Yes, VP Vance went to Yale Law (and Ohio State undergrad), but he is now vehemently anti-elite universities:
I suspect Trump’s view is more nuanced. He’s a Wharton guy who seems to like to hire Ivy Leaguers (like Vance and Sec Def Hegseth, for example) but who remembers a time when universities were much more patriotic, and likely wants to push them back to that characteristic, at least somewhat. Seems like he’s disgusted by what’s going on and wants to force change.
My understanding with Dartmouth is that the cuts would not be because of civil rights issues, etc. but because of the high percentages the universities have been charging the federal government for so-called indirect costs. That’s a different subject.
I would never in a million years use the word “nuance” in relation to Trump.
I am curious what is meant by “…universities were much more patriotic”?
I don’t understand your point, about being non-elitist in education. Do you feel only those who went to “elite” universities should be hired to their staff or hold important roles in government? Does not going to an “elite institution” mean someone is less qualified in your eyes?
It’s not just academic institutions that charge indirect costs. All the National Research Labs (operated by the DOE and DOD) also charge grant recipients for indirect costs. (Dh used to call it a “tax” he paid for his research grants.)
So why target academic institutions and not other research institutions?
Based on everything I have read about him, it would astonish me if Trump remembered anything at all about his time at Wharton. He left virtually no impression on any of his professors or classmates when he was a student there and did not graduate with any distinction whatsoever.
Trump graduated Penn in 1968. If he was in fact on campus, he would surely have been in the midst of Vietnam war protests. Few would describe this era as patriotic on college campuses.
Still, his own experiences in college and insecurities about his intelligence may shed some light on his current animus towards universities.
My understanding is not the fact that indirect costs are charged, but rather the amounts given and what they are used for that is the issue. As an example, my spouse worked at a Big 10 institution research lab in the 1990s. At that time indirect costs given where 15% standard on any federal government grant given. Now it seems most institutions have been allowed to negotiate much higher indirect costs. I don’t know what they all are, but I do know that at the University one of my kids attended, they are now 60%! At a top school a family friend is attending for their PhD, the amount is even higher. This has allowed this person to travel extensively/ eat at top restaurants/ stay at top of the line hotels in a way that is making them feel more than a bit icky.
The point being is, I agree the basis of these cuts is about the excessive indirect cost, not for the research itself.
No. The discussion said Trump and Vance were elitist because of their alma maters.
I was pointing out just because both are Ivy does not mean they are elitist - and I gave examples of the key staff that went to what most would consider non elite schools.
Trump romanticizes the past, but I suspect his chosen frame of reference is the 1950s, when he was child.
My spouse worked at National Research Lab for his entire career. His indirect costs were always higher than 15% (probably because as a National Lab, the facility doesn’t get outside funding from sources other than the federal government…)
Grant money is not supposed to be used to pay for upscale hotels and restaurants. If the individual you are referencing is using it that way, they are abusing their grant.
SIL travels for conferences as part of his job as director of research program and as a board member/officer for various academic organizations. He gets a per diem allowance. If he chooses to spend more than his per diem allows, it comes out of his pocket. (Same was true when DH was still traveling for work.)SIL always flies coach (since that’s all his grant allows)–even when he’s flying halfway around the world.
According to Nature, indirect costs ranged from 15% to 60%, but each individual grant was able to negotiate its own cap based upon its needs. Large institutions were more able to successfully negotiate higher caps–likely because highly specialized lab require greater infrastructure support. (High-powered computing centers require special electrical & cooling systems, for example. Same for labs using very high powered lasers. Laser labs also require specialized foundations to ensure a perfectly level surface. Labs that handle nuclear materials requires very specialized storage and handling facilities and extra layers of security.) Cancer treatment centers have some of the same infrastructure needs as highly specialized research labs. They house huge computing centers that are use to operate radiation therapy equipment and process imaging data . They also need highly specialized facilities to “cook,” process, store and dispose of radioactive isotopes** used in cancer treatment and [PET and CAT] imaging studies.
**Most of these isotopes have a very short half life so must be irradiated onsite which means a cancer treatment facility needs to have its own small nuclear reactor.
And trained staff to handle nuclear waste.
Do you want folks with a two day “onboarding” dealing with this stuff? Recruiting, training, continuously updating safety procedures…these are the indirect costs folks are complaining about. If someone is traveling deluxe on the government nickel, fire that employee. But don’t throw sand in the gears of the entire research apparatus because someone abuses their travel budget.
The demand letter states:
“An investment is not an entitlement.”
While the above statement may or may not be accurate in this matter (for example think about the concept of detrimental reliance), the most reasonable course of action would be for Harvard University to comply to the extent that it is willing to do so and to negotiate regarding the rest of the particulars.
If Harvard University is unwilling to bend and to negotiate, then prepare for several years of litigation in the hope that the next administration will be more accommodating/less demanding.
The truth, in my view, is that some of the federal government’s demands are reasonable in this time of unreasonableness.
This is not a highly specialized lab that I am speaking of, and indirect cost were above 60%.
Not necessarily. It would have to be litigated, but if Harvard makes a case that this is punishment for their contisutionally protected free speech, then they are likely to win in court. The administration would have to prove that Harvard is harming it’s student’s civil liberties, and not that they are saying things he disagrees with. Given the scope and breadth of the demands, as well as the administration’s statements, Harvard should be able to make a compelling case that the administration is punishing Harvard for not backing a political narrative favored by the administration.
Obligatory caveat that I am not a lawyer.
Also, for those not used to applying to grants, typically money is given based on the strength of the grant proposal and is only pulled based on failure to adhere to the grant proposal.
So a cancer research trial should have nothing to do with what a Middle East studies professor says in her class about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I’d disagree that any of them are flat out reasonable, but some are way more unreasonable than others.
However, setting a precedent for the government to dictate internal governance, or giving the government oversight over hiring and admissions would be a point of no return. And most likely a violation of Harvard’s first amendment rights.
The demands to Columbia were nowhere near as onerous which is probably why they felt more comfortable to negotiate. The optics were worse than they anticipated though, in Columbia’s case. And in Harvard’s case the optics have been pretty great.
What you’re describing is the relationship that exists between governments and universities in countries under autocratic rule, not the sort of relationship that exists in liberal democratic societies governed by the rule of law and due process.
Important to note that pressure on scientific inquiry is not limited to using research funding as leverage. Nor are universities the only target.
Here is the Justice Department turning their attention to peer-reviewed medical journals: