Posted on 04/25/2016 6:48:04 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
Normally, professors and college administrators see no end to their ever-expanding list of things that are "too important to be left to the free market." Apparently, even they have their limits.
When two professors from the University of Illinois at Chicago and Northeastern Illinois University suggested that universities could share and redistribute their own wealth, Brian C. Mitchell of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) used the Academe blog maintained by the AAUP to dissect the idea.
"These professors decry the University of Chicago’s endowment as 'wealth hoarding,' arguing that if the government seized the University's endowment and spread its $7.5 billion across public universities throughout Illinois, then the effect would be a greater public good," Mitchell wrote. "Curiously, they do not make the same case for wealth distribution among the well-endowed flagship public universities in states, for example, like Texas, Virginia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, California, or Washington."
"Further, we do not know how they propose to undertake redistribution. Do government leaders at the federal and state level really represent the best 'hands on the purse strings' given the professors' analysis of the state of the public higher education impasse in Illinois? When Harvard’s Drew Faust has to explain to Congress how endowments are built from a combination of restricted and unrestricted funds, is the primer so basic that the Congressional hearing is at best premature or maybe even unnecessary?"
"And then there is the question of the reaction once the University of Chicago--joined by the rest of the non-profit community, including wealthy public flagship universities--files suit to prevent nationalization. Any action to nationalize funds -- whether restricted or unrestricted by category -- would have a chilling effect on the entire non-profit community."
"It might be better to propose something other than raiding the coffers next door to think about the role that higher education-- public and private -- plays in America." Actually, if parents and taxpayers did devote more time to thinking about that role, they might demand a refund.
The most dangerous place in the world is between liberals and their money.
The benefactors’ intentions should be controlling.
Go ask the professors at a university if they are willing to take a cut in pay so the janitors at the university can have more money.
The fangs come out then.
American universities, where insanity flourishes.
To play devils advocate for a moment...
Let them have their endowments nationalized. Then the democRATS can spend that money buying more votes of the gibsmedats instead of on what those funds were intended to do. Let said professors get the pay cut they deserve and advocate for everyone else. Let their buildings and grounds turn into crapholes. Let them live under the very socialism they advocate for everyone else.
I for one would like to see all of these endowments take a haircut. They have entirely too much money, and as institutional investors they negatively drive the activities of the corporations in which they invest, place their faculty on these corporations boards of directors, and force these businesses to do foolish things.
Have you ever wondered why businesses don’t complain about the quality of the graduates?
The most dangerous place in the world is between liberals and their money.
Aren’t colleges part of the free market? As well as part of capitalism? Shouldn’t colleges be allowed to fail? etc?
Public Universities get tax-payer subsidies. Here in Georgia, public universities and colleges get absurd amounts of money from the lottery. I’m sure it’s the same in most states. It’s a long way from a free market.
(Aren’t colleges part of the free market? As well as part of capitalism? Shouldn’t colleges be allowed to fail? etc?)
Actually, they’re not. A lot of their $ comes from the government, though indirectly, though financial aid (grants and guaranteed loans). When they saw that when they increased tuitions the public outcry by parents results in increasing financial aid by the government, they went crazy doing just that. That’s why tuitions have outpaced even healthcare inflation by a wide margin.
While I trust anybody but the government to spend other people’s money, the universities have become such a counterproductive organ of the Democrat party that I don’t mind at all if their endowment is nationalized. I doubt very much the Democrats would be stupid enough to allow that though.
That's normal addictive behavior. An addict will say and do anything to get it's fix. It will destroy anything it considers a threat to it's fix.
I use the word it to describe the addict because when it is in that "zone" it has ceased to be human.
Consider the implications. If we nationalized college endowments, who in his right mind would ever again make a major contribution to a college? You might as well just pay a tax surcharge.
Then ... if we established the principle that the donors' wishes are no longer controlling, why should college endowments be the only things nationalized? Every private charitable trust would be a target.
There are those on the left who would rejoice at the destruction of an autonomous civil sector. I'm not one of them.
or are they “too big to fail”?
‘The most dangerous place in the world is between liberals and their money’
The most dangerous place in the world is between liberals and THE TAXPAYER’S money. There, fixed it.
I am not disagreeing with you...this would be a bad precedent and could lead to the nationalization of anything that was desired...including your private property, down to your very life where you don’t own yourself.
I just wanted to do a little devils advocate of sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. They always want to immunize themselves from what they advocate for the rest of us.
I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those “academics” who oppose it for themselves but have no compunction about advocating nationalizing damned near everything else.
I’m not even sure, at this point, where the donor’s intent is even being followed on many of these donations.
I think they are quite different types of universities. UIC is fairly new but is a serious research university whereas NEIU is a regional state university. NEIU’s four-year graduation rate is 5%, UIC’s is 33% (not stellar but a good deal higher). There is probably a noticeable difference in the kinds of students who go to one or the other university.
Surprisingly, this is not always the case. I was at an all-college faculty meeting at my last job, and when someone proposed giving the faculty a wage increase, someone else pointed out that the janitors were under-paid. Everyone immediately agreed that we should not get another raise until the custodial staff got one first. True story. Professors may not show much compassion for one another, but they love to show it for the so-called working class (as if the rest of us didn’t work!).
Professors never run out of ideas to impose on the rest of us.
Friend of mine works at a state college that is experiencing cutbacks. The older professors discussed who should retire so the younger ones could keep their jobs.
Did the faculty then give up their raises?
If so, what school was that?
They deserve to be praised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.