Oh, puh-lease! This is just utter nonsense.
Not that MIT and Ivy League schools don't deserve serious criticism (like just about everything else in the world) but your characterization is either extremely biased or completely uninformed.
Even if the answer to that question is nothing, that does not justify the conclusion that "education and research are only present at these institutions as window dressing".
Btw, are you oblivious to the fact that RMS invented the GPL and wrote the GNU C compiler and Emacs and formed the FSF (among other very useful things) while he was employed as a research scientist at MIT. And that, as far as I'm aware, for much of this time he had no other responsibilities than doing these things?
Also, are you aware that his undergraduate education is from Harvard, which certainly must have had some sort of effect on the interests that he chose later to pursue? (He's on record as stating that he enjoyed much of his education there.)
Stallman also maintained the MIT version of Lisp Machine Lisp and the MIT Lisp Machine OS for some of this time. It is working on this and seeing MIT's research "stolen" by Symbolics and other companies that in no small part led to his beliefs about free software.
MIT & Harvard have not been affecting change in the world around them like they did in prior decades.
And how does this claim translate into "education and research are only present at these institutions as window dressing"?
I currently work at a famous MIT and Harvard-affiliated research institute that aims to eventually cure cancer and other genetically-caused diseases. Or at least find better treatments for them. Is this not important research? Is trying to treat and/or cure terrible diseases merely "window dressing" to you?
Before working on this, I worked at an MIT research lab that developed an X-ray space telescope. Software that I wrote was essential for the publication of about 1,000 peer-reviewed astronomy papers.
Is 1,000 peer-reviewed astronomy papers "window dressing"?