If it’s 2/3 federal money, that means that it’s my money, and I do not see why my money should be subsidizing custodial services for the wealthiest university in the USA. I have no problem with my money going to enhance the earning capabilities of kids from poor homes - it’s both ethically positive, and has a positive impact on my quality of life. But to save a bit of money for a university with an endowment that equals the economy of a small country? No freaking way.
I’m always surprised that people who get angry at poor people for getting government aid, because “they should work for it” never have a problem with rich entities and individuals getting government aid. Somehow, people who find it immoral that the government gives money to the poor kids, without the kids working for the money, manage to justify the government giving free money to Harvard to help them get their toilets cleaned.
No, I am absolutely correct. You simply do not understand the meaning of the sentence, nor the context. This is not a guideline for the use of the funds, this is a statement as to the purpose of the funds. The statement means that the government has created the program for the specific purpose of encouraging community service and work related to the student’s course of study. Therefore, it is up to the university to use the funds for these purposes. Since Harvard used the funds to subsidize their janitorial services, they misused the funds.
Another quote from that webpage:
Anybody who actually believes that Harvard does not have any other employment for these kids than cleaning toilets is either deeply delusional, or actually believes that it is educational for poor kids to clean toilets, so they never forget that they are worth less than the rich kids who do not need this type of work. Oh, and they believe that so much, that they are willing to pay their own money to make it happen.
I have no problem with the kids doing any type of labor, so long as it fulfills the purpose of these funds