Any thoughts, somor, on the quid pro quo demanded of some Ivy League American universities by some donors over responses to the Israel-Hamas conflict?
Just to pre-empt my gay stalker leptoq, I'm largely agnostic about the matter: there are some things that universities should do, in my opinion, to protect their students and others from discomfort. But there are also things that they should not do. I don't know where the donor demands fall; presumably all over the spectrum.
Serving the Quantitative Finance Community
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
Corruptio optimi pessima
Harvard President Claudine Gay & Co from UPenn and MIT are practically dancing to the melody of the greatest donor. The Middle East Studies Department at Harvard received 1.5 BILLION in funding alone, a donation Ms. Gay, falsely, claimed not to be aware of… Not to mention, the funding of hundreds of million of the allegedly same source to MIT and UPenn.
Therefore, the question is why they are doing their utmost to conceal the identity of the donor and continue to nurture a fifth column within the uni walls ?
Harvard President Claudine Gay & Co from UPenn and MIT are practically dancing to the melody of the greatest donor. The Middle East Studies Department at Harvard received 1.5 BILLION in funding alone, a donation Ms. Gay, falsely, claimed not to be aware of… Not to mention, the funding of hundreds of million of the allegedly same source to MIT and UPenn.
Therefore, the question is why they are doing their utmost to conceal the identity of the donor and continue to nurture a fifth column within the uni walls ?
-
- Cuchulainn
- Posts: 22933
- Joined:
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
Hold on; who let laptoq on this thread?Any thoughts, somor, on the quid pro quo demanded of some Ivy League American universities by some donors over responses to the Israel-Hamas conflict?
Just to pre-empt my gay stalker leptoq, I'm largely agnostic about the matter: there are some things that universities should do, in my opinion, to protect their students and others from discomfort. But there are also things that they should not do. I don't know where the donor demands fall; presumably all over the spectrum.
Senior members only.
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
I'm sorry; you know this how -- ?The Middle East Studies Department at Harvard received 1.5 BILLION in funding alone, a donation Ms. Gay, falsely, claimed not to be aware of.
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
I think Rep. E. Stefanik doesn’t throw numbers out of the blue.
Moreover, in 2020 the Department of education has begun probing into IVY League uni after it uncovered as much as US $6 billion in unreported foreign gifts.
Moreover, in 2020 the Department of education has begun probing into IVY League uni after it uncovered as much as US $6 billion in unreported foreign gifts.
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
Maybe you should look into Stefanik's history a little more before you take anything she says at face value.
What I was wondering, though, is how you know that Claudine Gay was aware of the contributions the the Middle East Studies Department.
And moreover, why should anyone be concerned about from where a university's funding comes from? From where I sit, the beginning and end of it is that the funding might compromise the academic integrity ... but if that's your concern -- and obviously I think it should be -- then aren't donors, whoever they are and wherever they are from, specifically demanding quid pro quo for their donations a more immediate concern than donations from a source that you think might try to twist academic integrity?
And in the quick article I was able to find on your latest claim, the concern was more about China looking to get technological advantages than anything else.
Isn't that tangential to your complaint?
What I was wondering, though, is how you know that Claudine Gay was aware of the contributions the the Middle East Studies Department.
And moreover, why should anyone be concerned about from where a university's funding comes from? From where I sit, the beginning and end of it is that the funding might compromise the academic integrity ... but if that's your concern -- and obviously I think it should be -- then aren't donors, whoever they are and wherever they are from, specifically demanding quid pro quo for their donations a more immediate concern than donations from a source that you think might try to twist academic integrity?
And in the quick article I was able to find on your latest claim, the concern was more about China looking to get technological advantages than anything else.
Isn't that tangential to your complaint?
-
- Cuchulainn
- Posts: 22933
- Joined:
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
If you've got it, flaunt it.I think Rep. E. Stefanik doesn’t throw numbers out of the blue.
Moreover, in 2020 the Department of education has begun probing into IVY League uni after it uncovered as much as US $6 billion in unreported foreign gifts.
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
In recent years the primary goal of a university president, particularly within the IVY League, has shifted away from imparting knowledge and excellence to students towards fundraising. Notably, presidents are actively soliciting foreign donations from sources indirectly related to Middle Eastern and Islamic governments and their supporters.What I was wondering, though, is how you know that Claudine Gay was aware of the contributions the the Middle East Studies Department.
And moreover, why should anyone be concerned about from where a university's funding comes from?
Unlike American philanthropists, these governments often demand returns on their investments, which can manifest in subtle forms of propaganda. This can include, training specialists who will later advocate for their viewpoints and work indirectly on their behalf. (See: Laurent Murawiec, Princes of Darkness: The Saudi Assault on the West, p. 51).
One prominent example is Qatar Emirate, which struggles with a problematic external image due to its support of terrorist groups like Hamas and Jabhat Al-Nusra, as well as its controversial hosting of the FIFA World Cup in 2022.
Therefore, it is not surprising that Claudine, Elisabeth, and Sally Kornbluth refused to reveal the donors and the amount of donations they received from foreign sources at the congressional hearing. This was despite the law explicitly requiring them to report any donation from a foreign entity exceeding $250,000 (See: Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965).
For years, universities had paid scant attention to this obligation, and the Department of Education did not enforce it. However, several reports in 2019-2020 demanded greater transparency, leading the DoE to call for stricter reporting. Unfortunately, under Biden administration, the DoE has apparently reversed course and no longer reports the names of giftors. This means we only know the country of origin (governments), but not the specific individuals, companies, or institutions involved.
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
Do you know the value of Harvard's endowment?
They might admit a Jared Kushner for a few million, but do you really think they'd sully their reputation so brazenly for even a few billion?
They're not George Mason University.
They might admit a Jared Kushner for a few million, but do you really think they'd sully their reputation so brazenly for even a few billion?
They're not George Mason University.
You think American philanthropists don't often demand returns on their investments -- ?Unlike American philanthropists, these governments often demand returns on their investments, which can manifest in subtle forms of propaganda.
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
That’s such a sad statement. It’s hard to argue further after that.I think Rep. E. Stefanik doesn’t throw numbers out of the blue.
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
I don't have a dog in this fight, but why weren't the questions answered? Having been deposed myself, I know you just have to be honest. Is it so hard, regardless of who is asking?
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
You think American philanthropists don't often demand returns on their investments -- ?Unlike American philanthropists, these governments often demand returns on their investments, which can manifest in subtle forms of propaganda.
I’m now more convinced, especially after reading into the recent Joan Donovan and the $500 million Facebook donation scandal (Info can be found here and here).
The Donovan's scandal, in my opinion, highlights the disturbing influence of major donors in several areas; setting the educational framework, admitting unqualified students based on their nationality, and twisting policies to the point where the entire elite higher education system appears to be an auction for academic priorities, with the highest bidder winning.
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
That’s such a sad statement. It’s hard to argue further after that.I think Rep. E. Stefanik doesn’t throw numbers out of the blue.
I’d be grateful if anyone could point out where Stefanik specifically makes mistakes in her role on the congressional committee.
Regardless, the education committee announced an investigation into Harvard, UPenn and MIT
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
Coincidentally, an update from the FSU!:
Presidents of Harvard, MIT and Penn make fools of themselves in Congress
Much bruhaha across the Atlantic after three heads of Ivy League universities were hauled before Congress to explain why they hadn’t done more about pro-Palestinian, genocidal chants on their campuses. New York Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asked all three if “calling for the genocide of Jews” went against the codes of conduct at Harvard, MIT and Penn and all three presidents said it depended on the context.
Liz Magill, the President of Penn, realised she’d made a poor fist of it and put out a statement the following day. “In that moment,” she said, referring to her answer to Stefanik, “I was focused on our university’s longstanding policies aligned with the US Constitution, which says that speech alone is not punishable. I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It’s evil – plain and simple.”
Having decided that such calls would in fact constitute ‘harassment’ of Jewish students, Magill announced that Penn would no longer rely on the US Constitution as a guide when it comes to what limits to place on freedom of expression, but “initiate a serious and careful look at our policies” to make sure they do more to tackle “hate proliferating across our campus and our world”.
This, of course, was exactly the wrong response. As Steven Pinker observed on X, she should have said that the tolerance shown to pro-Palestinian protestors at Penn – provided they don’t breach the First Amendment – would henceforth be extended to other, equally controversial speech on campus:
The wrong way for the elite universities to dig themselves out their reputational hole: restrict speech even more.
Instead:
1. Clear & coherent free speech policy.
2. Institutional neutrality: Universities are forums, not protagonists.
3. Force prohibited: No more heckler’s vetoes, building takeovers, classroom invasions, intimidations, blockades, assaults.
4. Disempower DEI bureaucrats, responsible to no one, who have turned campuses into laughingstocks.
5. Viewpoint diversity: Discourage political & intellectual monocultures (including hard-left/PoMo/‘intersectional’).
The reason the three Ivy League presidents got into such a pickle is because they haven’t displayed the same forbearance when it comes to other students with controversial views. As Brendan O’Neill pointed out in Spiked, these same university administrators have overseen the creation of ‘safe spaces’, introduced policies prohibiting ‘microaggressions’ and done nothing to stop noisy protestors vetoing conservative speakers on campus. “Jews clearly are not covered by the new moral order on campus,” Brendan concluded.
Presidents of Harvard, MIT and Penn make fools of themselves in Congress
Much bruhaha across the Atlantic after three heads of Ivy League universities were hauled before Congress to explain why they hadn’t done more about pro-Palestinian, genocidal chants on their campuses. New York Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asked all three if “calling for the genocide of Jews” went against the codes of conduct at Harvard, MIT and Penn and all three presidents said it depended on the context.
Liz Magill, the President of Penn, realised she’d made a poor fist of it and put out a statement the following day. “In that moment,” she said, referring to her answer to Stefanik, “I was focused on our university’s longstanding policies aligned with the US Constitution, which says that speech alone is not punishable. I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It’s evil – plain and simple.”
Having decided that such calls would in fact constitute ‘harassment’ of Jewish students, Magill announced that Penn would no longer rely on the US Constitution as a guide when it comes to what limits to place on freedom of expression, but “initiate a serious and careful look at our policies” to make sure they do more to tackle “hate proliferating across our campus and our world”.
This, of course, was exactly the wrong response. As Steven Pinker observed on X, she should have said that the tolerance shown to pro-Palestinian protestors at Penn – provided they don’t breach the First Amendment – would henceforth be extended to other, equally controversial speech on campus:
The wrong way for the elite universities to dig themselves out their reputational hole: restrict speech even more.
Instead:
1. Clear & coherent free speech policy.
2. Institutional neutrality: Universities are forums, not protagonists.
3. Force prohibited: No more heckler’s vetoes, building takeovers, classroom invasions, intimidations, blockades, assaults.
4. Disempower DEI bureaucrats, responsible to no one, who have turned campuses into laughingstocks.
5. Viewpoint diversity: Discourage political & intellectual monocultures (including hard-left/PoMo/‘intersectional’).
The reason the three Ivy League presidents got into such a pickle is because they haven’t displayed the same forbearance when it comes to other students with controversial views. As Brendan O’Neill pointed out in Spiked, these same university administrators have overseen the creation of ‘safe spaces’, introduced policies prohibiting ‘microaggressions’ and done nothing to stop noisy protestors vetoing conservative speakers on campus. “Jews clearly are not covered by the new moral order on campus,” Brendan concluded.
Re: FSU, Toby Young, Eugenics & Wilmott.com
Minor correction: MIT is not in the Ivy League. They compete in NEWMAC.