Koch brothers influence FSU...other colleges?

[awcntdb]

<p>@circuitrider - OK, way off topic here. I would like to respect the OP’s thread. Your analogy is still erroneous in several respects, but not proper for the discussion here. Thanks for presenting your point-of-view.</p>

[circuitrider]

<p>@awcntdb

OK, way off topic here. I would like to respect the OP’s thread.

</p>

<p>The OP and I both agree that process and transparency are important when it comes to donations to public institutions. The only question left is whether you also agree?</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

@circuitrider asked:The OP and I both agree that process and transparency are important when it comes to donations to public institutions. The only question left is whether you also agree?

</p>

<p>Really not sure why you are asking this question, as it can easily be deduced from my posts.</p>

<p>

@awcntdb wrote: Of course, most schools would sign if the donation is big enough. But guess what? FSU is a public university; we have no idea what any of the PRIVATE universities, PRIVATE organizations and charities have signed. It is easy to get up in arms about FSU, which has to make its documents public.

</p>

<p>I never said in any post that it was not correct for FSU to release the document or that I disagreed with the document release, so the answer is right above - public, yes; private, no.</p>

<p>

@awcntdb wrote: It is easy it make it a condition of the money that the agreement and provisions are confidential and are never to be made public. And if made public by the private university or other, then the money must be returned.

</p>

<p>Additionally, please note in the quote above that is says made public by the PRIVATE university or other. The word private is there for a reason, as my position about release did not pertain to public institutions. </p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

It makes sense for outside interests to try to influence policy. But I feel that is is important for Universities to either avoid that outside influence or, be transparent about it.

</p>

<p>If this is a major concern of yours, then maybe private institutions are not for you. Something to think about.</p>

<p>There is nothing that states a private establishment needs to transparent; in fact, at one of my schools, the last couple $25M+ donors are all anonymous and publicly no one has a clue who they are or the conditions attached to the money.</p>

[circuitrider]

<p>@awcntdb

There is nothing that states a private establishment needs to transparent; in fact, at one of my schools, the last couple $25M+ donors are all anonymous and publicly no one has a clue who they are or the conditions attached to the money.

</p>

<p>Which school is this?</p>

[MYOS1634]

<p>There’s a difference between donating money for a building and having control over who teaches what.</p>

[dyiu13]

<p>Koch money connection to Shimer College was rebuffed, I believe. </p>

[Gator88NE]

<p>Lets clear up a few things…</p>

<p>

The school has received more than a million dollars from the Koch Foundation to support professorships and economics courses devoted to free enterprise principles.
…
In the old agreement, a three-member advisory selected, in consultation with the Koch Foundation, hired faculty positions supported by the grant. Under the new deal, the board includes only one Koch representative and doesn’t hire new faculty. After new hires are made, however, the board will decide whether Koch Foundation money may be used to pay his or her salary.

</p>

<p>The faculty approved the new agreement; they seem not to have a problem with it (unlike John Thrasher). I really don’t think there is anything to see here, other than the name “Koch”. </p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

@circuitrider asked: Which school is this?

</p>

<p>Hum… That probably is too identifying to answer, as parents who were classmates could easily be on here. I already listed one of my schools in other thread. It could be that one or not. If people figure it out, then that is fine. But, I’ll let them do the legwork.</p>

<p>I will give you another hint. The biggest donation within the last decade was also anonymous, and it was for $100M. Only a few schools fit that bill. Should not be too hard to compile that list. You would have to guess which school though.</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

@MYOS1634 wrote: There’s a difference between donating money for a building and having control over who teaches what.

</p>

<p>Very true. </p>

<p>And, it is also important to note that buildings do not attack people.</p>

<p>Thus, the professor position is the most important to have say on to some donors because a professor could be using the donor’s money to attack and to try to dismantle said donor’s interests and businesses. What idiot pays to arm its enemies? </p>

<p>Would you donate to a group teaching others your favorite club is illegitimate? If you would, I would conclude you are a bit lacking in the brain area. However, I safely conclude you are smarter than that and would not donate to fund your own potential demise.</p>

[circuitrider]

<p>@awcntdb

Thus, the professor position is the most important to have say on to some donors because a professor could be using the donor’s money to attack and to try to dismantle said donor’s interests and businesses. What idiot pays to arm its enemies?

Yikes! I thought you said, Charles and David were libertarians. You make them sound like Maoists!</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>@circuitrider - Libertarians do have beliefs, and they do have bona fide enemies, just like any other political ideology. The very fact that they are attacked all the time and most people do not even know they are libertarian is all the evidence needed that certain people are out for them. </p>

<p>Anyway, being suicidal is not part of being libertarian or part of any other political party.</p>

[GMTplus7]

<p>Everyone hates Libertarians.</p>

<p>Conservatives hate them because of the Libertarian stance on national defense & live-n-let-live on social issues.</p>

<p>Liberals hate them, because Libertarians think people should be free to believe whatever they want. Liberals think people should be free to believe whatever they want as long as it’s what Liberals believe. That’s why there’s this brouhaha over the Kochs funding a faculty position-- god forbid if something taught in a university doesn’t tow the approved liberal orthodoxy line.<br>
<a href=“Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times”>Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times;

<p>Free enterprise? Blaphemous…</p>

[sally305]

<p>Please. The Kochs may be libertarians but they are aligned almost completely with the conservative agenda in this country. In fact, they are driving much of it via AFP and backing of conservative candidates down to the most local levels.</p>

[GMTplus7]

<p>

The Kochs may be libertarians but they are aligned almost completely with the conservative agenda in this country

</p>

<p>What-- you think they would rationally form an alliance with the Left? *The enemy of my enemy is my friend… * Kochs are vocal about their break w the Right on gay marriage, pot decriminalization, defense spending.<br>
<a href=“Koch breaks from GOP on gay unions - POLITICO”>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80483.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>from OP’s news story link:

In the old agreement, a three-member advisory selected, in consultation with the Koch Foundation, hired faculty positions supported by the grant. Under the new deal, the board includes only one Koch representative and doesn’t hire new faculty. After new hires are made, however, the board will decide whether Koch Foundation money may be used to pay his or her salary.

</p>

<p>The board has only one Koch rep. I don’t see what the big deal is. There would be no story if it was a left-leaning donor.</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>The fundamental reason libertarians are not liked by either party is they are independent thinkers who cannot be controlled or who are sucked in by party propaganda. </p>

<p>Just as with liberals and conservatives, there are different stripes of libertarians, some with bigger following than others.</p>

<p>After the standard libertarian, such as the Koch Brothers, of note is a strong base of conservative libertarians who are not in favor of gay marriage, elective abortion, pot decriminalization and limits on defense spending.</p>

<p>However, unlike the left that literally goes after people who do not believe exactly like them (ex. the Mozilla CEO), the conservative libertarians quietly supports politicians and groups that back their views. But since they also believe others can believe what they want, you do not see the violent protests and the “out to get you” stuff so prevalent on the left (ex. union members in Wisconsin openly threatening to harm Scott Walker and his family).</p>

<p>The conservative libertarian accepts a loss at the polls of their issues and just keeps at it with no public anger or violence. Their protests amount to sit-in and meetings at restaurants. But, they do have strong beliefs and put their money where their actions and philosophy are. They are much more influential than people realize.</p>

<p>OK, this was off topic, but it is important to take the distinction in understanding the Koch Brothers are rather standard libertarians. Just imagine what the left would be saying if they found out someone rich is a conservative libertarian? The Koch Brothers would be long forgotten. </p>

<p>Back to the donation thing…</p>

[Vlklngboy11]

<p>Liberations live in a fantasy land where their actions affect no one else with positions that we know are contrary to human nature, intelligence, and decision making.</p>

[geo1113]

<p>“Liberations live in a fantasy land where their actions affect no one else with positions that we know are contrary to human nature, intelligence, and decision making.”</p>

<p>Such as?</p>

[PengsPhils]

<p>

Liberals think people should be free to believe whatever they want as long as it’s what Liberals believe.

Gonna disagree there. I think its closer to “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”. Liberals tend to discredit opinions that they don’t believe are founded in logical arguments. If you don’t have a sound argument, then why should your opinion be valued? You can keep whatever you want as beliefs, but if it goes beyond you, it has to be logical.</p>

[GMTplus7]

<p>

Liberals tend to discredit opinions that they don’t believe are founded in logical arguments. If you don’t have a sound argument, then why should your opinion be valued?

</p>

<p>And who decides what is “logical”</p>