Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> institutions' membership or selection criteria is pretty fundamental to their right to exist

Private universities enjoy tremendous benefits on account of their public benefits. If they want to have virtual sovereignty in how they admit students, they should be taxed and regulated like any other business.

View on HN

Not sure if I understand the argument - private universities are still non-profit organizations and wouldn't be subject to business taxes.

If anything, non-profits generally have less responsibility. The Anti-Defamation League should not be forced to admit anti-Semites. You wouldn't expect Planned Parenthood to be forced to admit anti-abortion providers.

> private universities are still non-profit organizations and wouldn't be subject to business taxes

Charities have to disclose quid pro quo contributions in a way universities do not [1]. That's before we get to the favourable land use, permitting and employment protections (see: grad students) universities enjoy, or the student financial aid grants California provides private-university students or research grants and contracts it gives it.

> Anti-Defamation League should not be forced to admit anti-Semites

You're conflating being forced to admit people with certain characteristics with a ban on considering certain characteristics during admission. Very different. The analog would be the ADL not being allowed to ask applicants about their views on anti-Semitism, which is significantly less oppressive than what you suggest.

[1] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

These are all good points and perhaps should be addressed directly with law.

This law seems aimed at asserting control over something which does not belong to the government. The first amendment enshrines rights of freedom of association. While there is no punishment, there is an effort by the government to cast scorn upon certain institutions. I would say this is not a legitimate purpose of the government. Again because of the first amendment, nobody should be judged by the government due to who they decide to hang out with.

But you would expect doctors and hospitals to admit pharmaceutical and biomedical sponsorships, and you would expect accounting firms to admit conflicts of interests, and you would expect etc. etc.

Being a non-profit doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the law can demand transparency.

When a "charitable" donation is made in exchange for significant benefits to a family member (a university degree at a top university), then I entirely agree that this should involve losing tax-free benefits. This is the problem with many nonprofits, exchanging large amounts of money with tax benefits for goods and services of great value.

Things like university endowments that give preferential admissions should be subject to at least some tax.

Universities and academia as a whole are far too focused on being machines for acquiring donations and other funding. Not that they don't need a lot of money, but things need to change so that acquiring it is not nearly such a focus.

The idea that an entity as rich as an ivy league school can gain a tax shield by calling itself non-profit is the problem.

legister is claiming this essentially threatens the existence of Stanford in something like it’s current form. Whether that’s true can certainly be debated, but it seems glib to say “if Stanford has to be crushed or radically transformed, so be it; nothing is more important than government-style admission procedures”. I think one needs to actually argue that it won’t be that damaging.

I think it would be a different story if the state was using those benefits and the threat of withholding them to negotiate compliance. However, this is not that. This is the state simply ruling on private affairs by dictate.

I think people should be deeply wary of this logic of unilateral ex-post recontacting you seem to be raising.

I think it threatens the rule of law and contracting, social or otherwise.

Businesses are taxed because they produce income by distributing dividends to shareholders. If you tax Stanford et al to punish them for legacy (I am categorically against legacy admits, BTW), then you'd have to allow them to declare dividends and distribute to their shareholders. Fair is fair. Truthfully, I doubt Stanford would care.

Seems like the public benefits from the private universities' research too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com