Campus Thought Police: Donors Demand More Kissinger!

[Shalcker]

Thats not really what I meant by product. But I would probably agree with you, republicans would probably be much more likely to think that education and college should be a commodity, with "target audiences" and things of that nature, where "donors" and/or "sponsors" can tell them what and how to teach things ... instead of you know, actual professionals and educators.

Educators produce educators, and demand for educators is limited (with tenure going the way of dodo and all).

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Educators produce educators, and demand for educators is limited (with tenure going the way of dodo and all).

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. But sponsor should have no say in education outside of where their money goes, they can spend it as they please I guess, but anything outside of that is literally just bribery and extortion.

Why do these conservatives need to force their viewpoints into US education? It clearly isn't that popular wi0th students (lack of demand, or Yale would gladly supply it) and its not popular with the people actually teaching it, as seen by these dirty tactics, and then its not popular by actual professionals...

So they have a nebulous motive, shady actions, and they feel the need to force this money. I'm sorry, but education isn't something that should be "bought" or "sold," and capitalists shouldn't look at it with dollar signs in their eyes.

[Shalcker]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. But sponsor should have no say in education outside of where their money goes, they can spend it as they please I guess, but anything outside of that is literally just bribery and extortion.

Which is what happened in this particular case; i guess you agree that they were within their right then?

Why do these conservatives need to force their viewpoints into US education? It clearly isn't that popular wi0th students (lack of demand, or Yale would gladly supply it) and its not popular with the people actually teaching it, as seen by these dirty tactics, and then its not popular by actual professionals...

They didn't had to previously because program was run by Bush-supporting conservative.

Now they are willing to provide ~17 millions to keep it going as long as modern activism is kept out - despite, as you mention, low popularity.
17 millions that sponsors pay you to keep 20 student program going that also gives access to current and former politicians is quite good deal for Yale.

So they have a nebulous motive, shady actions, and they feel the need to force this money. I'm sorry, but education isn't something that should be "bought" or "sold," and capitalists shouldn't look at it with dollar signs in their eyes.

What is the point of "Grand Strategy" program if not as door into politics?
What kind of "education" is being "sold" in this case?

[Edge-]

ITT: lefties crying that conservatives don't want to pay money to things they disagree with.

Donations aren't payment. So it's more that conservatives don't understand what donations are or how they work.

[CostinR]

Donations aren't payment. So it's more that conservatives don't understand what donations are or how they work.

In an era where politicians and institutions an unbelievable amount of time, energy and effort into pleasing their donors because, surprise surprise it matters what those donors feel, this statement of yours is particularly laughable. Donations are very rarely given for free with no strings attached when we talk about millions of dollars and in this case: Yes there were strings, legal ones, attached.

[Endus]

In an era where politicians and institutions an unbelievable amount of time, energy and effort into pleasing their donors because, surprise surprise it matters what those donors feel, this statement of yours is particularly laughable. Donations are very rarely given for free with no strings attached when we talk about millions of dollars and in this case: Yes there were strings, legal ones, attached.

"Oh ho ho, you're so naive for thinking that corruption is avoidable! Corruption is the entire system, you poor deluded fool."

Quite the non-argument.

If you're attaching strings to a donation, it isn't a donation. It's payment for services rendered, those "services" being whatever the "strings" involved.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Which is what happened in this particular case; i guess you agree that they were within their right then?

They didn't had to previously because program was run by Bush-supporting conservative.

Now they are willing to provide ~17 millions to keep it going as long as modern activism is kept out - despite, as you mention, low popularity.
17 millions that sponsors pay you to keep 20 student program going that also gives access to current and former politicians is quite good deal for Yale.

What is the point of "Grand Strategy" program if not as door into politics?
What kind of "education" is being "sold" in this case?

Its within their rights to extort people? I'm not sure why a donor would have access to telling an institution who can be on its board, for instance. Pretty big overreach.

Its not a good deal for Yales Integrity, thats for sure.

What is being sold in this case? Well if these donors are having to strong arm their way into the school, I would say its a bunch of bullshit that would fit somewhere like PragerU.

- - - Updated - - -

ITT: lefties crying that conservatives don't want to pay money to things they disagree with.

ITT: Conservatives think they can force their "view" of education on others because they have a lot of money. I fixed it for you.

[CostinR]

"Oh ho ho, you're so naive for thinking that corruption is avoidable! Corruption is the entire system, you poor deluded fool."

Quite the non-argument.

If you're attaching strings to a donation, it isn't a donation. It's payment for services rendered, those "services" being whatever the "strings" involved.

No one gives away 250 million USD for free without any conditions on how it's being spent, and that very well includes donations of any kind including charity work. The people who gave Yale this money had expectations.

Corruption? People keep donors happy because they want them to keep getting money. No one owes you their money. It is that simple and Yale signed a legal agreement for this particular program.

You're more then welcome to wake up to the way the world works one day.

[Levelfive]

Yeah. Nevertheless, there are undeniable issues with the process tied to the quality and availability of referees.

The system is not perfect. Because of course it is not. If a serious paper gets caught up in the biased referee limbo there are work arounds. They are sometimes time consuming, but there are work arounds.

The dangers of lazy or incompetent refereeing are much greater.

See that one infamous shoddy Lancet article that basically launched the modern anti-vaxx movement and has likely lead to the death or permanent injury of likely hundreds of thousands of children in the years since.

Right, and this is the sleight of hand our local disinformation peddler latches onto--the process isn't perfect, so therefore nothing can ever be trusted, and therefore pseudoscience is equivalent to science. Of course, this is specious nonsense that falls apart under minimal inspection: no one ever claimed the process is perfect, and the choices aren't perfection or trash. It's a continually iterative process, and self-correcting over time (sometimes longer than others); the fact that the scientific community corrects as new evidence comes to light is a strength, not a weakness.

His game ultimately and inevitably boils down to the same very deliberate and deceptive non sequitur every time--human beings are fallible, so lies are just as good as the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

No one gives away 250 million USD for free without any conditions on how it's being spent, and that very well includes donations of any kind including charity work. The people who gave Yale this money had expectations.

Corruption? People keep donors happy because they want them to keep getting money. No one owes you their money. It is that simple and Yale signed a legal agreement for this particular program.

You're more then welcome to wake up to the way the world works one day.

Academic institutions are ethically obligated, if nothing else, to protect academic freedom from donor influence. It's a whole thing. That's why this is a scandal.

[Endus]

No one gives away 250 million USD for free without any conditions on how it's being spent, and that very well includes donations of any kind including charity work. The people who gave Yale this money had expectations.

"Stop complaining about corruption! Corruption is how the world works!"

Not an argument.

Some of these kinds of quid pro quos are straight-up illegal, particularly around political donations.

Corruption? People keep donors happy because they want them to keep getting money. No one owes you their money. It is that simple and Yale signed a legal agreement for this particular program.

That's the definition of "corruption". Instead of doing what is best for the program and students, Yale is pushed to consider what the donor wants, corrupting the ethical standards and direction of the institution in the process.

You're more then welcome to wake up to the way the world works one day.

I'm well aware corruption exists.

I'm just not willing to accept that status quo without question. Unlike, apparently, you.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

No one gives away 250 million USD for free without any conditions on how it's being spent, and that very well includes donations of any kind including charity work. The people who gave Yale this money had expectations.

Corruption? People keep donors happy because they want them to keep getting money. No one owes you their money. It is that simple and Yale signed a legal agreement for this particular program.

You're more then welcome to wake up to the way the world works one day.

They have a legal agreement that says only white people can be on its board, or what is taught, etc?

Sorry, this isn't a donation anymore, its just straight up someone paying for propaganda.

[Mihalik]

No one gives away 250 million USD for free without any conditions on how it's being spent, and that very well includes donations of any kind including charity work. The people who gave Yale this money had expectations.

Here's the thing. The donors could have set up the program with clear outlines of what they expected the program to teach.

They could have just said - Here's x million dollars, teach foreign policy like Henry Kissinger would!

Of course, that would have tainted the academic credentials of the course and Yale would likely have politely declined as it wouldn't have been worth the PR hassle. Or it might have taken it, who knows. But that's a moot point. That's not what they did.

They gave Yale X amount of money and said - Set up a cutting edge program taught by the most pro-eminent nerds you can get your hands on.

This created the academic credentials of the program.

Coming in years later and pressuring Yale to go from the former to the latter is the problem. This taints the entire program, everyone who took the course and everyone who taught in it.

See the issue? Because I sure as shit do. That's why Yale should have politely told the donors to either STFU and GTFO or that they'd be welcome to take their donations and program to Liberty University or something. That would have preserved the integrity of Yale and the program as taught at Yale.

[Shalcker]

Here's the thing. The donors could have set up the program with clear outlines of what they expected the program to teach.

They could have just said - Here's x million dollars, teach foreign policy like Henry Kissinger would!

Of course, that would have tainted the academic credentials of the course and Yale would likely have politely declined as it wouldn't have been worth the PR hassle. Or it might have taken it, who knows. But that's a moot point. That's not what they did.

They gave Yale X amount of money and said - Set up a cutting edge program taught by the most pro-eminent nerds you can get your hands on.

This created the academic credentials of the program.

Coming in years later and pressuring Yale to go from the former to the latter is the problem. This taints the entire program, everyone who took the course and everyone who taught in it.

Program wasn't run just by "most pro-eminent nerds" though. It was about conservative foreign policy from very inception, run by conservatives, teaching it the way Kissinger would.

WaPo:
Yale’s Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy has that name because of who funds it: former U.S. Treasury secretary Nicholas Brady and Charles Johnson, a “mutual fund billionaire and leading Republican donor,” according to Schuessler. The program has attracted the ire of those on the left for some time now. This has mostly to do with the program’s initial management team: historians John Lewis Gaddis, Charles Hill and Paul Kennedy. Hill and Gaddis were supporters, sometimes very vocal supporters, of George W. Bush’s grand strategy.

Under Gage’s leadership, the Grand Strategy program had adopted a more capacious view of the term. According to the Times story, she “expanded the syllabus to include grass-roots social movements, like the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong and the civil rights movement in the United States.” This is certainly an expansive definition of a highly contested term but certainly not beyond the pale.

Gage only took over in 2017.

And donor pressure comes as setting up advisory council - something they are legally entitled to due to 2006 gift agreement with Yale.

- - - Updated - - -

Its within their rights to extort people? I'm not sure why a donor would have access to telling an institution who can be on its board, for instance. Pretty big overreach.

It's donor-appointed advisory board; exact powers those on it are entitled to aren't clear from the articles, but the entire point is that donors decide who goes there, not Yale - and Yale agreed to it when they accepted money.

That they didn't previously exercise this option only comes from them not paying attention to it - and being in agreement with those who previously ran it.

Its not a good deal for Yales Integrity, thats for sure.

Plenty of other examples of this "integrity" being limited.

What is being sold in this case? Well if these donors are having to strong arm their way into the school, I would say its a bunch of bullshit that would fit somewhere like PragerU.

And yet it was taught in Yale. Because Yale loves those millions.

[CostinR]

That's the definition of "corruption". Instead of doing what is best for the program and students, Yale is pushed to consider what the donor wants, corrupting the ethical standards and direction of the institution in the process.

"What is best for the program and students" is a matter of debate. It might occur to people that the professor isn't the one who's got it right here simply because she wanted to things differently for the program and neither is she right because she resigned because her superiors at Yale did not appoint a diversity board to advise on the program.

They gave Yale X amount of money and said - Set up a cutting edge program taught by the most pro-eminent nerds you can get your hands on.

This created the academic credentials of the program.

Coming in years later and pressuring Yale to go from the former to the latter is the problem. This taints the entire program, everyone who took the course and everyone who taught in it.

See the issue? Because I sure as shit do. That's why Yale should have politely told the donors to either STFU and GTFO or that they'd be welcome to take their donations and program to Liberty University or something. That would have preserved the integrity of Yale and the program as taught at Yale.

They set up the program under specific conditions then the professor in charge decided to change things and the donors were not happy with that, led to a conflict, led to the professor resigning because she didn't get the advisory board to be diversified, led to her going to the media and the media pressuring Yale over what it did. Want to talk about undue pressure?

Yale could have done a lot of things, they set up a program under a legal agreement and shockingly it got enforced. Hardly campus "thought police" or "evil conservatives controlling academia".

This is a pissing match between a professor and those that funded the program. I don't take the view the professor is right because she's the "expert" or "nerd" on this, not after seeing what the "experts" have conjured up over the last 30 years in terms of American foreign policy, nor do I take the view the donors are right either, especially not since they were associated with George Bush.

[Levelfive]

A couple facts here before the effort to muddy the waters continues: "After a New York Times op-ed by Yale political science professor Bryan Garsten calling Trump a demagogue, donors demanded that the University appoint an advisory board to practitioner appointments of the program, concerned about Garsten’s affiliation with Grand Strategy. The advisory board was part of the original agreement of the program, but it was never implemented, likely because the past administration recognized it conflicted with the University’s core mission. The advisory board suggested by the donors was to be stocked with older conservatives, including Henry Kissinger. The administration agreed to these demands, including inviting Kissinger to join the board." https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/...lionaires-toy/

I can't find anything claiming Yale had a "legal" obligation rather than an "agreement"--if someone can, I'd like to see it just out of curiosity; short of that, it just seems like another attempt to put a specific spin on the situation, but either way: "Gage said that she was briefly shown a portion of the 2006 gift agreement outlining the five-member advisory board, and appointment powers to the Grand Strategy advisory board were explicitly granted to the University president." https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/...demic-freedom/

"According to emerita professor of history Glenda Gilmore, the University “catastrophically” failed to properly balance these two principles.

“Academic freedom is sacrosanct, yet Salovey’s and Lewis’s comments suggest that they tried to please the donors while trying to persuade Gage to acquiesce to their interference,” Gilmore wrote in an email. “At the donors’ first complaint, whether about Bryan [Garsten’s] op-ed or Gage’s lesson plans, they should have unequivocally made it clear that such conversations were inappropriate and would be off limits in the future.”"

Here's Salovey's apology in full:

Yale’s unwavering commitment to academic freedom
October 1, 2021

Dear Fellow Members of the Yale Faculty,

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that one of our colleagues, History Professor Beverly Gage, felt strongly that her leadership of the Grand Strategy program was questioned and interfered with by the program’s donors. I have unqualified respect and admiration for Professor Gage, and I am genuinely sorry that she did experience more unsolicited input from donors than faculty members should reasonably be expected to accept. I have known both Professor Gage and these donors for a long time, and all of them are wonderful members of our community who care deeply about Grand Strategy, and about Yale. For everyone’s benefit, I should have tried harder to improve the situation.

Let me be clear: Yale is committed to free inquiry and academic freedom—these are the university’s foundational values and have been my own over the course of my 35 years on the faculty. I unequivocally support the faculty’s right to conduct research, scholarship, and teaching without outside interference.

Since yesterday, I have heard from many faculty members and alumni. Your emails to me have a clear message: we must take great care to ensure that gifts we receive do not infringe on the academic freedom of our faculty.

As we begin the public phase of our current fundraising campaign, and in consideration of Professor Gage’s experience, I am giving new and careful consideration to how we can reinforce our fundamental commitment to academic freedom in our engagement with donors. We must always ensure that faculty members are protected from any interference in shaping the curriculum and in setting the course for their research and scholarship. This is your expectation and mine, and it is the expectation of our donors.

With best regards,

Peter Salovey
President
Chris Argyris Professor of Psychology

https://president.yale.edu/president...ademic-freedom

[Shalcker]

I can't find anything claiming Yale had a "legal" obligation rather than an "agreement"--if someone can, I'd like to see it just out of curiosity

It was in OP's article:
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Pericles Lewis told the News that Yale had a legal obligation to create the board, in accordance with the 2006 gift agreement. According to the Times, upon learning of the legal agreement, Gage acquiesced, but insisted that the board include diversity across ideological, gender and racial lines.

[Levelfive]

Fair enough--I can't access the Times article after having read it--but as I said: "either way: "Gage said that she was briefly shown a portion of the 2006 gift agreement outlining the five-member advisory board, and appointment powers to the Grand Strategy advisory board were explicitly granted to the University president.""

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Program wasn't run just by "most pro-eminent nerds" though. It was about conservative foreign policy from very inception, run by conservatives, teaching it the way Kissinger would.

WaPo:
Yale’s Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy has that name because of who funds it: former U.S. Treasury secretary Nicholas Brady and Charles Johnson, a “mutual fund billionaire and leading Republican donor,” according to Schuessler. The program has attracted the ire of those on the left for some time now. This has mostly to do with the program’s initial management team: historians John Lewis Gaddis, Charles Hill and Paul Kennedy. Hill and Gaddis were supporters, sometimes very vocal supporters, of George W. Bush’s grand strategy.

Under Gage’s leadership, the Grand Strategy program had adopted a more capacious view of the term. According to the Times story, she “expanded the syllabus to include grass-roots social movements, like the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong and the civil rights movement in the United States.” This is certainly an expansive definition of a highly contested term but certainly not beyond the pale.

Gage only took over in 2017.

And donor pressure comes as setting up advisory council - something they are legally entitled to due to 2006 gift agreement with Yale.

- - - Updated - - -

It's donor-appointed advisory board; exact powers those on it are entitled to aren't clear from the articles, but the entire point is that donors decide who goes there, not Yale - and Yale agreed to it when they accepted money.

That they didn't previously exercise this option only comes from them not paying attention to it - and being in agreement with those who previously ran it.

Plenty of other examples of this "integrity" being limited.

And yet it was taught in Yale. Because Yale loves those millions.

Nothing you said here says that this is correct or void of corruption.

- - - Updated - - -

Yale could have done a lot of things, they set up a program under a legal agreement and shockingly it got enforced. Hardly campus "thought police" or "evil conservatives controlling academia".

I'm not sure what you think this is outside of a group of people trying to overturn academic freedom with money under the guise of a "legal agreement" that apparently means only white people allowed, and that they will teach what they want regardless of truth etc.

[Edge-]

I'm not sure what you think this is outside of a group of people trying to overturn academic freedom with money under the guise of a "legal agreement" that apparently means only white people allowed, and that they will teach what they want regardless of truth etc.

"Was slavery really that bad for the slaves? They got free housing, free food, free clothes, and a job that could keep them fulfilled. PragerU investigates whether or not slaves were ultimately the beneficiaries of slavery (spoilers, they were!) in the next exciting seminar this Thursday."

Considering how many, "The Civil War wasn't about slavery!" and "Slavery really wasn't so bad, and it existed before America did it so stop being mean to America!" videos they've put out I don't even want to google is this is an actual video topic for them.

[Flarelaine]

"Was slavery really that bad for the slaves? They got free housing, free food, free clothes, and a job that could keep them fulfilled. PragerU investigates whether or not slaves were ultimately the beneficiaries of slavery (spoilers, they were!) in the next exciting seminar this Thursday."

Considering how many, "The Civil War wasn't about slavery!" and "Slavery really wasn't so bad, and it existed before America did it so stop being mean to America!" videos they've put out I don't even want to google is this is an actual video topic for them.

I generally just refer the secession proclamations that tend to confirm that yes, it was about slavery.