College Turmoil

[RZehr]

Any institution that is dependent on a single source of funding, is only as secure as that source of funding. Saying that a “dedicated stream of funding is impossible to unwind,” is perhaps a bit naive. For all we know, someone could file chapter 11, and all bets are off. Not that I expect this to happen, I use this as an example of how even the most dedicated source of funding could be undone. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and it is perfectly obvious who is doing that.

My understanding from David Eichner is that Finny can withdraw funding if Sattler ever moves from its founding principals document, which is a red flag considering how much the college relies on one source.

Finny's locked in for five years (year one being the prep year before schooling actually started) but after five years, if Sattler changes it's Founding Precepts in ways that Finny in his sole judgment believes to be a move away from it's founding principles, Finny can cut funding after giving nine months opportunity to cure.
Also, as you mentioned, Finny's guaranteed funding is capped at the proceeds of certain fund. I don't fault him for this, but it is a risk factor for the college just like it's a risk factor for any business if it has one large customer that makes up the bulk of it's revenue.

This happened today:

Penn loses $100 million donation after its president's bungled congressional hearing

Asset manager Ross Stevens is withdrawing a donation to the University of Pennsylvania worth roughly $100 million.

Stevens' decision comes after the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT appeared before Congress this week to testify about antisemitism on campus. They came under fire after they evaded questions on whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their institutions' codes of conduct.

In response to those questions, Penn President Elizabeth Magill said: "If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment."

The school's board of trustees held an emergency meeting Thursday as criticism mounted against her testimony, CNN reported.

In 2017, Stevens, the founder and CEO of Stone Ridge Asset Management, donated limited partnership units in his fund to Penn in order for the school to establish a center for innovation in finance. The donation is now worth about $100 million, according to a letter from Stevens' lawyers to Penn.

"Mr. Stevens and Stone Ridge are appalled by the University's stance on antisemitism on campus," reads the letter, which Insider obtained a copy of. "Its permissive approach to hate speech calling for violence against Jews and laissez faire attitude toward harassment and discrimination against Jewish students would violate any policies of rules that prohibit harassment and discrimination based on religion, including those of Stone Ridge."

The withdrawal of the donation marks an escalation of the backlash elite universities are facing following growing instances of antisemitism on campus. A number of wealthy donors had previously halted giving to colleges due to university reactions to the October 7 attacks on Israel, the war in Gaza, and antisemitism on campuses.

Stevens wrote a letter Thursday to Stone Ridge Asset Management staff explaining his decision.

"I have clear grounds to rescind Penn's $100 million of Stone Ridge shares due to the conduct of President Magill," he wrote, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by BI. "Absent a change in leadership and values at Penn in the very near future, I plan to rescind Penn's Stone Ridge shares to prevent any further reputational and other damage to Stone Ridge as a result of our relationship with Penn and Liz Magill. I love Penn and it is important to me, but our firm's principles are more important."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/penn-loses-1 ... 50569.html

[mike]

This happened today:

Penn loses $100 million donation after its president's bungled congressional hearing

Asset manager Ross Stevens is withdrawing a donation to the University of Pennsylvania worth roughly $100 million.

Ouchy. Our Democrat (Jewish) governor here in PA is calling her remarks shameful, as has the Second Gentleman. She has apologized. We'll see whether it costs her her position, but it's possible. One of the college's advisory boards is calling for her dismissal. Maybe the 100 mill is talking.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/upenns- ... =105453653

https://6abc.com/penn-president-liz-mag ... /14151863/

[Ernie]

Maybe the 100 mill is talking.

Money talks? Your kidding me!

[Josh]

This happened today:

Penn loses $100 million donation after its president's bungled congressional hearing

Asset manager Ross Stevens is withdrawing a donation to the University of Pennsylvania worth roughly $100 million.

Ouchy. Our Democrat (Jewish) governor here in PA is calling her remarks shameful, as has the Second Gentleman. She has apologized. We'll see whether it costs her her position, but it's possible. One of the college's advisory boards is calling for her dismissal. Maybe the 100 mill is talking.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/upenns- ... =105453653

https://6abc.com/penn-president-liz-mag ... /14151863/

She testified in favour of free speech, which oddly enough had many conservatives complaining very loudly. (Should a university dictate what students are allowed to say about the Israel-Palestine conflict or require them to hold a particular political position, even one I personally strongly disagree with?)

[mike]

She testified in favour of free speech, which oddly enough had many conservatives complaining very loudly. (Should a university dictate what students are allowed to say about the Israel-Palestine conflict or require them to hold a particular political position, even one I personally strongly disagree with?)

There is a difference between expressing opinions about the Israel-Palestine conflict and calling for the genocide of a people group. She failed to come down against the latter when she was given the opportunity. There have always been limits to free speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building, cause somebody's death by trampling, and claim the free speech defense. You know this of course.

[mike]

The president of Harvard is apologizing too.

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/ ... m-hearing/

[Ken]

She testified in favour of free speech, which oddly enough had many conservatives complaining very loudly. (Should a university dictate what students are allowed to say about the Israel-Palestine conflict or require them to hold a particular political position, even one I personally strongly disagree with?)

There is a difference between expressing opinions about the Israel-Palestine conflict and calling for the genocide of a people group. She failed to come down against the latter when she was given the opportunity. There have always been limits to free speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building, cause somebody's death by trampling, and claim the free speech defense. You know this of course.

The whole episode is pretty disingenuous.

The actual examples of students calling for genocide that were referenced by Republican members of Congress in the context of this hearing were NOT actually examples of students calling for genocide.

• They were examples of students shouting support for "INTIFADA" which basically means "struggle" , and
• They were examples of students using the slogan "from the river to the sea" which is the same exact slogan that the Likud party has been using since the 1970s and the premise of it settler movement.

What you have are Jewish groups who have an ear in Congress CLAIMING that when students call for Intifada or use the phrase "From the River to the Sea" that is the same as calling for genocide of Jews. It is not.

Are there students out there calling for actual genocide of Jews? maybe a few fringe types. But also protests at big public universities draw all kinds of characters who aren't actual students at that university like flies to honey.

And so those College presidents were probably technically correct in their answers. Their mistake was in not reading the room and understanding the game that they were a part of. And that is just incompetence on their part. They are all making multi-million salaries to be the OUTWARD faces of their universities and this is why they are being paid those big bucks. To skillfully navigate these waters.

In this particular conflict there is a fine line between outrage against Israel's war and antisemitism against Jews in general. Students should be smart enough to understand the distinction and also be smart enough to not cross that line. Some aren't and they should be called out for it. But we should also default towards supporting free speech and not being so enraged by various "microaggressions" and other nonsense.

Oh, and U. Penn will be just fine. They have an endowment of $21 BILLION. It is the 6th richest university on the planet after Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, and MIT. Richer by far than any foreign university including Oxford and Cambridge. And these billionaire financiers will come around in the end anyway since being philanthropists to their alma matter is part of their identity and they want their names on buildings. The college will suck back up to them and they will get their money.

[Josh]

She testified in favour of free speech, which oddly enough had many conservatives complaining very loudly. (Should a university dictate what students are allowed to say about the Israel-Palestine conflict or require them to hold a particular political position, even one I personally strongly disagree with?)

There is a difference between expressing opinions about the Israel-Palestine conflict and calling for the genocide of a people group. She failed to come down against the latter when she was given the opportunity. There have always been limits to free speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building, cause somebody's death by trampling, and claim the free speech defense. You know this of course.

The "fire in a crowded theatre" example you cited is from is actually not something that is illegal speech; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_ ... ed_theater for a good summary of the matter.

Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout "fire" in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise.

Likewise, it is not illegal under the first amendment, and is in fact protected speech, to make calls for genocide in the manner that the university presidents were being questionned. It is highly inappropriate for Senators to be trying to nail university presidents for "gotchas" and effectively telling them they should be limiting constitutionally-protected free speech. Such speech may be objectionable, but it is not illegal.

[Ken]

She testified in favour of free speech, which oddly enough had many conservatives complaining very loudly. (Should a university dictate what students are allowed to say about the Israel-Palestine conflict or require them to hold a particular political position, even one I personally strongly disagree with?)

There is a difference between expressing opinions about the Israel-Palestine conflict and calling for the genocide of a people group. She failed to come down against the latter when she was given the opportunity. There have always been limits to free speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building, cause somebody's death by trampling, and claim the free speech defense. You know this of course.

The "fire in a crowded theatre" example you cited is from is actually not something that is illegal speech; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_ ... ed_theater for a good summary of the matter.

Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout "fire" in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise.

Likewise, it is not illegal under the first amendment, and is in fact protected speech, to make calls for genocide in the manner that the university presidents were being questionned. It is highly inappropriate for Senators to be trying to nail university presidents for "gotchas" and effectively telling them they should be limiting constitutionally-protected free speech. Such speech may be objectionable, but it is not illegal.

The examples cited and pointed to by Jewish organizations and Congress were not even actual calls for genocide. They were students who were chanting support for "intifada" and students chanting "from the river to the sea" which might are calls for struggle and for a Palestinian homeland but they are not actual calls for genocide. The slogan "from the river to the sea" was actually the campaign slogan of Likud in the 1970s. Was Likud calling for genocide?

So university presidents were actually correct to hedge their responses. Context actually does matter.

[mike]

So university presidents were actually correct to hedge their responses. Context actually does matter.

Why are they apologizing, then?