Unlike the article I wouldn't label him a libertarian. That would be like calling someone who wants to overthrow a tyrannical government, then install themselves as dictator, a freedom fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Printable View
Unlike the article I wouldn't label him a libertarian. That would be like calling someone who wants to overthrow a tyrannical government, then install themselves as dictator, a freedom fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Those Koch Brothers should do get around. It's either outrageous or preposterous they claim to be libertarian Freeee Market guys, when they're using their money and clout to buy dominance. :rolleyes:
Yeah, trying to buy a service in exchange for money. How illiberal.
You're comparing what Koch Brothers do (and yes, Soros too) to simply buying a service?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Did he do something illegal? Was coercion involved? Did both parties obtain something of value?
Did I ask those questions? No, I asked you, Loki....if they're simply buying a service in exchange for money?
What "service" are they buying?
...and? It's not too unusual for someone who endows a professorship at a private university to have some significant sway over who occupies the professorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
If that's a problem, they could just turn down the money. Private universities turn down gifts with onerous terms (though many wouldn't find this too onerous). This is a public university. They don't rely on fundraising. If they consider themselves to be an impartial instrument of the state why are they accepting the donation?
On the concept of budgets, fundraising, and influence, its astonishing who caught the larger picture, or who didn't. I'm not limiting this concept to only universities; I'm focusing more on the idea that money, big money, from a very select mindset or individual has the ability to alter the output of education for hundreds or thousands, at any level.
The teaching of material he likes by faculty he likes.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Yeah, because a handful of professors at a few mediocre institutions are going to make a dent on the overall education system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
All universities fundraise. There's no private vs. public distinction anymore. When state governments are as unreliable as they've proven to be, you have no choice but to rely on private donations. Most (4-year) public universities already get about half their funding from private sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Really? I didn't know it was that extensive for the public universities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No, you're painting a picture, not catching one. Fundraising for education is an established and credible form of charitable giving. The idea that it is a tool of ideological manipulation doesn't really do a disservice to those making the gifts and the independent minds being educated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I have experience with the NY and Illinois public university system, and both have extensive alumni outreach programs, sell rights to the names of their buildings, etc. Illinois also has a fairly big endowment, almost all obtained from private sources. The system would be bankrupt if it relied only on the state government that has made a habit of not paying ~$100 million each year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
That's the "service" they're buying? That's how "academic standards" are set at state universities now? The biggest "donors" pick curriculum they like, AND who's hired to teach? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
We all know donations and endowments are important, especially for structural building funds. Fundraising isn't the problem, but the expectation of outside power that comes with the money. State universities shouldn't be in the business of letting billionaires choose academic material and personnel hires. Not to the degree that article suggests. Maybe that's part of our educational system's problem....
Perhaps a different line of logic to debate this? Since technically if I lived in the American South during the early 1800's I could buy a slave, and this would be legal, no coercion would be involved, and both parties would obtain something of value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Is anyone forcing colleges to accept this money?
Slavery is inherently coercive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And how well does the system work when donors run out of money, or the funding dries up? Any objections to Saudis funding shiny buildings, and hiring those who agree to teach their favorite brand of "material"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
When state governments are unreliable or ineffective, you don't just throw in the towel and go begging to the billionaires. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There's still a distinction for public/state universities, moreso than private schools. Plus, not all funding is alike.
It's different if McDonald's and Pizza Hut want to build Penn State's student center and sell their fast food in the cafeteria, or if Gatorade wants to "own" advertising rights to a section of their football stadium. But when billionaires with an admitted political agenda exploit state schools' budget quagmires, that's practically bribery or extortion. It might be perfectly legal, but it's not professional, or ethical, IMO. Not when it comes to public state schools.
Funny, I remember being intrigued by George Soros starting a private school for alternative economics/finance/business with his billions, plus some others' money and input. You were very quick to trash that, because you don't like his left-leaning proclivities and (more importantly) you said it wasn't legitimate because it didn't follow "conventional standards of academic, peer reviewed rigor". Paraphrased.
But when it's billionaires buying particular curriculum and teachers in public schools (Koch funded Cato Institute, and you like their right-leaning bend)....suddenly it's legitimate? Education is nothing more than a monetary exchange for "services"? :hmm:
Or is education really fucked up because of tenure, teacher unions, displaced power and misuse of public funds? I remember you "whining" about that being a major factor that's hurting our education system. (I won't suggest you move to Canada with all your "whining", though.)
:donkey:
Whoa so basically a billionaire can place a puppet brainwasher inside a mediocre public uni ie. an institution containing the least impressive and independent of middle class thinkers and because of tenure he may never be kicked out?? :bulb:
Anyway, no matter who ends up getting that position, permanently discrediting him as being bought would be no challenge at all for a bunch of students.
Koch Brothers have their fingers in all sorts of American Life, from education and energy to all things legislative and political. Not sure if any of their groups or sub-groups fit under "charitable organization" at this rate. The IRS is investigating their tax exempt status, at least from the PAC angle....whatever that means.
:popcorn:
I've already addressed the defense that bad ideas aren't worth addressing because they wouldn't impact a large part of the system.:noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Exactly. Look, every professor has biases. Some professors have a known public bias and others don't. Universities are full of professors with opinions. The professor whose job is endowed by a particular individual/group (and everyone knows it) is the last person who is going to be a secret stalking-horse in academia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
But ultimately, the point of funding a professorship is a charitable gift. The Koch brothers are just the latest victims of a spate of left-wing conspiracy theories (much like George Soros is to the right).
Is it somehow morally superior when it is done with money rather than dachas?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Does it matter?
It was your question?
By "money", I was referring to any method of payment.
Payment as free speech?
I don't get what you're getting at. My point was that it was a fair transaction that didn't infringe on anyone's rights. What exactly is the problem? If either side thought it was a bad deal, it was free to refuse it.
I just have a thing about buying legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
We're talking about the guy gave a college money. What does that have to do with legislation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Oh, sorry. I thought we were discussing the Koch brothers.
The Koch brothers gave the donations to the colleges...Which legislation are you referring to?
I can't accept that this is being asked in good faith.
Seriously, I can't find any mention of laws. The only mention I see on the last page is them giving money to some universities.
Are you saying you don't know who they are?
No, the article on the last page is the first time I've heard of them...Are they the right-wing bogeyman for the left?
Going back to school choice, here we have something I referenced earlier in the thread. In this case, Orthodox and Hasidic Jews have become a significant portion of a particular school district but don't send their kids to public schools. Yet they still pay taxes for the public schools. Sick of this, they are banding-together and taking over the school board to basically dismantle the public school system.
This is a pretty dick move on their part. Then again, who wants to pay for an education that they and their neighbors mostly don't benefit from?
But it's clear that everyone loses here: the religious people who are double-paying for education and the public school kids who are having their educational system dismantled and have no other choices. Vouchers would make this particular situation much more of a win-win for everyone involved.
Quote:
May 16, 2011
Schools Fight Gets Heated
By SUMATHI REDDY
SPRING VALLEY—The large Orthodox Jewish community here sends most of its children to private schools but took control of the public school district six years ago.
Now, there's a heated school board election pitting three Orthodox Jewish candidates against so-called "public school candidates," who have or had children in the school system.
Critics say the current school board has favored private schools, closing two public schools and arranging for them to be used by yeshivas, or private Jewish schools.
Members of the Orthodox Jewish community say the board is acting appropriately and trying to make sure that the needs of children attending private school aren't ignored.
At a Parent Teacher Association candidate's forum last week, the only candidates that showed up were public school candidates. None of their opponents made an appearance.
It was the same story at an NAACP candidate's forum earlier this month. The Orthodox candidates complain they never received an invitation.
"There has been a lot of division, unfortunately," said Kim Foskew, president of the Parent Teacher Association Council. "I wish there weren't. People are getting angry. It's just the culmination of everything and it has built up a lot of animosity."
Similar power struggles have taken place in communities with large Orthodox populations, such as Lawrence, Long Island, and Lakewood, N.J. But in the East Ramapo district, residents say the conflict has reached the breaking point. Both the Anti-Defamation League and the New York Civil Liberties Union have written letters to school officials expressing concerns about various issues in the district.
Situated about 35 miles northwest of New York City, the East Ramapo district faces an unusual situation. Its public student population of roughly 8,100 is dwarfed by a private student population of about 20,000. The majority of private students are educated in yeshivas.
For years the Orthodox community—migrating to Rockland from Brooklyn—held a couple of seats on the nine-member board. But as the private student population grew, they began contesting more seats.
In 2005, Orthodox members became the majority on the East Ramapo school board. In a subsequent election the first Hasidic was elected to the board. Since then, the Hasidim have become the majority.
Critics claim that the school board has ignored the needs of a student population that is about 90% minority, with large Haitian and Latino populations. More than 60% of the district's public students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch last year.
One of the closed schools was leased to two yeshivas; the other was slated to be sold to a yeshiva. The sale is on hold pending a review of a complaint filed by Steve White, an activist heading up the campaigns of the public school candidates, to state officials, alleging that the sale price was undervalued.
Parents critical of the board also allege that the board has improperly placed Orthodox Jewish special education students in private and other public schools. A state education audit last year found that the district was placing students with disabilities in private schools when spots were available in public schools.
The local branch of the NAACP filed a complaint with the federal Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights alleging discrimination for special education placements, among other things, which is currently under investigation.
Some parents and activists were further angered when the board replaced its long-time local attorney with a Long Island attorney who charges a higher hourly rate and has represented an Orthodox-controlled board in Long Island where he helped with similar legal challenges regarding school closures and special education.
Samuel Heilman, a professor of Jewish Studies at Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, said Hasidic and Orthodox populations, such as in Ramapo, have many internal divisions and sects. But when it comes securing more resources for their community, they will rally together.
"They vote as a bloc," said Mr. Heilman. "They vote based on who is going to provide them with services. They have a very strong grass-roots network and everybody knows who they have to vote for."
Aron Wieder has been leading the Orthodox faction of the school board since his election three years ago. Mr. Wieder abruptly decided not to seek re-election.
At a "Kosher on the Go" Shell gas station in Monsey last week two men speaking in Yiddish asked Mr. Wieder why he wasn't running.
Mr. Wieder explains that he became a lightning rod of controversy so he decided not to run. But he remains concerned that the Orthodox could lose their majority. Others in his community share his concern. They say that the board should be equally concerned with both public and private students.
"I think the purpose of the school board is to make sure that all kids get an education," said Shaya Green, an Orthodox Jew from Monsey who has four children in private school. "All kids include private school kids. And public school kids. There's very little that we get back from the district. I'm very worried that if they get in they will take that all way."
The district pays for the transportation for private school students and textbooks, as mandated by state law, as well as the education of all special needs students.
Many in the Orthodox and Hasidic communities defend the placement of special needs students in schools outside of the district. "Not every child in the Hasidic community is the right fit and the comfortable fit to be put into a public school class," said Yehuda Weissmandl, a Hasidic Jew who is running for the school board. "And that is something that needs to be understood and respected."
But the opposition candidates, such as Peggy Hatton, who lost a campaign in 2009, say the cultural misunderstandings go the other way, too.
"The people who are currently running the school board do not understand the culture of the children who attend the public schools and they don't quite frankly have skin in the game," said Ms. Hatton. "Why do they want to be a part of the school board to begin with?"
Write to Sumathi Reddy at sumathi.reddy@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...278029730.html
I'm sorry but if I was brought up with a devoutly religious education and this was allowed to occur without any benefit to at least some other more fortunate person, I would not consider this "win-win". I'd consider this "lose-lose" as I'd have been deprived of a proper education and a chance at a functional and beneficial life toward a whole society, and somebody else would have been deprived of the taxes my parents paid towards that school district. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Ohh! Okay, I'm sorry, I really did think you'd have heard of it. A lot of the turmoil around governor Walker was how he's basically serving the Koch brothers in exchange of his state. Look it up, it's good stuff. (Or left-wing whining about bogey-men, in your narrative, I suppose) And that's just the tip of a very depressing ice berg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
How does vouchers deprive anyone of an education or the benefits of their taxes in this case? It's a more even distribution of tax money that doesn't lead to voting blocs seizing control of a school district in the name of self-interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...demic-freedom/
Quote:
In contrast, the invocation of academic freedom is certainly to the point in my second example, the controversy at Florida State University over a gift given to the economics department in 2008 by a foundation funded by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. The gift was given to support the creation of two new appointments. There’s nothing untoward about that; it is routine for corporations and foundations to underwrite or augment the funding of faculty appointments. (At Johns Hopkins I held a Kenan chair the support for which came from an oil fortune.) Sometimes the funds are provided without specifying a subject or a discipline; sometimes the gift is more targeted. This gift was very targeted; it was to support the teaching of free-market, anti-regulatory economics.
That’s where the trouble begins. Is the foundation funding the study of free-market economics — a perfectly respectable academic subject — or is it mandating that free-market economics be promoted in the classroom? Is it a gift intended to stimulate research the conclusions of which can not be known in advance, or is it a gift intended to amplify a conclusion — free-market economics is good; regulation is bad — the philanthropists have already reached and want to broadcast using Florida State University as a megaphone? If it is the second, Florida State University courts the danger the doctrine of academic freedom was designed to avoid (see the 1915 statement of the then fledgling AAUP), the danger of allowing an outside constituency to take control of academic proceedings and dictate academic decisions.
Evidence that a line may have been crossed is provided by the contract between the foundation and the university. Foundation representatives serve on the search committee and have the power to veto candidates. If the selected professors fail to perform in a manner the foundations approves, it will withdraw its support. This of course means that the foundation in effect monitors and assesses academic performance. On the other side, the faculty has the decisive voice in making appointments; it need not accept the candidates the foundation favors, and in fact the two who were finally hired were not on the foundation’s preferred list, although we can presume the foundation did not find them objectionable.
In a telephone conversation with me, FSU President Eric J. Barron (who was not in office when this all went down) explained that while the foundation’s representatives could have exercised a veto, it never came to that. He added that if the new faculty members ever failed to meet the foundation’s expectations and its gift was withdrawn, the university would step in and provide the necessary support. He acknowledged that these arrangements might make people nervous — some administration members expressed reservations in 2008 and changes were made to the contract — but he insisted that, despite press characterizations of the situation, FSU had not sold its soul. (I am not a stranger to such situations. My first assignment as a dean at the University of Illinois at Chicago was to finalize the details of a gift given to the university for the funding of a Catholic Studies program. Many of the issues that arose at FSU arose at UIC and were negotiated.)
Barron makes a reasonable case but it is undercut by the words of David Rasmussen, dean of the College of Social Science at FSU. Rasmussen is either tone deaf or disingenuous. His account of the affair is anodyne: “The Economics department says here are the two people we really like, goes to the advisory board and says, will you approve these two people, and they say yes.”
In short, what’s the problem? The problem is that the sequence unfolds under the threat of an adverse action by a non-academic entity. Rasmussen says he is “sure some faculty will say this is not exactly consistent with their view of academic freedom.” The implication is that “their view” is a minority view or an over-fastidious view, but the view that university hiring and firing procedures shouldn’t dance to the tune of an external constituency is absolutely mainstream and is the core of what academic freedom stands for.
Rasmussen’s most egregious comments concern another matter. BB&T, the bank holding company, funds an ethic course on the condition that Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” be required reading. (That might constitute cruel and unusual punishment.) The reasoning, offered by BB&T representative John Allison, is that “most universities are dominated by liberal professors.” (I have argued elsewhere that a scholar’s political views and his or her disciplinary views are independent variables.) Rasmussen thinks this is just fine. “If somebody says, ‘We’re willing to help support your students and faculty by giving you money, but we’d like you to read this book,’ that doesn’t strike me as a big sin.” What would be a big sin, he continues, “is saying that certain ideas cannot be discussed.” No, the sin is to insist that a certain idea be discussed whether or not it has made its academic way because a few disappointed outsiders are willing to spend big bucks to get it inside. If, in the judgment of an instructor, “Atlas Shrugged” will contribute to a student’s understanding of a course’s subject, there is every reason to assign it. But if assigning “Atlas Shrugged” is the price for the receiving of monies and the university pays that price, it has indeed sold its soul.
The Northwestern and FSU examples help us to understand when academic freedom issues legitimately arise. They arise when the university either allows its professors to appropriate the classroom for non-academic purposes, as some think John Michael Bailey did, or allows itself to become the wholly owned subsidiary of another enterprise, as FSU may have done.
There are of course other contexts in which academic freedom is at stake, but the awarding of an honoray degree to Tony Kushner or anyone else isn’t one of them. You needn’t take my word for it. Give yourself the pleasure of reading two learned but entirely accessible books — Matthew Finkin’s and Robert Post’s “For the Common Good: Principles of American Academic Freedom” (2009) and Rodney Smolla’s “The Constitution Goes to College” (2011).
So they get treated by the left the way Soros gets treated by the right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus