Quick googling shows that Harvard received $550M from the federal govt in 2015 alone. They also paid no tax on endowment investment income until recently, now I think they pay something like 1.5%. What was it about a private institution?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I’m with you on that one unless said private institution takes government/taxpayer money then you must be subject to certain rules. But otherwise, do as you please.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A very real question: How does the courts distinguish between the service rendered by colleges and the service rendered by other private businesses?
-
Harvard isn’t a private business in any capacity, it receives millions in federal grant money every year. At best they’re a government contractor at worst just a government entity, either way they should be subject to laws and regulations there of.
-
Much of that grant money comes in the form of student loans and grants, much more than NSF/NIH grants. Curious that you think that the government can own a business by providing the customers with funds to purchase the service.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Prívate universities in the US generally are subsidized by government through grants and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. They should not be allowed to discriminate in violation of public policy.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Hillsdale does that by not taking fed money. Why can't Harvard?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I would argue that private organizations can admit whoever they want but they should be compelled be law to be honest about it. Force Harvard to admit publicly that they have a racist quota system. That will allow the market to work its magic.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Affirmative action is racist.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's tough to be a libertarian, but it's tougher to argue the merit of giving the government of the day the power to limit freedom, even if that is the freedom to discriminate.
-
The bigger scandal here is Harvard's limiting selection criteria in crude numbers. The truth is, Harvard could triple enrolments and provide better education to more people. But that would dilute prestige. What good is a sorting hat that selects for 3% not 1%?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Harvard has a $35 billion endowment. Not exactly a private institution.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Harvard is a public institution by dint of the fact that they are tax exempt and they can accept contributions that are give a tax break to contributors. And it’s not a religious institution. Harvard is an investment company with a school attached that gets fed funds as well
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You are a MONSTER.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Your view is none of those things. You’re just wrong. Whilst positive selection, making an institution hire or admit percentages of groups may be wrong. Without stopping people denying service to groups we would still have Jim Crow laws.
-
Wut? Without govt laws we would still have other govt laws?
-
Yes. as you’re probably aware murder is illegal. But free speech isn’t. So some nations have managed to apply laws sensibly. I know it sounds ridiculous but it can be done. You could ban discrimination & not apply positive discrimination. One doesn’t imply the other.
-
Tell bakers that. And all-black colleges. And women-only gyms. And asians applying to Harvard.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.