Takeover of United States right on schedule

[Grace62]

rjmacs wrote:
. And in academia, reputation is literally everything.

yep.

[J Marston]

Dakota wrote:
Endowed positions always come with strings and the donor certainly has the right to decide how his money is going to be spent.

Well...within limits. A donor can usually determine how a professorship will be directed--an ancient historian, a particle physicist, or an economist--but major problems exist when donors, for political reasons, are allowed a role in vetting prospective candidates. This is the sort of thing that members of the athletic booster club demand; it's not the sort of thing any reputable college or university ought to countenance in an academic department, and I am certain it goes against the standards of the AAUP (American Association of University Professors).

[Mac1337]

rjmacs wrote:


It's true that it's outside general and accepted practice at institutions of higher learning to accept endowments like this, where the donor has direct influence over hiring decisions.

Endowed positions are not only restricted to a specific department but often specific area. For example, John G. Johnson Professor of Molecular Biology. How do you read that?

[rjmacs]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
It's true that it's outside general and accepted practice at institutions of higher learning to accept endowments like this, where the donor has direct influence over hiring decisions.

Endowed positions are not only restricted to a specific department but often specific area. For example, John G. Johnson Professor of Molecular Biology. How do you read that?
Sure - the area of focus is often designated by the donor. But individual vetting and approval of candidates is nigh-unheard of in accredited institutions. So, it's a matter of the degree of involvement. If the donor had designated the position as the "Koch Chair for Market Freedom and Economic Growth," but left the hiring decisions to the Economics Department, there wouldn't be such a fuss. In this instance, the donor actually wants to approve the candidate who holds the post.

Am i making the distinction clearly? I know sometimes i'm not that effective...

[August West]

1995 NYTimes Opinion wrote:
No self-respecting educational institution can allow an outsider -- no matter how well-meaning or generous -- to dictate its education priorities. So Yale University had no choice but to return $20 million to Lee Bass after he insisted on having a say in the hiring of faculty. The saga of Mr. Bass's gift promises to become a cautionary primer for both donors and needy universities.

FSU made a mistake. The donor doesn't support education, but an agenda. A supporter of this donation might reply that the current educational environment at FSU also supports an agenda, I don't know, but there's that old saw, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Then there is the whole public university(?) issue.

[Mac1337]

rjmacs wrote:


Sure - the area of focus is often designated by the donor. But individual vetting and approval of candidates is nigh-unheard of in accredited institutions. So, it's a matter of the degree of involvement. If the donor had designated the position as the "Koch Chair for Market Freedom and Economic Growth," but left the hiring decisions to the Economics Department, there wouldn't be such a fuss. In this instance, the donor actually wants to approve the candidate who holds the post.

Am i making the distinction clearly? I know sometimes i'm not that effective...

But who makes sure the person hired isn't really a scholar of Marxism with perhaps a favorable view of it? Sure, if there are enough checks and balances in the system the department can be trusted with the decision. I have seen faculty hirings that did not follow hiring guidelines and hired people in areas that did not help the department. I suppose it all comes down to this. If the donor's requirements are onerous the school should simply refuse it. There are many schools, or faculty, who actually pride themselves in not asking or receiving DoD money.

[rjmacs]

Dakota wrote:
If the donor's requirements are onerous the school should simply refuse it.

Yup, you got it! I think my point was just to emphasize that the donor's requirements in this case are outside the norm, apparently because the Kochs don't trust that "the person hired isn't really a scholar of Marxism with perhaps a favorable view of it." I hope i've been clear that i don't think the Kochs have done anything wrong by putting conditions on the gift; if it's your money, you can do what you want. My questions are about the university's judgment in accepting those conditions, because i think it will hurt the school's reputation for academic independence. But it's not my call (or my school, or my state), so i'm really just opinionizing.

[Mac1337]

Agreed.