There’s a lot more nuance to what’s going on there than the joke you’re making. I worked at Harvard for 10 years - 5 for a grant funded org, 5 for a discretionary funded org. A vast majority of the endowment (rightly or wrongly) is non discretionary /1
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I understand that this isn't necessarily visible or obvious to anyone who would make this argument, but the typical American has zero sympathy for the very thin strip of fat Harvard would have to trim over $9M because <$1,000 has significant personal meaning to them.
"That $40B is non-discretionary" will be met by people with more than two neurons to rub together who say "great, go talk to your donors."
-
-
I don’t disagree that’s the right course of action, but a) part of every donor negotiation involves trying to make it a discretionary gift, not advised gift and the donor had a specific thing they wanted funded (so H didn’t just spend freely) b) a large percent of donors are dead
-
a) Donors don't want Harvard to fail, and if it's not at any risk of failing it shouldn't be taking a federal bailout. b) Every deceased donor has their affairs managed by *someone.* This is a non-issue.
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.