Nothing about this scandal was public until they were brought in front of congress to talk about antisemitism.
They’re tax advantaged and publicly funded in ways that invite public scrutiny.
> Nothing about this scandal was public until they were brought in front of congress to talk about antisemitism
Where Gay promptly screwed the pooch. Also, how is unethical behaviour permissible if hidden?
The Mormon Church in Utah is essentially a government with real state power of its own, for example.
And the Westboro Baptist Church is still allowed to organize and shout God Hates [Gays] at funerals of private citizens by an 8-1 Supreme Court Ruling.
Plenty of people do.
Gay is being terminated for plagiarism. Her ethics breaches simply came to light because she fucked up answering an incredibly simple question that points to a fundamental disconnect from how most people view the world.
This veers into whataboutism, and changing the subject. Both can be done at the same time as they are not mutually exclusive. It is not an either or question and it distracts from the original discussion.
I have not heard of a single Democrat politician advocate defunding religious organizations. I have often heard the GOP advocate for punishing college faculty/students/administrators and withholding accreditation/nonprofit-status.
Regardless, I actually think it’s a bad idea to go after either: both of those institutions, ultimately, are checks on the State — and historically, when a state turns to fascism, universities and religious organizations (save the “favored/officially sanctioned religion”) are the first thing to go.
Harvard's true status is rather unusual. They were established by the Massachusetts colonial legislature, which formally retained the right to interfere in Harvard's governance, but very rarely used that right, largely leaving Harvard to run itself. The Massachusetts state constitution has a whole section on Harvard (Chapter V Section I), article III of which says "nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the legislature of this commonwealth from making such alterations in the government of the said university, as shall be conducive to its advantage and the interest of the republic of letters, in as full a manner as might have been done by the legislature of the late Province of the Massachusetts Bay", [0] meaning that the Massachusetts state legislature formally retains its right to intervene in the running of Harvard, even though it has never used it. This means Harvard is not a fully private university, rather one occupying a sort of grey zone between private and public - private in practice, but subject to state control in theory - and maybe one day in practice again, the recent controversies over Harvard have led to suggestions [1] that the Massachusetts state legislature take up its power to intervene in Harvard, e.g. by granting itself the right to appoint members to the Harvard Corporation. Politically, I think the odds are against that actually happening, but you never know. Legally/constitutionally, I don't think there would be any problem with it, since Harvard has never been a fully private institution, it has always been under theoretical state control, and the state does not lose its theoretical legal powers through failing to use them in practice
[0] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#chapterVSectionI
[1] see this WSJ article https://archive.md/t0jYc - "One faculty member, citing a carve-out in the Massachusetts Constitution that reserves authority over Harvard to the state legislature, has urged Massachusetts lawmakers to install a government official on the board to provide more transparency and public accountability. A spokeswoman for Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said the governor is aware of the proposal and looks forward to reviewing it"