ThinkProgress: The Koch Foundation had a say in hiring and firing George Mason University professors

[tshile]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Dual pronged effort.

Maybe.

 

The question is whether the GMU Economics Department has been unduly influenced, or whether a specific "school" (see note below, it's not a "school", it's a research center) within GMU has been the only area of influence.

 

The later is not a problem. These are "3rd party schools" (again, see note, it's a research center) for all intents and purposes, who have to secure their own funding, and so so by appealing to a very specific mission statement then finding people who support that mission statement to fund them. 

 

That's how it works.

 

I fully expect a school with a mission statement that's about liberatrian/conservative/free-market economic research and solutions, to hire people who align with that, and to be funded by people that align with that. I likewise expect their graduate assistant staff to be people who align with that.

 

It is one of a few "Research Centers" for GMU's econ department - https://economics.gmu.edu/research/research-centers

 

We had the same thing in our Engineering department. Each "school" or research organization or whatever had a very specific focus and was lead by people who were dedicated to that, and spent their time on only those projects, and were responsible for seeking out their own funding (which, unsurprisingly, came from people who supported those specific things.) They would collaborate with other centers on projects as SME's where appropriate.

 

Quote

The newly released agreements spell out million-dollar deals in which the Koch Foundation endows a fund to pay the salary of one or more professors at the university’s Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank. The agreements require creation of five-member selection committees to choose the professors and grant the donors the right to name two of the committee members.

 

The Koch Foundation enjoyed similar appointment rights to advisory boards that had the right under the agreements to recommend firing a professor who failed to live up to standards.

 

That's from the AP article ThinkProgress is referencing.

 

That reads to me like Koch had influence over a research center from GMU's econ department. A center that's mission statement is quite clearly spelled out.

 

Also - I think using "schools" is wrong. These are research centers. They're for projects. They're not classrooms with lectures. So I've been using the wrong terms here.

[bearrock]

I do think there are certain, non-ideological, problems that these types of practices raise.

 

1) I can't think of any situation where an agreement between a public university and a donor should be kept secret except in a situation where it would somehow implicate national security (I'm sure someone could come up with an hypothetical where that would be the case).  Even if there was nothing wrong with the agreement GMU entered with Koch Foundation, the attempt to keep it a secret from the people of the Commonwealth is wrong.  You could probably expand this argument to private universities as well, but the argument is clearly stronger with public universities.

 

2) I think institutions and professors have a very difficult job in walking that fine line between presenting competing theories in a fair light in the context of free and open academic exchange while still pointing out the fair criticisms of each theories or practices.  I mean 101 courses teaching basic facts are easy.  But when we get into true higher learning, professors should not be merely teaching facts for students to memorize but guide them through their own thought process and conclusions.  This is an incredibly difficult job that requires expecting these students to be open and critical to all types of competing ideas, perhaps even ideas that are widely accepted or discredited.  But if a student wants to argue that the Earth is flat, they better have a damn good argument that refutes all the accepted evidence contrary to that.  But ultimately, the student's idea should be measured against not whether the professor agrees with the conclusion, but whether the student presents a cogent, logical, and rational thought process.  If a particular institution or professor is pushing one particular theory or viewpoint and such position is reflected in their pedagogy, then we have a problem.   If a student posits that slavery is good or that 1+1 = 3 and gets an F, the grade should be the result of poor reasoning, not unacceptable conclusion. 

 

3) I don't think it is appropriate to hand over firing power to a donor.  That strikes at the very core of academic freedom and integrity.  

[grego]

19 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

You mean donors that favor public funding and non-ideological curriculum?  Because that’s the political leanings we’re talking about.

 

how do we feel about gender studies?

[tshile]

50 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

 

3) I don't think it is appropriate to hand over firing power to a donor.  That strikes at the very core of academic freedom and integrity.  

 

Has it been established that it was at the GMU level? or was it at the research center level?

 

The research center is affiliated with GMU. They're not the same thing though.

 

I'm also sticking strictly to the Koch relationship with the research center, because that seems to be what the core complaint is about (with the title and the references in the article.)

[bearrock]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Has it been established that it was at the GMU level? or was it at the research center level?

 

The research center is affiliated with GMU. They're not the same thing though.

 

I'm also sticking strictly to the Koch relationship with the research center, because that seems to be what the core complaint is about (with the title and the references in the article.)

 

I don't know either.  Does the terminable employee at the research center teach anything at GMU?  I guess the extent of the problem would depend on the exact extent of the duties and connection between the research center and the university.  If, for example, GMU were to say that the views of the research center are it's own and does not necessarily reflect the views of the university, it would be one thing.  Instead, if it was GMU ACME Research Center for XYZ, then I think it would be a problem.  

[tshile]

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mercatus_Center#Funding

 

 

Quote

The Mercatus Center describes itself as "100% privately funded." According to its website, in FY 2014 it received 54% of its funding from foundations, 42% from individuals, and 4% from corporations.^[27]

 

Mercatus has received funding from a number of foundations that support conservative causes.

 

The Center received $5.5 million from the Koch-linked DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund between 2010 and 2012. The Charles G. Koch Foundation reported giving $8.8 million from 2002 to 2012, and the David H. Koch Foundation gave $100,000 to George Mason University for "Mercatus Center Programs" between 1999 and 2001.

 

In February 2014, the Mercatus Center received a $1.99 million grant from the conservative John Templeton Foundation.^[28]

Between 2002 and 2008, the right-wing Bradley Foundation gave $50,000 to George Mason University specifically designated for the Mercatus Center.

 

100% privately funded. 

 

You really need to dig into these centers before you start announcing what they are and what they aren't. The question is whether GMU's Economics Department has been unduly influenced by Koch because he funds this research center. I'm not willing to guess about that.

 

These aren't kids sitting in classrooms with teachers paid by the state of Virginia, being influenced by Koch. Unless there's more info I've missed (always possible)

10 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I don't know either.  Does the terminable employee at the research center teach anything at GMU?  I guess the extent of the problem would depend on the exact extent of the duties and connection between the research center and the university.  If, for example, GMU were to say that the views of the research center are it's own and does not necessarily reflect the views of the university, it would be one thing.  Instead, if it was GMU ACME Research Center for XYZ, then I think it would be a problem.  

 

The people who ran the engineering/CS research related places, had some staff that were faculty at GMU. They would hire graduate students as assistants.

 

They were affiliated - but separate. 

 

I believe our research centers were 100% fully funded - private funds, donations, and grants unrelated to the university. Our department took pride in being fully funded - our graduate students working it got their education paid for and a salary on top for the research they were assisting with.  (the salary was not much, it was enough to get by)

 

I think it's important to understand the differences here. I assumed all universities worked this way to some extent.

 

This is center is reading the same though I'm far for fully informed on it...

[bearrock]

Hmm, you could certainly imagine those professors being influenced by their desire to keep what I assume would be a well paid job at the research center.  

 

If the research center is 100% private, what exactly is the affliation with the University?

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Hmm, you could certainly imagine those professors being influenced by their desire to keep what I assume would be a well paid job at the research center.  

 

If the research center is 100% private, what exactly is the affliation with the University?

 

It gives them a pool of people to work with.

 

It gives them a pool of centers to work with (the centers I was interested in were CS related, but constantly working with the biology centers, for example)

 

It creates a giant web of resources. Including equipment, databases, etc.

 

I'm not saying you can't care or think there's a bad thing here. But I think there's a huge difference between that, and the headline here which was "ThinkProgress: The Koch Foundation had a say in hiring and firing George Mason University professors"

 

The headline implies something I'm not so sure is actually happening...

 

Koch Foundation funds and influences GMU-Affiliated Research Center - that seems like an appropriate title. It also would not be new news (this is plastered all over their site...)

[TradeTheBeal!]

44 minutes ago, grego said:

 

how do we feel about gender studies?

 

The same way you feel about dog-whistle talking points and thread hijacking.

[No Excuses]

The Koch Foundation has given majority of its money to the George Mason University Foundation, which serves the entire school (around 58 mil total). 

 

It's about 6X the amount they gave to the Mercatus Center, which received around 9 million.

 

It's safe to say that they are interested in Mason beyond Mercatus Center.

 

And the Mercatus Center does have a teaching wing, which accepts MA and PhD students from Mason.

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

The Koch Foundation has given majority of its money to the George Mason University Foundation, which serves the entire school. 

 

It's about 5X the amount they gave to the Mercatus Center, which received around 9 million.

 

It's safe to say that they are interested in Mason beyond Mercatus Center.

 

The AP has info that his agreement puts him on the board of Mercatus Center, and gives power to make decisions of staff there.

 

(The article also has their comments saying it's an old agreement for powers that are no longer exercised, and that there are newer agreements overriding them, but I don't know how much we should trust that)

 

Quote

Cabrera emphasized in his note to faculty that the “agreements did not give donors control over academic decisions” — an apparent reference to the fact that the Koch Foundation did not control a majority of seats on the selection committees.

 

...

The Koch Foundation issued a statement saying the agreements with Mason are “old and inactive” and that newer agreements contain no such provisions.

 

“We took criticism of our agreements seriously when similar concerns were raised” about the Florida State deal in 2008, the foundation’s director of university relations, John Hardin, said in the statement.

Do we have anything about the university other than him donating to its foundation?

 

Lots of people donate to lots of universities for lots of reasons. 

[No Excuses]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

Do we have anything about the university other than him donating to its foundation?

 

Considering how they operate around the country, it is incredibly naive to think they aren't flexing on the school, especially since Mason is by far the largest recipient of their money.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/spreading-the-free-market-gospel/413239/

 

At least to my understanding, there are two documented instances where they demanded control over curriculum (at FSU and University of Dayton) in exchange for donations.

 

But in general, universities are not disclosing their entire relationship with donors, particularly the Koch Foundation, in fear that the money will stop coming in.

 

The campus politics behind all of this is incredibly ugly and is absolutely not good for the future of academic integrity and freedom.

[grego]

6 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

The same way you feel about dog-whistle talking points and thread hijacking.

 

 

while at risk of committing your second point, i was actually thinking about your first point this morning, but i'll comment because i think its important.

 

i think theres a real problem with the seemingly automatic belief that every time a discussion is being had that the motives of people are being impugned. this very idea that we are discounting someones input because we think its a dogwhistle is not good. its an ad hominem and a discussion killer. every uncomfortable topic is not a dogwhistle and thinking it does practically guarantees that only one viewpoint is heard, and diverging from that viewpoint is therefore not allowed, and you demonize people that really dont deserve it, like people who feel exactly the same way about bigots and racists as you do. and i dont just mean you, people from all sides will do this, and they really shouldnt. not in 2018. we need more conversation, not less. 

 

i wont post anymore about this here. pm me. 

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Considering how they operate around the country, it is incredibly naive to think they aren't flexing on the school, especially since Mason is by far the largest recipient of their money.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/spreading-the-free-market-gospel/413239/

 

At least to my understanding, there are two documented instances where they demanded control over curriculum (at FSU and University of Dayton) in exchange for donations.

 

But in general, universities are not disclosing their entire relationship with donors, particularly the Koch Foundation, in fear that the money will stop coming in.

 

The campus politics behind all of this is incredibly ugly and is absolutely not good for the future of academic integrity and freedom.

OK. So we don't actually have anything.

 

Koch actually referenced the FSU thing.

 

I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I just think you're jumping to conclusions and conflating things in a poor manner.

 

The attack on our public education system is real.

 

You're accusing GMU of being complicit in that attack and I don't see where you have any evidence for it (yet.)

 

Pending more information, this sounds like the bull**** we constantly hear from the right about the academic institutions.

 

Maybe there's more to it, I'm not willing to give GMU the benefit of the doubt either. I'd just like something more than this.

 

And I find it troubling you, someone who works in academics, so easily conflated the research center with the university. none of this should have needed explaining for you.

 

[bearrock]

Maybe step number 1 for GMU should be agreeing to make public all agreements they have with their donors and have some kind of an independent ombudsperson/group who releases public reports on undue influence on academic freedom and integrity at the university.  That's still my biggest sticking point, that they had to be told by a court order to release the agreement in the first place.

[No Excuses]

58 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

The attack on our public education system is real.

 

You're accusing GMU of being complicit in that attack and I don't see where you have any evidence for it (yet.)

 

And I find it troubling you, someone who works in academics, so easily conflated the research center with the university. none of this should have needed explaining for you.

 

 

I really don't think you understand why this is an issue.

 

If you don't see the problem in public schools, who are cash strapped increasingly relying on private donors to establish all sorts of things like research centers, while giving them a say in faculty hiring and curriculum design, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

We don't know much about the relationship between GMU and the Koch Foundation, because there is a complete and utter lack of transparency. We don't really know much about what they demand from other universities either. Yet from what little we know, it increasingly paints a picture that is ridiculous, is not normal by any standard and goes against the principles of academic freedom.

 

If there was a way to dismantle the public higher education system to let outside influence take over, I couldn't have schemed up something better.

 

This wouldn't be an issue if we actually funded public universities appropriately so they weren't beholden to their donors. This wouldn't be an issue if universities were open about donor relationships. This wouldn't be an issue if universities didn't face the threat of losing funding if donor relationships were revealed.

 

It's a completely ****ed system that is starting to rot from within. At this rate, if no transparency and funding reforms are instituted, it may still resemble "higher education" in the future, but it will be anything but free and honest.

[Kilmer17]

The problem is that our public universities are cashed strapped in the first place.  How the **** is that possible?  Tuition rates are 1000 %s higher than a couple of decades ago.

 

Stop spending money on lavish resort style campuses and maybe you wont have to take money from people you don't like.

[bearrock]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

Stop spending money on lavish resort style campuses and maybe you wont have to take money from people you don't like.

 

And stop making coaches and athletic directors the highest paid state employees.  

[techboy]

9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

And stop making coaches and athletic directors the highest paid state employees.  

 

GMU is actually a great example of why that will never happen. When I went there in the 90s, it was considered a good local college but nothing special. Now it is highly competitive and well regarded nationally. I'd never have gotten in. 

 

The turning point, in large measure, was the Final Four run.

[grego]

13 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

The problem is that our public universities are cashed strapped in the first place.  How the **** is that possible?  Tuition rates are 1000 %s higher than a couple of decades ago.

 

Stop spending money on lavish resort style campuses and maybe you wont have to take money from people you don't like.

Im sure there's an answer to this, but I've always wondered the same thing. When I went to UMD, you'd go to classes that were often filled with a couple hundred students. Then the 'professor' who is teaching the class is a grad student or teachers assistant. 

 

I always thought "what the hell are we paying for?". 

 

And that was in the early 90s, when college was 'cheap'. 

[tshile]

30 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

I really don't think you understand why this is an issue.

I think I do, I just think our outrage dials are on different numbers.

 

You seem to have taken this to mean that his influence must obviously extend outside of the research center, because he gave the foundation money, and that this is a sign of things to come where our academic institutions are taking marching orders from the 1%ers who are giving orders that are motivated by a specific ideology (no matter which ideology that is.) That GMU is complicit in this and is working to hide it all for nefarious reasons. This is an attack on education/academia.

 

I seem to think that the information says he donated money to a think tank research center, which has made it known Koch contributes (it's all over every entity, including Koch's wikipedia and the center's site) and is a board member. That a wealthy libertarian/conservative funding a think take that's a (one of many) research centers for one department at a big university, and is on the board, and that the center is (as it proclaims all over it's site) interested in researching economic theories and policy ideas for pushing libertarian/conservative/free-market solutions to replace government regulations. That this isn't that much different than any other research facility, except that the person is question is Charles Koch, and that the policy ideas are libertarian/free-market economic ideas. I think you can find all sorts of people and organizations donating money to academic research facilities that are tied to universities (because the staff wants to do research...) that are researching things that some group of people don't like, and that the people funding them also have a group of people that don't like them.  Unless you have actual evidence that Koch is influencing faculty at the institution, or influencing curriculum taught in the class rooms, of GMU... this is a big nothing-burger. It's what's been going on all over the place.  Your disdain for the person or the topic is irrelevant, and you should be above that. I reserve the right to change my opinion on this with new information.

 

The headline doesn't match the content. At best it calls for further investigation. It's akin to the bull**** we see from the right.

 

They've conveniently linked paying of "GMU professors" to this without taking even a sentence to explain how research centers work, that this one in particular accepts 0 state money, or discuss the numerous ways in which this sort of setup takes place across the country. They didn't spend a sentence on explaining being fired from (or not hired to) the center doesn't link to being employed at the university (therefore teaching kids in the classroom)

 

It's piss poor reporting, and sensationalism. They intentionally left out any real explanation of any of this because lack of explanation leads to: Koch is hand picking the tickets who teach your kids at your public university your taxes pay for. The headline itself is geared to exactly that.

 

Yes it would be great if all the academic research centers could work without taking funds from anyone. But even if the funds come from the government we have the same sort of concern. R&D costs money. This is the way it has, and will always, work.

 

If it was the republicans going ape **** over Soros donating money to a research unit affiliated with a generally-considered-liberal-run University you'd be the first person to jump in the thread and call them all idiots for not understanding how research and academia works, and jumping to conclusions because it fit their narrative. You'd be telling everyone it was a well funded attack campaign on academic research because it doesn't support their ideas/agenda, because it's researching global warming, or whatever else.

[bearrock]

Just now, techboy said:

 

GMU is actually a great example of why that will never happen. When I went there in the 90s, it was considered a good local college but nothing special. Now it is highly competitive and well regarded nationally. I'd never have gotten in. 

 

The turning point, in large measure, was the Final Four run.

 

You might be right on that.  Certainly the Final Four gave great exposure to GMU.  But even before that run, I saw in my field at lot of appointment of GMU alums, who then helped pave the way for the next generation.  I think the economic expansion of NOVA had a lot to do with it as well and the GMU alums who went on to really represent the university well in various fields.  

 

Also, isn't Larranaga proof that you don't need an expensive coach to succeed? 

[No Excuses]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

If it was the republicans going ape **** over Soros donating money to a research unit affiliated with a generally-considered-liberal-run University you'd be the first person to jump in the thread and call them all idiots for not understanding how research and academia works, and jumping to conclusions because it fit their narrative. You'd be telling everyone it was a well funded attack campaign on academic research because it doesn't support their ideas/agenda, because it's researching global warming, or whatever else.

 

This deserves a facepalm of the highest order.

 

Get the **** out of here with this whatbaoutism nonsense.

 

For the 100th time. I DON'T CARE WHO THE DONORS ARE. I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY ARE FUNDING.

 

The issue is and will continue to be the growing relationship of public universities and private donor groups. The Koch Foundation just happens to be the most prolific one.

 

At this point, I have linked you to enough evidence available that their money comes with lots and lots of strings attached, to the point that it seriously undermines academic integrity.

 

And unfortunately we can't fully understand the scope of their relationship with the public university system because these relationships are not transparent whatsoever. 

 

Stop being ****ing obtuse intentionally. It's tiring because at this point I know you understand the point I am getting across. Yet you are harming on the same tired nonsense of "ooooh everyone knew the Mercatus Center is libertarian". Yes genius, everyone knows that. Yet Mason went to great lengths in hiding how the internal system is set up.

 

And they did that because its a piss poor reflection on how academia is transforming in the US.

[tshile]

47 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

We don't know much about the relationship between GMU and the Koch Foundation,

 

You're jumping to conclusions hard core, yet ridiculing me.

 

Got it.

 

 

[No Excuses]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

You're jumping to conclusions hard core, yet ridiculing me.

 

Got it.

 

 

 

The lack of transparency itself IS ONE OF THE ISSUES.

 

We should not need court orders for public universities to disclose how donors are influencing academic activity.

 

There is a reason this bull**** happens in the dark because they know there are plenty of suckers in the public sphere who apparently get a kick out of being intentionally obtuse. Sorry you choose to be one of them when there is enough disclosed evidence to suggest that their donations to universities come with many strings attached.