Stanford refuses to give student with cerebral palsy a scribe
twitter.com
twitter.com
Personally, my heart was set on Stanford for graduate school for a masters in electrical engineering, in my early 20s. I have multiple disabilities, but specifically my most disabling impairments are two rare immune-mediated neurological diseases affecting my peripheral nervous system, which are in pharmaceutical remission. Even though my GPA was very competitive for admission, after reading Stanford’s “policies”, I knew I could be totally screwed from a disability standpoint, compared to many other US schools where I could be successful at. I personally think Stanford is the worst of the elite institutions when it comes to disability matters.
But, stuff like this is why I am in graduate school abroad in Europe (I have legal authorization to work in both the US and EU).
Aren't endowments supposed to last forever? ie. the university can only spend $29B * 5% (or whatever the after inflation return is)
One aspect of society's role is to help the unfortunate on the dime of the healthy. Because literally nobody is healthy forever. The closest you can come is dying young.
I do think there’s a current ethic that’s exactly as you describe but it didn’t used to be and I’d argue it shouldn’t be. It should be “to help the poor on the dime of the rich”. If the rich happen to be unhealthy or disabled we should expect them to help themselves. This idea that the unlucky rich should be made whole by society doesn’t make any sense, because after all what is being born but another way of being unlucky?
Hard no. I have no interest, whatsoever, in punishing anyone for the accident of their birth and life.
Whether they're rich or poor, white or black, man or woman, healthy or disabled; take care of them. Period.
> This idea that the unlucky rich should be made whole by society doesn’t make any sense, because after all what is being born but another way of being unlucky?
Basic courtesy towards our fellow society members shouldn't care about luck. Good or bad. Take care of your fellow humans, without a care of whether they're richest or poorest person in the world.
So is everyone going to get exactly the same things? Because that’s the implication here. If you let the rich keep all the great things they get from the accident of being born rich and then take away any negatives they incurred from other accidents of birth you are punishing everyone else for the accident of not being born rich.
This is either full on communism or it is horribly regressive.