Wed 5 Oct 2005
Robert Dunn argues that Williams ought to donate some of its endowment to poorer schools.
A core value of American liberals is the importance of redistributing wealth from the prosperous to others, through highly progressive taxes and transfer payments. Which leads to a question: If redistributing wealth is a good idea for workers, companies, individuals, and families, then intellectual consistency suggests it should be equally valid for institutions like colleges and universities. Right?
…
It’s time for an egalitarian revolution. Liberal professors at Harvard, Princeton, Amherst, and Williams should follow the principles they proclaim and strongly support action to end campus disparities by redistributing educational wealth.
…
So when members of the classes of 1956 and 1981 gather next June at their 25th and 50th reunions in the tony precincts of New Haven, Cambridge, Princeton, and Williamstown, they should expect to see 35 to 40 percent of their gifts whisked away to poorer schools. That should improve their feelings of virtue. In fact, they should increase the size of their gifts to make up for the tax. That’s the least they owe us all.
The sorts of liberals that predominate at Williams only favor redistribution for other people’s money.
October 5th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Additionally we should not be merely busting up Baxter Hall and rebuilding it but carefully disassembling it and sending it to deserving XYZ University for reassembly there. While we’re at it, let’s do something similar to Mission Park dormitory and the ‘62 Center. Ah - the beauty of wide open spaces. By extension let’s send some of our professors - liberal, conservative, apolitical (I don’t care) - to work permanently elsewhere. Scratch MUS 140, the course I’m auditing on Ellington, and start it up at old XYZ (sorry to see you go, Andy Jaffe). In place of the auditing I can better fill my Golden Years feeding pigeons in the park created by the removal of the ‘62 Center. Now we’re starting to get somewhere! Last year I couldn’t even spell Social Engineer - now I is one!
October 5th, 2005 at 11:14 am
Consider an analogy: hospitals.
Surely, we wouldn’t want not-for-profit hospitals to give away their funds to help poorly performing ones, right? Because if the goal is to help the most people get better health care, we’d prefer to reward those institutions that provide the best services for the least fees, correct?
Besides, the fact that Williams charges an incredibly large amount of money for people to attend ensures that parents with more money pay far more than those who don’t make as much. (Through that undoubtably communist program known as Financial Aid!) That’s progressive, and beneficial to the community as a whole.
If we have an overly large endowment, I would point the finger of blame towards our overly successful almuni, who apparently are reaping the benefits of the last several years worth of tax cuts. If the federal and state income tax was more progressive, I’m sure the amount of charitable giving to Williams would decline accordingly. Let me be the first in line to ask for the abolition of regressive taxes (like sales taxes) and the regrading of our hole-ridden income tax. And yes, such a change would affect me far more than the average taxpayer.
October 5th, 2005 at 11:54 am
“Which leads to a question: If redistributing wealth is a good idea for workers, companies, individuals, and families, then intellectual consistency suggests it should be equally valid for institutions like colleges and universities.”
umm…since when did an individual equate with a large commercial institution? how is that intellectually consistent?
October 5th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Sales taxes are regressive? Wow. Even willfully ignoring the obvious price differences of superior, normal, and inferior goods, they’re still the same proportion for everybody and they’re not capped. That’s “flat” by definition, not regressive by any stretch.
You want to talk regressive, how about payroll and social security?
October 5th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
Are you morons taking this ridiculous proposition seriously?
October 5th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Actually, if income taxes were more progressive, ceteris paribus, charitable giving to Williams would probably increase.
As long as the charitable gifts are tax-deductible, a higher tax rate makes charitable giving relatively more attractive.
October 5th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Perhaps I used the term “regressive” when I meant to say “impacts poor people more than rich people” which is what a flat tax actually does. To be completely neutral towards the rich and the poor, a tax system would have to be slightly progressive regardless.
It must’ve slipped my mind, Jared, that most alumni gifts at Williams aren’t made out of generosity but rather out of a desire to slip into a lower tax bracket. Er, um, actually, I hope not. But your point is, alas, pretty valid.
October 5th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
Alright, in the middle of this, let me tell you about one of the things I would like to do.
I would like to take three Williams students, three Western Kentucky University students, one professor from each institution, and anyone else who would like to tag along, to visit the Mayor’s Office in Mexico City. Let me go ahead and mention that Obrador will very likely soon be Mexico’s president, and that fact is very much in my mind.
As I imagine it, the two groups could meet at DFW and orient themselves on a Wednesday night flight. Thursday and Friday, they would spend 9-5 in seminars by people in the Mayor’s office, hearing their day-to-day concerns, issues and perspectives. Saturday and Sunday could be spent touring the city, from standard attractions to scenes of abject poverty and pollution. Back to Williams and WKU Sunday night, separating at DFW.
I consider the above idea (which is still in progress) bi-lateral and multi-lateral in every sense. If Obrador does become President, we will produce some students who are very close to the concerns of Mexico for years to come– and hopefully some leaders who help bind the US/Mexico relationship. Between Willams and WKU, we would establish friendships and relationships that would enrich both sides.
On so many of the issues that come up on ephBlog and elsewhere, Williams is a small college lacks the resources and position of a major university. On the issues of language and culture– well, English is usually a minority language outside the library at WKU, a situation that is new here but hardly odd in the US. As the United States moves rapidly to a Spanish-speaking majority, Western Kentucky is similarly far ahead of the curve. How can some Williams students connect to and benefit from this knowledge? How can they begin to lead us into this future?
Briefly, I’m suggesting that we live in a multilateral world and that Williams must re-align its models of education to prepare citizens and leaders in such a reality. As the United States learns that its security is dependent upon multilateral relationships with many unique nations, our colleges and universities must learn not so much to compete, but to relate to each other multilaterally and benefit from each other’s skills and competences. [BTW: someone should get Brad Edmonson over from American Demographics in Ithaca to explain our population changes vis-a-vis Europe and the rest of the world-- it would be a great Winter Study].
In the emergent economy I outline above, Williams should not be talking about “charity” and “giving away” to “lesser institutions.” It should realize that there are many forms of competence and knowledge, and each type and tier of institution has a role to play. It should also be looking to establish permanent, mutually beneficial bi-lateral relationships with up-and-coming institutions who have something to offer.
To give a side example, WKU has the nation’s #1 journalism program (according to Hearst), among several other centers of excellence. Thus one of the bi-lateral relationships I’m seeking to build with Berkeley is a one-year exchange: wherein the Berkeley student saves $10-15K/yr in expenses, and gets a year at a program much better than Berkeley’s; wherein the student adds to the knowledge, diversity (and economy) of WKU; wherein the student takes back to Berkeley forms of knowledge only available at a #1 journalism school; and wherein each institution also receives a small financial advantage (about $500/student).
I won’t go on here about how that Berkeley student might suddenly discover Western Kentucky to be more attractive and diverse than Berkeley, but should he or she decide to spend more time here, so much better for us and the world.
In my Mexico City plan above, I’m willing to pick up 1/3 cost if one person from WKU and one from Williams pick up 1/3 each, roughly. In the long term, I would gently suggest that institutions like Williams should pick up a majority of the tab in such situtions, in order to open up unique opportunities for their students.
Cheers.
October 6th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Ken, I like your idea but in Mexico City they would most likely all be kidnapped and since the suggestion was made here, David Kane would no doubt be charged with paying the ransom.
October 6th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Regarding Mexico City:
Last year, I met with Obrador’s press secretary in an attempt to get an interview with the mayor for a Newsweek article. They run a tight ship at DF HQ, and I’m not sure they would let American college students do any job-shadowing.