#harvard endowment

[phoenixyfriend]

The irony of recent events is that I finally see a point in college endowments being the size they are

I don't agree they should be that size

But there's something about hearing "Yeah, only Harvard has a big enough endowment to keep on trucking if the feds take all their funding away, which is why Harvard is the one that's suing the government." that makes me go Oh. Okay. I get it now.

[xtruss]

How Clintons Incriminated Themselves In Their Own Books

— February 28, 2025 | Ekaterina Blinova

First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton watches President Clinton pause as he thanks those Democratic members of the House of Representatives who vnted anainct imnearhment in thie Mar 10 1998 file nhotn © AP Photo/ Susan Walsh

Hillary and Bill Clinton's misconduct has been evident for decades, with the couple openly admitting it in print, Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel tells Sputnik, lambasting the FBI and Department of Justice for inaction.

Bill Clinton’s My Life (2004)

Bill Clinton claims that "soon after leaving office [on January 20, 2001], I set up my Foundation's headquarters in Harlem in New York City"...

But the charity was Not Lawfully Registered there at the time, Ortel points out

While Clinton says "my foundation," Ortel finds no record that Bill was a trustee, director or officer of many entities he claims connections to before 2009

Clinton Charities have never been properly audited – a gross violation, the analyst stresses

Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choices (2014)

Hillary describes events in Johannesburg, starting in August 2009, "fighting AIDS" in association with the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI).

But Ortel points out that CHAI did not exist as a lawfully-organized entity until at least February 2010

Hillary references health programs launched in 2002 by Ira Magaziner and Bill Clinton in association with their foundation, but they "were never formally authorized by the IRS, or explained to state, federal or foreign regulators as is strictly required," Ortel notes

© AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

Bigger Than USAID Scandal? Clinton Probe to Expose Gates, Soros and Epstein Links!

The fall of the House of Clinton would trigger a domino effect, upending globalist entities like Bilderberg, billionaires such as Bill Gates & George Soros, and their bought politicians worldwide, says Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel.

How Could The Clinton Foundation Probe Expose Globalists?

Ortel calls CF the largest unprosecuted fraud. If true, its trustees, executives and donors – both US and foreign – could face IRS and legal probes at home and abroad.

Hundreds of billions in grants could be returned to US and foreign governments if fraud is proven, according to the analyst.

What Countries, Entities, And Private Funds Have Donated To The Clintons?

Australia, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, the UK, Ukraine and others funded CF, public records show.

The largest known donor is UNITAID (WHO), which has sent hundreds of millions more than CF has reported to the IRS since 2006.

Other suspicious donors: DFID, AusAID, NORAD and aid agencies from Canada, Ireland and Sweden, Ortel says.

Private foundations also funded Clinton frauds. The Gates Foundation has donated since 2005 – while convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein collaborated with Bill Clinton. George Soros is another key donor.

President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden talk after he was presented with the Global Citizen Award by former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the Clinton Global Initiative Monday, Sept. 23, 2024, in New York. © AP Photo / Manuel Balce Ceneta

Who Promoted the Clintons' Globalist Web?

Harvard, Yale and Columbia University gave credibility to Clinton charity frauds, Ortel says.

Legacy media & publishers boosted Clinton Global Initiative events, ignoring that none were legally registered charities.

Investigation Into the Clinton Charitable Work

A full probe into CF and its offshoots is needed ASAP, Ortel says.

A 2018 hearing revealed CF owes $2.5 billion to the US government for acting as a foreign agent instead of a nonprofit.

But the scandal exceeds $2.5 billion – Bill Clinton used charity as a front, with no honest accounting for AIDS, climate, or Haiti’s missing $10 billion, Ortel concludes.

Exposed: How Clinton Crime Family Laundered US Tax Dollars to Enrich Fake 'Charity' Empire

The Data Republican search tool has revealed tens of millions of US taxpayer dollars in Clinton coffers. Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel argues this is just a fraction of a multibillion-dollar theft.

The charity graph shows $83M in Clinton Foundation receipts for 2023, with just $17K from USAID. While this aligns with its IRS tax report, Ortel questions whether all receipts were declared, citing the charity's history of hiding revenues.

Printscreen of Data Republican Charity Graph. © Photo: Data Republican

The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) graph shows $228M in gross receipts, with $93.9M from USAID. Ortel again doubts these figures fully reveal the extent of the corruption. Rather, the analyst suspects hundreds of billions are stolen annually by NGOs in the US, with Clinton charities playing a key role in widespread humanitarian corruption.

Printscreen of Data Republican Charity Graph. © Photo: Data Republican

CHAI was created in 2009 after a failed 2004 attempt to legitimize illegal fundraising by Clinton for HIV/AIDS efforts, Ortel says. They failed to register as foreign agents in 2002, violating IRS rules. By 2009, Obama’s had team allegedly covered up the CF’s crimes, allowing further expansion.

The 2023 tax figures seem underreported, as the Clintons re-launched the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in 2022 with high-profile fundraising, according to Ortel. "CGI spending approaches and may exceed $100 billion, for which there has never been any attempted accounting, even under the pretense of federally mandated requirements," he says.

The Clintons have underreported their USAID receipts for years, Ortel alleges. Restated CHAI reports for 2009-2012 show most revenue came from unauthorized agency work, with undisclosed USAID-linked activities in South Africa.

Beyond USAID, various US government entities and numerous foreign governments have donated to and collaborated with Clinton charities, appearing in their marketing materials as supporters of the Clintons' work for "globalist elites," according to the analyst.

Questions remain about the funds from the CF's 2023 collaboration with Volodymyr Zelensky's wife, Olena’s foundation, and where the money went. "Perhaps this money has financed the absurd lifestyles of the Zelensky family and other oligarchs?" Ortel asks.

A real investigation of “leaky” charities, starting with the Clinton Charity Fraud Network and its major donors back to 1997, would likely yield hundreds of billions of dollars for the US government and others abroad, Ortel concludes.

USAID’s Color Revolutions: Destabilizing States For US Interests

USAID openly acknowledged its role in regime change operations through "democracy" programs by 2006.

"USAID played a critical role in influencing color revolutions by providing financial, logistical, and strategic support to opposition movements" in Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan, Dr. Marco Marsili of the Portuguese Catholic University’s Institute of Political Studies tells Sputnik.

These regime change operations advanced US geopolitical interests but brought no real benefits to the affected nations, he argues.

"USAID’s activities were framed as democracy promotion, electoral assistance, and civil society development," Marsili notes. However, the results tell a different story:

"Ukraine and Georgia faced ongoing political instability, Lebanon remained sectarian, and Kyrgyzstan suffered repeated upheavals," he says.

Here’s A Breakdown:

Georgia – Rose Revolution (2003)

US aid: $103M (2002), $141.16M (2003)

"Democracy programs" received $23.5M (2002), $21.06M (2003) via USAID, IRI, and NDI for NGOs, activists, and media.

In 2004, the US admitted it "helped" prepare Georgia’s 2003 election, with US-funded NGOs playing a key role in the regime change.

USAID noted Georgians "borrowed" Serbia’s 2000 pro-democracy tactics, later influencing Ukraine in 2004.

Ukraine – Orange Revolution (2004)

US aid: $188.5M (2003), $143.47M (2004)

"Democracy programs" received $54.7M (2003), $34.11M (2004) via USAID, NED, and the Eurasia Foundation.

To push a pro-US candidate, USAID launched the Strengthening Electoral Administration in Ukraine Project (SEAUP) in Dec 2003, influencing Ukraine’s parliament and judiciary.

Kyrgyzstan – Tulip Revolution (2005)

Inspired by Georgia and Ukraine, USAID heavily funded local NGOs, activists, and media before the Feb 2005 election.

US aid: $56.6M (2003), $50.8M (2004), with "democracy programs" receiving $13.5M (2003), $12.2M (2004).

George Soros' Open Society Institute funneled $5M (2003) to Kyrgyzstan’s American University of Central Asia.

Lebanon – Cedar Revolution (2005)

In March 2005, 1M Lebanese protested, demanding Syria’s military withdrawal, paving the way for pro-US leader Saad Hariri.

USAID’s 2006 report claimed years of work laid the foundation for the uprising.

US aid to Lebanon tripled in the early 2000s from $15M to $45M.

USAID And NED Done For, Ukraine Project Lost: Ex-CIA Analyst

U.S. Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland (A Real Culprit & Witch) and Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, offering cookies and (behind the scenes) political advice to Ukraine's Maidan activists and their leaders. — Sputnik International © AP Photo/Andrew Kravchenko, Pool

It's been a helluva week in politics so far, with Elon Musk and the DOGE going after Washington's favorite soft power tools, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, while President Trump proposed tying future US aid to Ukraine to its rare earth riches. Sputnik asked veteran retired CIA-analyst Larry Johnson to help unpack events. With USAID and NED Neutered, Big Reason Behind Ukraine Crisis Gone

[jcmarchi]

MIT SHASS announces appointment of new heads for 2024-25

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/mit-shass-announces-appointment-of-new-heads-for-2024-25/

MIT SHASS announces appointment of new heads for 2024-25

The MIT School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (SHASS) has announced several changes to the leadership of its academic units for the 2024-25 academic year.

“I’m confident these outstanding members of the SHASS community will provide exceptional leadership. I’m excited to see each implement their vision for the future of their unit,” says Agustin Rayo, the Kenan Sahin Dean of MIT SHASS.

Christine Walley will serve as head of the Anthropology Section. Walley is the SHASS Dean’s Distinguished Professor of Anthropology. She received a PhD in anthropology from New York University in 1999. Her first ethnography, “Rough Waters: Nature and Development in an East African Marine Park,” explored environmental conflict in rural Tanzania.

Seth Mnookin will serve as head of the Comparative Media Studies Program/Writing. Mnookin is a longtime journalist and science writer and was a 2019-20 Guggenheim Fellow. He graduated from Harvard College in 1994 with a degree in history and science, and was a 2004 Joan Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Mnookin will continue in his role as director of the Graduate Program in Science Writing.

Kieran Setiya will serve as head of the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Setiya is a professor of philosophy and is head of the philosophy section. He works mainly in ethics, epistemology, and the philosophy of mind. He received his PhD in philosophy from Princeton University in 2002.

In the Literature Section, associate professors Sandy Alexendre and Stephanie Frampton will serve as co-heads. Alexandre’s research spans the late 19th century to present-day Black American literature and culture. She received a PhD in English language and literature from the University of Virginia in 2006. Frampton is also co-chair of the Program in Ancient and Medieval Studies. She received a PhD from Harvard University in comparative literature in 2011.

Jay Scheib will serve as head of the Music and Theater Arts Section. Scheib is Class of 1949 Professor of Music and Theater Arts. He received an MFA in theater directing from the Columbia University School of the Arts. He is a recipient of the MIT Edgerton Award, the Richard Sherwood Award, a National Endowment for the Arts/TCG fellowship, an OBIE Award for Best Direction, and the prestigious Guggenheim Fellowship.

In the Program in Science, Technology, and Society, Kate Brown will serve as head. Brown is the Thomas M. Siebel Distinguished Professor in History of Science. Her research interests illuminate the point where history, science, technology and bio-politics converge to create large-scale disasters and modernist wastelands. Brown will publish “Tiny Gardens Everywhere: A Kaleidoscopic History of the Food Sovereignty Frontier” in 2025 with W.W. Norton & Co. Brown has held fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the European University Institute, The Kennan Institute, Harvard’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, and the U.S. Holocaust Museum. She ​​received her PhD in history from the University of Washington at Seattle.

In the Program in Women’s and Gender Studies, Sana Aiyar will serve as interim head. Aiyar is an associate professor of history, and is a historian of modern South Asia. She received her PhD from Harvard University in 2009 and held an Andrew Mellon postdoctoral fellowship at Johns Hopkins University in 2009-10.

[oneofthosecrazycatladies]

This post is my attempt to track what’s going on with US politics. This post is constantly being updated so if you see this on your dash, check my blog (this post will be pinned) to see the latest version. If there’s anything I miss that you think should be included on this list, please let me know.

January-April 2025

May 2025

National News:

Trump-appointed judge says president’s use of Alien Enemies Act is unlawful [x]

Trump is replacing Mike Waltz as national security adviser [x]

The Department of Justice is preemptively suing several states in order to prevent them from suing oil and gas companies [x]

Trump releases a budget proposal that cuts funding to health, education, and clean energy while growing funding to the military [x]

Trump downplays fears of recession [x]

Trump administration is making sweeping cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) [x]

Trump is ordering the reopening of Alcatraz [x]

Trump wants to put tariffs on foreign films [x]

Trump says he’ll give immigrants $1,000 if they self-deport [x]

Trump administration has shut down CDC's infection control committee [x]

Supreme Court upholds Trump’s ban on trans people serving in the military [x]

House votes to codify Trump's Gulf of America executive order [x]

Trump names Fox News host as US Attorney for D. C. [x]

Supreme Court lets Trump end deportation protections for 350,000 Venezuelans [x]

House Republicans want to stop states from regulating AI [x]

The executive orders Trump has signed to rewrite American history [x]

LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) has been arrested and charged with assault [x]

FDA may limit future Covid-19 shots to older people and those at risk of serious infection [x]

Trump unveils plans for 'Golden Dome' defence system [x]

Justice Department pulls civil rights investigations into local police departments [x]

17 family members of notorious cartel leader enter U.S. in deal with Trump administration, Mexico says [x]

Judge blocks Trump administration from closing the Education Department [x]

Trump administration blocks Harvard's ability to enroll international students [x]

Trump reverses the ban on forced reset triggers, which are devices that can turn an assault rifle into a machine gun [x]

Supreme Court grants Trump request to fire independent agency members [x]

A judge has temporarily blocked Trump’s plan to stop Harvard from enrolling international students [x]

Trump has made massive cuts to the National Security Council [x]

Trump is delaying tariffs on the EU [x]

CDC ends Covid vaccine recommendation for healthy kids and pregnant women [x]

US court blocks Trump from imposing the bulk of his tariffs [x]

Appeals court pauses ruling that blocked Trump’s tariffs [x]

Supreme Court allows Trump to revoke legal status of 500,000 immigrants [x]

State News:

Texas is trying to pass a bill that would ban people from receiving medication abortion pills in the mail [x]

Trump’s war on clean energy is threatening a battery manufacturing plant in Kansas [x]

Florida bans fluoride [x]

A brain-dead woman in Georgia is being kept alive because of the state’s abortion law [x]

A bill in Texas will require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools [x]

Other News:

Ed Martin, Trump’s nominee for US Attorney for D.C. lies about being acquainted with a Nazi sympathizer [x]

Trump says he “doesn’t know” if he has to uphold the Constitution [x]

Trump posts an AI generated photo of himself as the Pope [x]

Former Palantir workers condemn company's work with Trump administration [x]

Trump wants to have a military parade for his birthday [x]

Trump pulled his nominee for Surgeon General for not being MAGA enough [x]

Trump accepts a luxury jet from Qatar [x]

Trump is claiming there’s no inflation [x]

White South Africans arrive in the US as refugees [x]

Kristi Noem incorrectly defines habeas corpus during hearing [x]

Pentagon says it has accepted Qatar's gift of a luxury megajet for Trump's use [x]

Pete Hegseth is hosting Christian prayer services at the Pentagon [x]

20 years ago, same-sex couples couldn’t legally be married in America. 40 years ago, people with disabilities had next to no civil rights and were sometimes barely treated as human. 50 years ago, women couldn’t get a credit card without their husband’s or male relative’s permission. 70 years ago, America was a racially-divided apartheid state and there was a literal terrorist group freely roaming the country and holding political power. 90 years ago people of color, people with disabilities, non-heterosexual people were subjected to eugenics and forced-sterilization. 110 years ago women couldn’t vote.

The ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples, slavery, imprisoning people for being homosexual, lynching, institutionalizing disabled people, I could go on and on and on.

America has done a lot of unforgivable things to minorities. This country has been through some unimaginable times. And through all that, there have been people putting their lives at risk to fight that because the Founders, for all their flaws, did manage to get one thing right: leaving the language of the Constitution just vague enough to plausibly include everyone even if the Founders, themselves, weren’t necessarily thinking of everyone when they wrote it.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I really couldn’t care less if I’m “cringe” or whatever. Truthfully, I think that people considering optimism and hope to be “cringe” is exactly why we’re in this mess right now. Being optimistic doesn’t mean denying the reality you’re in. Being optimistic means accepting reality and saying “but I think things can be better.”

When our forebears were being enslaved, institutionalized, sterilized, terrorized, murdered, did they just throw up their hands and say “well times are tough, nothing we can do about it, guess we have to just accept it 🤷‍♀️”? We owe it to everyone who came before us to pick up the mantle and keep fighting.

Protest peacefully. Make your voices heard. We lose if we give up and stop fighting. Remember: Community Is Strength. Diversity Is Strength. No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

[discombobulatedrebel]

Harvard rejects Trump demands, gets hit by $2.3 billion funding freeze

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harvard-will-fight-trump-administration-demands-over-funding-2025-04-14/

A university with a spine! Huzzah!

(This is genuine insanity. Why is Trump fighting HARVARD? But then why shouldn't he? Education is a threat, after all.)

In summary:

White House made certain demands to Columbia. Columbia agreed, traded integrity, got no funds back, and are presently being boycotted by the other Ivy Leagues.

White House made even harsher demands to Harvard. Harvard disagreed, and got hit by a $2.3 BILLION research fund freezing.

The demands include a practically semi-annual review of hiring, teaching, admissions and student life across the university by a political appointee mostly centred around limiting international students + ZERO GUARANTEE OF FUNDS for compliance.

Authoritarian regime much?

Anyway, shouldn't have an immediate effect on Harvard. If there's a Uni with the endowment to persevere through the rest of this administration, it's them; they're filthy rich.

But it's them now. Trump has stated bluntly that there are many other universities to come, some of whom don't have billion-dollar cushions. Things like this demand collective resistance. MIT has already joined Harvard. Thus is where university coalitions, accreditation boards, alumni networks, researchers and students need to stand together.

Academic freedom can only survive if defended.

If things don't change there's bound to be a massive brain drain. All the US is doing is just digging its own grave deeper and deeper.

[misfitwashere]

How Trump seeks to destroy the four major pillars of resistance

But we lose only if we stop fighting

ROBERT REICH

JAN 10

Friends,

Trump and his MAGA allies are already targeting the four major pillars of resistance to Trump during his first term. 

As we prepare for Trump’s second regime — which promises to be far worse than the first — it’s important to do what we can to protect and fortify these four centers of opposition. 

1. Universities

University faculties are dedicated to finding and exposing the truth — which has often meant calling out Trump’s lies. But Trump has warned that he’ll change the criteria for university accrediting in order to force university faculties into line.

In a campaign video, he said, “Our secret weapon will be the college accreditation system … When I return to the White House, I will fire the radical left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist Maniacs.”

Authorized by the federal government, these accreditors are essential to college operations. If a college isn’t accredited, it can’t get federal funds.

Trump’s Project 2025 calls for replacing the current system of independent, nonpartisan accreditors with more politically pliable state accreditors. This would have disastrous effects. 

Many of the worst educational gag orders at the state level, along with DEI bans and faculty tenure bans, have been voted down or toned down because state legislators realized they were putting their schools’ accreditation status in jeopardy. If Project 2025’s recommendations are adopted, that guardrail disappears.

Trump has also threatened to increase taxes on university endowments. 

Republicans in Congress believe they were instrumental in getting the presidents of Columbia, the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard to resign over their alleged failures to stop protests against Israel’s bloodbath in Gaza. Some are eager to resume their attacks on major universities.

2. Nonprofits

America’s nonprofits have been at the forefront of efforts to protect the environment, voting rights, and immigrants’ rights. Trump and his allies are seeking to stop nonprofit activism. 

The Republican House has already passed a bill that would empower the Treasury to eliminate the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit it deems to be supporting terrorism. An identical or similar bill could come across Trump’s desk after being reintroduced in the next Congress.

The legislation doesn’t distinguish between foreign and domestic terrorism — whether real or imagined — thereby making it easier for Trump’s authorities to intimidate nonprofit personnel and donors.

We’ve already seen something like this at the state level. In Texas, state authorities have attempted to shut down charities that assist immigrants. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has launched a probe of nonprofits, including the God Is Good Foundation, that have allegedly conspired to bring noncitizens to the state.

3. The media

I’ve been a critic of the mainstream media’s tendency to give “both sides” credence even when one side is clearly in the wrong and to “sanewash” some of Trump’s and his enablers’ rants. 

But journalists are an important bulwark against tyranny — which is why Trump and his allies are seeking to intimidate news outlets that have criticized or questioned Trump.

The flurry of defamation lawsuits — such as Trump launched against ABC (and ABC caved to) and the Des Moines Register — is the latest sign. Trump and his allies have also discussed revoking networks’ broadcast licenses and eliminating funding for public radio and television.

Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee to head the FBI, has threatened to “take on the most powerful enemy that the United States has ever seen, and no it’s not Washington, D.C., it’s the mainstream media and these people out there in the fake news. That is our mission!” 

Already social media platforms such as Musk’s X and Meta’s Facebook and Instagram have caved to Trump, allowing vicious authoritarian lies to be magnified unimpeded. 

4. Organized labor

In the 1950s and 1960s, labor unions were viewed as a source of countervailing power because of their activism on behalf of the working class and their significant political clout.

In those days, a third of workers in the private sector were union members. But today, only 6 percent of private-sector workers are union members, and it’s far from clear that organized labor will be an active source of resistance to Trump. (If government workers are included, the percentage of American workers who are members of unions is around 10 percent.)

Trump has warned organized labor that he will oppose their efforts to organize. The president of the Teamsters Union even appeared at the National Republican Convention in support of Trump.

***

Each of these centers of resistance to Trump has been a powerful source of truth-telling in America. It’s no surprise that all have been targeted by Trump and his allies. 

We need to be vigilant and do what we can to protect and fortify them. Remember: We lose only if we stop fighting.

[alwaysbewoke]

McCarty was born on March 7, 1908, in Shubuta, Mississippi. She was raised in nearby Hattiesburg by her aunt and grandmother. McCarty, who never married and had no children, lived frugally in a house without air conditioning. She never had a car or learned to drive, so she walked everywhere, including the grocery store that was one mile from her home. When she was 8 years old, McCarty opened a savings account at a bank in Hattiesburg and began depositing the coins she earned from her laundry work. She would eventually open accounts in several local banks. By the time McCarty retired at age 86, her hands crippled by arthritis, she had saved $280,000. She set aside a pension for herself to live on, a donation to her church, and small inheritances for three of her relatives. The remainder—$150,000—she donated to the University of Southern Mississippi, a school that had remained all-white until the 1960s. McCarty stipulated that her gift be used for scholarships for Black students from southern Mississippi who otherwise would not be able to enroll in college due to financial hardship. Business leaders in Hattiesburg matched her bequest and hundreds of additional donations poured in from around the country, bringing the total endowment to nearly half a million dollars. The first beneficiary of McCarty’s largesse was Stephanie Bullock, an 18-year-old honors student from Hattiesburg, who received a $1,000 scholarship. Bullock subsequently visited McCarty regularly and drove her around town on errands. In 1998 the University awarded McCarty an honorary degree. She received an honorary doctorate from Harvard University, and President Bill Clinton awarded her the Presidential Citizens Medal. McCarty died of liver cancer on September 26, 1999, at the age of 91. In 2019 McCarty’s home was moved to Hattiesburg’s Sixth Street Museum District and turned into a museum.

x

[1americanconservative]

@EndWokeness

Endowments owned by universities:

Harvard: $50.8 billion

Princeton: $34 billion

Brown: $6.6 billion

Cornell: $10 billion

UPenn: $21 billion

Yale: $40.7 billion

Not one cent of our tax dollars should be going towards any of these institutions, period.

[mysharona1987]

[istrumpstillpresident]

yes

(4/26/25)

[salvia-plathitudes]

By Janet Lorin and Brooke Sutherland
April 15, 2025, 12:00 AM EDT, updated at April 15, 2025, 7:26 AM EDT

After weeks of saying he’s willing to work with the Trump administration to combat antisemitism, Harvard University President Alan Garber emerged Monday as the highest-profile challenger to the government’s effort to force change at elite US colleges.

The retribution was swift. 

A government task force on antisemitism said late Monday that it plans to freeze $2.2 billion of multiyear grants after Harvard’s decision to reject new demands from the administration. In a statement earlier in the day, Garber had argued that the expanded requests crossed red lines regarding academic freedom and interference in higher education.

“It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner,” Garber wrote on Harvard’s website. “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”

Harvard’s rebuke — backed by two law firms in a letter to US agencies — won plaudits from Democratic lawmakers, including former president Barack Obama, alumni and academics who have been eager to see resistance to President Donald Trump’s use of threats and executive orders to reshape institutions. 

But Trump escalated the dispute with Harvard on Tuesday, threatening the university’s tax-exempt status.

“Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting “Sickness?” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

Along with targeting law firms and cities, the Trump administration has sought sweeping changes to universities, claiming that top schools aren’t doing enough to fight antisemitism on campus. The White House has criticized schools’ response to disruptions around pro-Palestinian student protests after the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israel and the Jewish state’s retaliatory response in Gaza.

Already, the government has canceled $400 million in funding to Columbia University, paused funds to Northwestern and Cornell and suspended money for Princeton. US agencies have previously said they are reviewing about $9 billion of Harvard’s grants and contracts. That’s sparked concerns among faculty, students, lawmakers and alumni that the administration’s actions are suppressing free speech and harming scientific endeavor.

‘A Gamble’

As the richest US university, with a $53 billion endowment, Harvard has more financial power than others to weather a potential legal and political fight. Yet the administration’s response Monday — saying Harvard’s pushback “reinforces a troubling entitlement mindset” — indicates that it’s willing to strip key funds for research, medicine and public health at the Massachusetts school.

“Harvard’s decision to fight the government, one of the few entities that’s bigger than Harvard, is a gamble,” said Adam Kissel, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary at the US Department of Education. The government likely “will begin taking action to issue findings and final determinations that will inevitably bring Harvard back to the table.”

A Harvard spokesman referred to Garber’s earlier statements when asked about the funding freeze: “For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals, but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.”

Alan Garber Photographer: Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

Harvard posted the administration’s letter from late Friday that detailed the new demands tied to federal funding. They included reforming the university’s governance; ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs; changes to its admissions and hiring; and curbing the “power” of certain students, faculty and administrators because of their ideological views. In his response, Garber declared that Harvard wouldn’t “surrender its independence or constitutional rights.”

The statement drew support from former Harvard President Larry Summers, who said he hoped other universities would adopt a similar stance to defend academic freedom. Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton, a Democrat and Harvard alumnus, praised the school’s leaders “for finding the courage to stand against modern-day tyrants,” while Democratic Governor Maura Healey, also a graduate, said she was grateful to Garber and Harvard for standing up for educational freedom.

“We all agree that antisemitism has no place in America and that it should be fought in the workplace, classrooms and everywhere,” she said in a statement. “Complying with the Trump administration’s dangerous demands would have made us all less safe and less free.”

Obama, a Harvard Law alumnus, said the university’s move “set an example” in rejecting what he called “an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom.”

“Let’s hope other institutions follow suit,” he added.

Columbia, which has sparked criticism over its response to some of Trump’s demands, released its own statement late Monday.

“We would reject any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire,” Acting President Claire Shipman said in a message posted on the school’s website. “Though we seek to continue constructive dialog with the government, we would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.”

Princeton President Chris Eisgruber said his university “stands with Harvard.”

But the Trump administration continues to hold significant leverage over the institutions. Elise Stefanik, a Republican lawmaker from upstate New York, said it’s time to “totally cut off U.S. taxpayer funding to this institution that has failed to live up to its founding motto Veritas.” Stefanik, a Harvard alum, has been a leading critic of the university, its leadership and Penny Pritzker, senior fellow of the Harvard Corp., which oversees the university.

Funding freezes also risk hitting both the school and the local economy, including Harvard’s renowned hospital system. The school’s most recent financial report shows that 11% of its $6.5 billion in annual operating revenue comes from federally sponsored research funding.

The school of public health is the most reliant on “sponsored support,” at 59% of its operating revenue, followed by the school of engineering at 37% and the medical school at 35%. The report doesn’t break down federal support versus other money for the schools. Federal funding made up approximately 68% of total sponsored revenue in fiscal 2024.

While Harvard’s $53 billion endowment is more than three times the size of Columbia’s, the university can’t spend it like a bank account. About 70% of the annual distribution is restricted by donor terms to specific programs, departments, or purposes, according to the school. It distributed $2.4 billion in fiscal 2024.

Most universities don’t have enough cash and cash liquidity to go indefinitely without such a large portion of their expected budget, said Matthew Wynter, an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University in New York. While there’s potential that donations will increase in the wake of Harvard’s resistant stance, the university still has to repair relations with some of its biggest financial supporters after its initial approach to combating antisemitism on campus created significant rifts.

What’s more, turmoil in the US stock market and concern about a potential recession may also lead some alumni to hold back.

“Even for a school like Harvard that has an enormous endowment, in this financial market, it’s very difficult to raise money because of a lot of their alumni gifts are going to be financial assets, which are also performing poorly right now,” Wynter said.

Harvard last week sold $750 million of bonds amid the threats to its federal funding. “As part of ongoing contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances, Harvard is evaluating resources needed to advance its academic and research priorities,” the school said.

The university is working with law firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and King & Spalding in response to the administration. From a legal perspective, the government’s demands on issues such as requiring diversity on ideological view points were “clearly overly aggressive,” said Vikram Amar, a professor at the University of California Davis School of Law and the former dean of the University of Illinois College of Law.

“I am not surprised Harvard couldn’t and didn’t accept all that was being asked of it,” he said.

[thebreakfastgenie]

I'm glad Harvard isn't rolling over for the Trump admin so far. Losing federal aid is a blow to any university but if anyone can afford it it's Harvard; they have a massive endowment. Of course endowments are mostly held in investments so that's not as secure as they might be in Normal Times.

[mariacallous]

A week after Harvard University essentially told the Trump Administration to go jump into the Charles River, there are signs that its defiance may be rattling the White House. On Friday, the Times, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter, reported that the letter containing the Administration’s demands for a top-to-bottom revamp of Harvard, which even the conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal described as “effectively a federal receivership,” was sent without proper authorization. According to the story, the sender was one of the members of the Presidential task force on antisemitism, which is leading the crusade against top research universities. The Times also quoted a White House official, the senior policy strategist May Mailman, who said negotiations between the two sides could still resume.

Whether or not Donald Trump will blink, as he did a couple of weeks ago when his punitive tariff proposals caused eruptions in the stock and bond markets, isn’t entirely clear yet. But it seems like the Administration was taken aback by Harvard’s refusal to buckle before the President’s threats in the same way that Columbia University and certain law firms did. Perhaps some people in the White House now realize that, even as it has halted more than two billion dollars in federal funding to Harvard, it has taken on an adversary that is rich and powerful enough to fight back.

As a tax-exempt not-for-profit, Harvard doesn’t have any shareholders, but, like other big charitable organizations and major corporations, it releases an annual report on its finances. The latest one, which covers its 2024 financial year, said that the university “generated an operating surplus of $45 million on a revenue base of $6.5 billion.” That pot of money was used to finance an institution that encompasses Harvard College, twelve graduate schools, and the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. In total, Harvard has close to twenty-five thousand students and employs about twenty thousand people.

Last year, roughly $685 million of Harvard’s funding—about eleven per cent—came from the federal government in research grants and other transfers. That was a large sum, obviously. But about $2.4 billion, more than three times as much, came in distributions from Harvard’s own massive endowment, which was worth $53.2 billion at the end of the year—the largest of any school in the country. “Our financial resources, built over years through disciplined planning and sound financial management, allow Harvard’s schools and units to withstand shocks,” the annual report said. “They also provide the capacity to invest in new programs and pedagogies, fostering the academic excellence that is both Harvard’s hallmark and its aim.”

Trump’s attempt to undermine Harvard’s independence is probably the biggest shock the university has faced since Harvard College was founded, in 1636; shortly after its establishment, the school received a transformative deathbed bequest from the Puritan John Harvard. Federal funding in the second half of the twentieth century helped build up Harvard and other private schools into big research institutions. But élite universities have also gone to great lengths to insure that they have enormous pools of endowment wealth to draw upon. In the past few decades, their riches and tax-free status have attracted attention from critics on the left and the right, who accuse them of prioritizing their endowments over all else, favoring legacy applicants to reward donors, and failing to provide adequate support for their local communities. Politicians in true-blue Cambridge and Boston have long been pushing Harvard to pay more in property taxes; last year, two members of the Massachusetts state legislature proposed a 2.5-per-cent annual excise tax on Harvard’s endowment, with the proceeds to be used to subsidize education for lower and middle-income families.

But now that Trump is shutting off funding, or at least threatening to, at sixty schools, Harvard’s endowment has taken on a new purpose, positioning the school to be the first bulwark against a rapidly advancing front. When Harvard’s lawyers, in a letter responding to the White House’s ultimatums, said that the school was “not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration,” they were basically telling the Administration that they would see it in court, where the university would be able to make a strong case that the government’s actions are illegal. Nevertheless, in order for the university to sustain itself during the lengthy legal battle likely to come, it will need to make up for a big funding gap, and that is where its $53.2-billion war chest comes in. “Harvard’s endowment is not there just to be envied or admired,” Lawrence Summers, the Harvard economist who is a former president of the university and a former U.S. Treasury Secretary, told me. “It’s there to be used, and it is hard to imagine a better use than maintaining the continuity of its operations at a moment of great threat like the present.”

Although John Harvard’s bequest to the school set an early precedent, it wasn’t until the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century that business magnates such as John D. Rockefeller, who helped finance the creation of the University of Chicago, made large gifts to educational institutions a philanthropic tradition. And it wasn’t until 1917 that Congress created tax deductions for individual donations to not-for-profit institutions, such as churches and universities. By 1920, Harvard’s endowment was the biggest in the country, a position it has never relinquished, Bruce Kimball, an emeritus professor of education at Ohio State who is the co-author of the book “Wealth, Cost, and Price in American Higher Education,” told me last week.

For decades, university endowments invested their funds ultraconservatively, mainly through bonds and mortgages. In 1951, however, the treasurer of Harvard, Paul C. Cabot, took the bold step of investing more than half of its money in stocks, which, in the long term, can yield considerably higher returns at the price of higher risk. In the nineteen-nineties, under the direction of David Swensen, who had a Yale Ph.D. in economics and who served a stint at the swashbuckling investment bank Salomon Brothers, the Yale endowment pioneered an even more amped-up strategy, investing in hedge funds, private-equity partnerships, and venture-capital firms. After seeing Yale’s returns race ahead, the Harvard Management Company, an in-house financial firm that handles the university’s endowment, has in recent years adopted the Yale model, both in its asset choices and the vast sums it pays its employees. (The strategy became popular at schools all over the country, from the University of California to Bowdoin College.) As of 2024, more than seventy per cent of the Harvard endowment’s money was held in hedge funds and private equity, with only fourteen per cent directly in stocks and five per cent in bonds. In 2022, according to an analysis of tax filings by Harvard Magazine, Nirmal (Narv) Narvekar, the Harvard Management Company’s chief executive, received $9.6 million in current and deferred compensation, and six of his colleagues received more than four million dollars.

With financial markets having enjoyed a long boom, 2022 apart, the Harvard endowment has generated an average annual return of 9.3 per cent over the past seven years, a figure that is comfortably higher than the returns generated by Vanguard’s global 60/40 index, which tracks the performance of the time-honored investment strategy of amassing a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds. Combined with a flood of new donations from rich alumni and others, the endowment’s high returns have resulted in its value rising from $37.1 billion in 2017 to today’s figure of more than $50 billion. And, in the same period, its annual disbursements to the university have risen from $1.7 billion to $2.4 billion.

Despite these impressive figures, though, lately there has been some confusion about the extent to which Harvard and other universities with big endowments are able to access the large stores of wealth they contain. Facing pressure from students and politicians to use endowments to reduce sky-high tuition fees, university leaders have long emphasized that they largely consist of “restricted” funds that their donors gave to finance professorships, or libraries, or the maintenance of buildings, and which can’t be diverted to other uses. In its annual financial report, Harvard referred to the notion that endowments can be “accessed like checking accounts” as a “common misconception.”

It’s true that a good deal of the endowment’s money is tied up in ambitious projects linked to individual donors. In Allston, the Boston neighborhood that lies directly across the Charles River from Harvard Square, in 2020, Harvard opened a grand new building that houses the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences—Paulson is a hedge-fund billionaire—and later this year it is planning to open a conference center named after the private-equity baron David Rubenstein. Over all, restricted funds make up about eighty per cent of Harvard’s endowment. But it’s hardly strapped for accessible funds: the endowment also contains nearly ten billion dollars in unrestricted donations, which, subject to some legal caveats, the university has more flexibility to utilize.

In addition, Harvard has about two billion dollars of liquid investments, such as Treasury bonds, which are outside of the endowment. Furthermore, it has the ability to raise large sums of money in the credit markets, where it has a top-notch credit rating. Just two weeks ago, on the eve of defying the Trump Administration, it announced that it would issue $750 million in bonds, which is more than the total funding it received from the federal government last year. Although it might seem a bit strange for a university with an endowment worth more than fifty billion dollars to go out and borrow money, the bond issuance was perfectly sensible and is likely to be repeated if the dispute drags on: it enabled Harvard to raise a lot of cash without conducting a fire sale of any of its assets, many of which are illiquid.

In short, Harvard has a number of ways to access and mobilize the wealth in its endowment. Normally, the university’s endowment aims to distribute about five per cent of its over-all portfolio on an annual basis. But, in an emergency, it could almost certainly afford to disburse an extra billion dollars a year, say, until 2028. Depending on what happens in the financial markets, such a move wouldn’t even necessarily involve running down its portfolio, although its growth would be restricted.

To put it another way, Harvard can afford to stand up to Trump, at least for now. (If the halt to federal funding dragged on indefinitely, that would obviously be a different matter.) This surely explains why, in the course of the past week, the President has been escalating his threats and targeting its endowment directly by suggesting in a social-media post that Harvard should lose its tax-exempt status. According to reporting by CNN and the Washington Post, Treasury officials have asked the Internal Revenue Service to act upon this idea. “There is total extralegality here,” Summers pointed out. “In my time, anyone who walked into the Treasury was told that getting involved in the treatment of an individual taxpayer or individual institution was an absolutely forbidden thing—like taking a big bribe. The idea that the President of the United States would give the instruction publicly, and that it would then be acted upon by Treasury officials, would have been unthinkable in any other Administration.”

In the era of Trump 2.0, previously unthinkable things happen every day. (According to Semafor, the Administration is also planning to restrict the investments of big university endowments, Harvard’s included.) To some right-wing activists inside and outside the Administration, bringing the Ivy League to heel is part of a broader project to smash liberalism and realign the country’s values and major institutions on a conservative basis—an American “war of position,” to use the Gramscian phrase. For Trump—a proud graduate of Wharton, even if, according to his estranged niece Mary L. Trump, he got another person to sit for his SAT (an allegation that the White House denied)—the agenda seems personal: punishing institutions that he perceives as political opponents and demanding public acts of submission, in addition to riling up his base and diverting attention from a weakening economy.

In this instance, though, the Administration is not attempting to trample on powerless civil servants or migrants, or pusillanimous law firms, or universities that don’t have as much money as Harvard does. For whatever reason, it has picked on an adversary the likes of which Trump and his billionaire allies can well recognize: one that is as rich as Croesus. For the education sector as a whole, and for the preservation of academic freedom, Kimball pointed out to me, the decision to target Harvard may turn out to be a fortunate miscalculation. “But Harvard also needs friends,” Kimball added. “It needs other schools and other institutions to stand with it.” For institutions that don’t have anything like the financial resources that Harvard does, this may not be an easy option. Still, assuming that Harvard goes ahead with a legal battle to repulse the Administration’s assault, its actions could have important ramifications not just for other universities but also for broader efforts to resist Trump’s encroachments. At a time when many people in higher education, and elsewhere, had been losing hope, that’s a positive development. As hints emerge that the White House may now be looking for Harvard to accept a squalid deal that compromises its independence and affords the President enough concessions for him to declare victory, the leaders of America’s oldest and wealthiest institution of higher learning must stand firm.

[jcmarchi]

David Autor named the inaugural Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professor in Economics

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/david-autor-named-the-inaugural-daniel-1972-and-gail-rubinfeld-professor-in-economics/

David Autor named the inaugural Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professor in Economics

The Department of Economics has announced David Autor as the inaugural holder of the Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professorship in Economics, effective July 1. 

The endowed chair is made possible by the generosity of Daniel and Gail Rubinfeld. Daniel Rubinfeld SM ’68, PhD ’72 is the Robert L. Bridges Professor of Law and professor of economics emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley, and professor of law emeritus at New York University.

“The Rubinfeld Professorship in Economics is important for two reasons,” Rubinfeld says. “First, it allows MIT to wisely manage its resources. Second, as an economist, I believe it’s efficient for the economics department to plan for the long term, which this endowment allows.” 

MIT will use the fund to provide a full professorship for senior faculty in the Department of Economics. Faculty with research and teaching interests in the area of applied microeconomics will receive first preference.

David Autor’s scholarship explores the labor-market impacts of technological change and globalization on job polarization, skill demands, earnings levels and inequality, and electoral outcomes. He is a faculty co-director of the recently-launched MIT Shaping the Future of Work Initiative.

“I am privileged to be the inaugural holder of the Rubinfeld Professorship in Economics, honoring Daniel Rubinfeld’s illustrious career of scholarship and public service. As the Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professor of Economics, I aim to honor Dan Rubinfeld’s legacy by contributing in both domains,” Autor says.

Prior to Berkeley and NYU, Rubinfeld previously spent 11 years teaching at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

Rubinfeld has been a fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, and the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Rubinfeld previously served as deputy assistant attorney general for antitrust in the U.S. Department of Justice.

Jon Gruber, department chair and Ford Professor of Economics, says the Rubinfelds’ gift illustrates two important lessons.

“The first is the ongoing power of the MIT education — Daniel’s PhD helped him to build an important career both inside and outside of academia, and this gift will help ensure others continue to benefit from this powerful experience,” says Gruber. “The second is the importance of support directly to the economics department at this time of rapidly growing costs of research.”

“Nothing ensures the future strength of an academic department as much as endowed professorships,” adds Agustin Rayo, the Kenan Sahin Dean of the MIT School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. “This seminal gift by Gail and Daniel Rubinfeld will have a lasting impact on the success of MIT economics for decades to come. We are deeply grateful for their generous investment in the department.”

Autor has received numerous awards for both his scholarship — the National Science Foundation CAREER Award, an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellowship, the Sherwin Rosen Prize for outstanding contributions to the field of Labor Economics, the Andrew Carnegie Fellowship in 2019, the Society for Progress Medal in 2021— and for his teaching, including the MIT MacVicar Faculty Fellowship. 

In 2020, Autor received the Heinz 25th Anniversary Special Recognition Award from the Heinz Family Foundation for his work “transforming our understanding of how globalization and technological change are impacting jobs and earning prospects for American workers.” 

In 2023, Autor was recognized as one of two NOMIS Distinguished Scientists.

Autor earned a BA in psychology from Tufts University in 1989 and a PhD in public policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in 1999.