
I imagine FDR's ghost is spinning in his grave, with things to say about Hoover.
The word "histrionic" is what really got me though. We're well past the stage where anyone deeply cynical about the state of things and the foreseeable future can be accused of histrionics. And we're way beyond any previous historical analogies.
My whole point is that the damage to the country is permanent. Whether it'll eventually destroy the Union has yet to be determined.
I.e. anyone who believes that adjectives suffice where facts fail
There are things that are not happening and things that are happening. Trying to phrase the former into the latter doesn't do anything but hasten a post-truth era.
How about the case where the Supreme Court told the administration to obey a lower court's order and facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return to the US [1]? The Trump administration openly defied the Supreme Court's order for nearly 2 months (April 11 to June 6) [2][3]. Setting aside whether the "temporary" violation of a Supreme Court order has been legally resolved, the administration brought Garcia back to press (hypocritical and doubtful) human smuggling charges to justify deporting Garcia again, and a judge let Garcia stay in jail for longer otherwise necessary because the judge thought the administration would deport Garcia before he could have his trial [4].
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/11/even-the-supreme-court-s...
[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_G...
[4] https://apnews.com/article/abrego-garcia-deportation-immigra...
If the Supreme Court had wanted to order him back immediately, it would have done so.
The facts are that this administration has skated on and just over the line with regards to lower courts, especially in matters of immigration, but has yet to ignore a directive from the Supreme Court.
If you're aware of an actual example, feel free to provide it.
What is it they say in America? "Oh sweet, summer child?"
Honestly and seriously: look at the abuse of power and its escalation. Consider the consequences to Trump if he lets the House flip. Impeachment again and this time removal really would seem likely.
Now consider, in all detached seriousness: why would a man who tried a coup and thinks he can disappear people to El Salvador let that happen?
Now consider that he's trying to force the creation of a new census that doesn't count illegal immigrants, which is obviously about denying the democrats seats, and he's fired someone for producing numbers he doesn't like and replaced them with "all new numbers".
It's not going to be the end of his interference, right?
The midterms, if they happen, will not flip the House. If they do, he will try to delay, confuse, challenge, set them aside, produce alternative results, claim massive fraud, or interfere with their certification. If he can't stop them, he will threaten them individually until they quit. (Don't say "he can't stop the election, under the constitution"; it's a meaningless phrase now)
You're not having a normal election in 2026.
Even if I turn out to be wrong, I really wish people would start acting as if predictions like these are entirely plausible. Because they are. He's moving much faster than critics expected, and yet he's doing all the things they expected.
Because he has an ego the size of a planet and cares about his legacy.
Being remembered as the president that broke democracy is not his mental narrative.
Those doing and supporting what's happening a) care only about power, b) honestly think they and America is superior, c) both and d) think this time is different assuming they are educated and know history.
My understanding is the grants you're talking about are generally for small student salaries as they work on a given project simultaneously with their continued education. Is there not another way to fund these projects? Is there not a better way to engage students into these projects? I don't recall most students having a wide array of choices when it comes to taking on these opportunities.
Is this not a chance to improve a rather ancient and clumsy system?
I seriously doubt that there is any will to improve the system.
> My understanding is the grants you're talking about are generally for small student salaries as they work on a given project simultaneously with their continued education.
Grants cover a much larger part of the work at labs. Basically, a grant could be paying anything except tenured salaries and administrative costs.
Probably not. Grants were always under political control, right? This is just shifting political control from one part of a government agency to another part of the government agency.
> The order also instructs agencies to formalize the ability to cancel previously awarded grants at any time if they're considered to "no longer advance agency priorities."
Now? One of your grad students says something a little too on the nose on Bsky, and your lab gets shut down.
Sure. In the same vein, you have always been at war with Eurasia.
- science funding is controlled by the state (and thus politics) in many leading countries, especially China. Doesn't seem to hold them back
- the US pays people vastly more than other countries, and will continue to have the ability to fund expensive research more than others. Maybe it will regain the political will to do so in coming years
You're right that uncertainty is deadly to investment, and signing up for 5 years of a PhD is certainly an investment. But it's hard to see this turn into an actual brain drain, if only for lack of a better place to go.
After all, why bother doing research when the guy ultimately responsible for choosing your funding will take a sharpie to any data you collect if it looks bad?
If everyone tomorrow just stopped working around the world, that would paint a pretty picture.
That is the only only way to stop dictatorship while it is still possible.
But that happens in unprecedented amounts in a developed and organised country, maybe soon developing...
Until we have actual penalties for the people in charge, it doesn’t even matter whether the courts uphold this stuff or not.
This last election was the end of American democracy.
No, they aren't all working in the USA, and in many cases those that were are leaving the US and moving back to China.
Wtf US
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/06/jd-vance-ohi...
yes, actually, it is bad if a bunch of racist lunatics are personally in charge of things, and increase their personal power to make arbitrary decisions based on their stupid hobby horses or deeply dumb opinions.
yes, actually, this is different to when Biden or Obama or Bush presided over a functioning government, that had people you may or may not disagree with having some influence on things, this Trump Reign system is personalised autocracy.
yes, actually, it is bad if the government's sole agenda is "implement dumb ideas from dumb people" and "fuck the left/non-whites/immigrants/scientists".
it's especially dumb to be so unaware of why the world is so good now. it's not luck, it's centuries of hard work by our ancestors. why don't 50% of children simply die? because of medical research, healthcare, food subsidies, etc etc etc. why does the internet exist? because the US government funded a dumb thing for a while then a lot of other people and countries spent a lot of money and effort to make it this.
That is the case with so much of what is happening now. If these things are possible, the system was already broken.
The problem is that a big percentage of the population is ok with this, and in that case it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or not. There is a reason why, even if allowed, governments didn’t do these kind of things: population didn’t want it.
The three branches of government are supposed to be checks and balances against each other. But turns out two of the three don't have any actual power to enforce their mandates. This has worked as long as the three branches grudgingly respected each others role. But now that the executive branch simply decided to ignore the other two whenever convenient, turns out there is no recourse.
That a Republican Congress isn't checking a Republican President isn't evidence of a lack of checks and balances.
And points to why the President is pushing so hard for Texas to gerrymander additional Republican seats into the House...
In the current context, gerrymandering only serves to prevent impeachment at this point, but it could permit even more extreme executive-dictated, legislative rubber-stamping. In the long-term, it would stack the deck for partisan cheating.
Perhaps an amendment is needed to insist on independent, non-partisan district map commissions for every state at the federal level.
PS: I used to live in Greg Casar's ultra-salamander TX-35, but now it bypasses me down I-35 with an umbilical or tiny body from SATX to ATX. TX-15 ® an TX-28 (D) run through my ZIP Code now.
This is something too important to be left to political hacks of some states but not others who seek to cheat at elections to favor incumbents.
Future people must endeavor to split up power even more, make more functions more independent and shielded from political manipulation, and prevent the rich from monopolizing and corrupting political office, government, mass media distribution, and journalism.
Having politicians exercise more direct control over this type of spending is good and as it should be. The concept of people taking money via force from other citizens yet answering to nobody is dystopian. The sort of people who support this idea are often, it seems, those who suspect their ideas and plans are so deeply unpopular that people could not be easily persuaded to fund them directly.
Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is under executive control? Is it not the case that Congress usually decides, one way or another, where the money goes, and it's the executive's job to see it does?
It has always been my impression from a distance that Americans believe the federal system was perfectly designed and is inherently robust, when in fact there have been concerns from day one about what would happen if it fell into the hands of a leader who didn't care for the law.
And that's where you are now.
But re: the executive orders, actually it is not clear that they can do this. As with many of Trump's EOs it may simply be illegal because -- newsflash -- Trump is a crook and he has no intention of following the law if it limits him.
This is a man who tried a coup and who has broad immunity for anything he does that even looks like governance, so why would he let a little thing like the law trouble him? It didn't bother him when he exported people to El Salvador without due process. It doesn't bother him that his "emergency" tariffs almost certainly lack a legal basis.
I don't think the good faith reasoning about the system being broken by design really matters: the USA is falling victim to an accelerated Hungary-style fascist restructuring.
Nixon looks like a boy scout by comparison.
Trump has been learning from Winnie the Pooh. How very Communist of him.
He does want to fundamentally change it into an domestic empire -- a monarchical executive ruling over vassal states that have their own governments but must pay tribute.
Well... he wants it to look more like a mafia arrangement because he was jealous of those guys back when he had a mafia lawyer in the 1970s. He likes to pressure people to do him little favours in return for protection (which is literally what he was impeached for the first time). He thinks he can direct industry to do what he wants (and it looks like industry kind of agrees). It is clear he intends to meddle in state law.
They, the people around him, believe in what amounts to a unitary executive that converges on a form of monarchy. It's more or less central to the belief structure of a far-right guru, Curtis Yarvin (who is an ex tech guy and a nasty little racist dweeb):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
(He explicitly uses the word "monarch")
There are many Yarvinists in the executive branch. There are also many in the AI community, and Musk consulted Yarvin about The America Party.
Asserting control over academia is a Yarvin thing (and also a Viktor Orbán thing, because the model here is Hungary, quite deliberately, which is why e.g. Tucker Carlson and CPAC hang out there). That is what is going on here. They are injecting the executive into every part of academic life.
And so now, I have to police my free speech and participation in the public sphere because I'm afraid someone might choose to nuke the lab. That's some bullshit there.
Vigorous adherence to the First Amendment by the Administration and, failing that, vigorous enforcement of it by the federal courts.
More seriously, nothing, and that’s the point.
An arms embargo vs Israel would be wildly popular among Dem voters - but don't ask campaign staffers about it unless you want to be marked as "no response" [0].
0 - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/uncommitted-le...
Zaheer•6mo ago
"The Trump administration has suspended the funding of Terence Tao and the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics at UCLA."
abetusk•6mo ago
noncoml•6mo ago
ojbyrne•6mo ago
ewoodrich•6mo ago
v5v3•6mo ago
mschuster91•6mo ago
Maybe it's just Twitter's algorithm that only serves me the decent replies - but these at least have a point, antisemitism is running utterly rampant in academia these days. In no relation to Qatari funding, one might assume...
mindslight•6mo ago
intermerda•6mo ago
But I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s one of those “enlightened centrists.”
mindslight•6mo ago
antonvs•6mo ago
They didn’t get to where they are without playing a conformance game. That limits the degree to which they can object to anything.
wat10000•6mo ago
If they’re vulnerable, it’s the psychological need to keep adding to their pile of money that does it.
antonvs•6mo ago
Keep in mind that “money” is not some sort of concrete thing like a pile of gold - it’s dependent on factors like the value of companies. The wealthier someone in the US is, the more their wealth depends on their ultimate cooperation with the prevailing powers.
wat10000•6mo ago
And the only reason their money depends on factors like the value of companies is because they want to add to the pile. It could literally be a pile of gold if they wanted it to be, that's just not the best way to make it grow. More realistically, it could be invested in index funds or something similar that the administration can't selectively destroy.
Worst case the government finds a way to confiscate everything, or imprison/kill them, in which case they're exactly as vulnerable as a normal person.
watwut•6mo ago
The opponents of "the side you totally are not supporting no" wont get any benefits of doubt, will have words super scrutinized and instead sanewashed will be exaggerated.
shrubble•6mo ago
UCLA has $8 billion in endowments and the state universities in total have $30 billion in endowment funds. How many years could they fund Tao and his institute if they really wanted to?
noelwelsh•6mo ago