The international studies academic advisory board at Boston College has decided it will not participate in a new security studies program that would provide public speakers, undergraduate workshops, a post-doc program, a Ph.D. program and training programs because it was going to receive funds from the Charles Koch Foundation, the BC Heights reports.
“After a robust and open discussion, it was clear that there was not enough support among the board as a whole for the IS Program to be involved in this grant proposal,” Erik Owens, director of the IS program, said in an email to The Heights. “The chief concern among opponents was the funding source, not the content of the proposal; there was strong support for the proposed program in security studies, and in particular for our colleagues who work in this area.
The Kochs’ are very small potatoes compared to George Soros who has spent billions of dollars worldwide, and billions of dollars to indoctrinate United States students and teach them to promote liberal, and in many cases extremist, causes. But don’t expect a peep out of the colleges and universities about that. And in the case of the Koch’s there is no evidence from BC that the program even has a particular political bent (rather, just because they are the Kochs’).
“…billions of dollars to indoctrinate United States students and teach them to promote liberal, and in many cases extremist, causes.” Oh my God . Right from the Fox News playbook. George Soros and his international conspiracy to, well you name it – being Obama’s puppet master; being a Nazi collaborator ( he was nine ) , wanting one world foreign policy ;responsible for the migrant caravans ( Sean Hannity) . Please enough Jim.
Silly me for thinking this thread could be about whether or not BC should turn down funding for a program that seems to have academic support.
Peter,
You evince the typical ploy TO AVOID THE SUBSTANCE of my comment. How about a SUBSANTIVE reply, rather than perjorative against the commenter.
Greg,
I think you are fully sufficiently intelligent to infer from my comment that my point was/is precisely that the funding should not have been turned down (and if you’re not, that is my precise point) — as George Soros funding, many many times greater, is regularly accepted on colleges and universities. How bout a substantive comment from you, rather than perjorative?
@Jim, respectfully, you bring this upon yourself. Maybe you do it on purpose to stoke whatever fire you have in mind. But really, why?
I, for one, was set to agree with the premise underlying your comment, that to turn down Koch money for ideological reasons strike me as inconsistent with a university’s role of welcoming discourse from a variety of points of view. It’s one thing to turn down money from a known criminal or the like. It’s another to turn it down because of someone’s political activities.
I note, for example, that there is the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT, and I don’t hear much about turning that money back even though I’d bet that a lot of the scientists in that center would have political opinions at variance with those of Mr. Koch.
Paul,
1. I’ll ask, what did I bring upon myself? I simply made an honest comment. Other commenters certainly can disagree, but what I’d find objectionable are the personal pejoratives, rather than addressing the substance of the disagreement.
2. Are you suggesting that you turned against my premise because I might deem that Colleges and Universities should turn down George Soros money? I would say that Soros money, in fact, should be turned down since it’s attached to fomenting policies and activities inimical to our country’s future.
Jim,
You bring it back to the same motif without fault. Please stick to the issue and refrain from spewing propaganda. Your claims about Soros certainly pertain to the Kochs in the same way. The only difference, Jim, is that you staunchly support the Koch brother’s agenda. Money DESTROYS politics, and this relates to every political belief club. I have a sneaking suspicion regarding why you dislike Soros. Can you express why? I would genuinely be interested to hear your theories about how to better this ailing world. And no, Jim, it has nothing to do with Judeo- Christian ethics not being widely espoused.
Do you guys honestly believe that there’s some legitimate debate among reasonable people about the morality of accepting donations from the Kochs, or is this just clickbait?
There’s obviously no doubt that the Kochs’ charitable contributions have been specifically designed to further their own agenda, whether it be the bastardization of science by funding academic justifications for climate change denial or suppressing voter turnout among African Americans.
@Paul, it’s quite a stretch to draw an equivalence between a poli-sci program and a cancer research institute, but even David’s gift of $100 million to plaster his name in every corner of MIT’s Center for Cancer Research came only after the epiphany of his own prostate cancer diagnosis.
https://www.thenation.com/article/even-david-kochs-philanthropy-was-toxic/
Jason,
In view of your inquiry, I’ll expand what I stated, that the difference between Soros money attaching partisan strings and Koch money which does not attach partisan strings at BC for example, is that Soros leftist/progressive student programs are inimical to our country’s future, whereas Koch money does NOT fund student programs inimical to our country’s future.
Jim,
The Koch brothers have a long track record of criminal behavior e.g. toxic air pollution. Their choices are inimical to America and the world’s environmental future. Dirty money can never have two different meanings. Money and greed are destroying the American political system at an exponential rate, Jim.
@Michael, having been involved in philanthropy for a number of institutions, I can state with certainty that a significant portion of large donations are part of the donor’s desire to enhance their reputation and further their agenda in the broader society. And some of those folks, too, were really nasty employers. On that front, the Koch’s are not alone. I, too, find their political philosophy and activities repugnant, but I don’t think that’s enough reason to turn down their money (subject to the usual conditions of noninterference, etc.)
Oh, @Jim, I give up. I’m pleased where we can agree (as in our favorite municipal topic), but will just leave your other comments without response.
In my experience in 33 years working at universities both pubic and private, academics turn down such funding when they believe that there are strings attached. The relevant question therefore is: what made BC faculty think that the Koch funding had strings? Based on what I’ve read (e.g., Dark Money and other works), I think their concerns about Koch funds are legitimate, but in the absence of information from confidential discussions that led the BC faculty to their decision, we cannot know for certain.
Paul,
I hope there’s something else we (and most readers here) can agree on related to speech on campus, both because of the large Jewish community in Newton and that this event by coincidence occurred today. President Trump just signed a landmark Executive Order protecting Jewish students at colleges and universities receiving Federal funds from bullying on campus and criticism of Israel where there is “intentional, unlawful, discriminatory intimidation and harassment” in application of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.” Bob Kraft who’s been a long time advocate for this participated in the signing ceremony.
Irrespective of grant conditionalities, it’s never OK to accept money from morally repugnant individuals or organizations. And in terms of cumulative and lasting harm done to the world, the Kochs are at least in the same league as the Sackler family and Jeffrey Epstein. Glad to see that little by little, recipients of philanthropy are finally mustering some courage, even if it was mostly due to public shaming of tainted donors.
Cancel Culture is the biggest threat to our civil democracy, on both sides of the political gap.
@YS: Yes, weren’t things so much better back in the day, when white males of a certain social and economic stature were able to freely perpetrate and leverage sexism, racism, homonegativity, xenophobia, elitism, and institutional injustice without fear of ever getting called out or brought to justice? So sick of these PC vigilantes that are driving the discussion nowadays.
What Michael said. Follow the money.
And: @Greg: I take it you approve of the Koch’s agenda?
It’s not Charles Koch’s contributions to the Republican Party that has him at odds with BC, it’s more likely his opposition to climate policies which in the long term hurts everyone.
Yuppie Scum,
Can you elaborate? Also, what does your screen name mean and how did you choose it?
There is a growing backlash against ideologically driven philanthropy, and the Koch family’s enormous influence over the public sphere. Concerns range from the impact of the Koch petroleum empire on the environment to the Koch Foundation’s sway on public policy and higher education.
Inside Philanthropy magazine notes that liberal donors such as the Russell Sage, Soros and Ford foundations also shower American colleges with gifts—just not nearly at the same scale as the Kochs and their allies.
Just wondering, in all sincerity: Why post this on Village 14? I know BC (or some of it) is in Newton. And yes, the issues represented in this controversy are certainly compelling and make for good conversation. But does this really have anything to do with Newton itself? Will there be similar postings about issues of academic freedom at Lasell College?
Esstesss,
Glad you are correctly labeling this an “issue of academic freedom”.
With all the speech codes on college campuses including those in or in towns bordering Newton, ironically those campuses have become the most limited and repressive locales in the country in terms of free speech and expression of opinion.
OK, wasn’t weighing in per se on academic freedom/free speech matters at BC, since they probably have dozens and dozens of speaking events every semester and I have no immediate knowledge of every guest speaker and where on the social/political/ideological spectrum each one sits.
I was just wondering — again, in all sincerity — what does this have to do with Newton?
Essteess,
BC is in Newton and in the City next to Newton. Moreover, many Newton residents are in one way or another affiliated with BC, as employees, students, alum.
Isn’t that enough connection to Newton for a thread in V14?
It just comes off as clickbait: Ooh, controversial thing happening at BC — you know, the folks that were gonna pave over Webster Woods? If BC’s stature in Newton makes it fair game for V14 posts, then maybe there should be regular coverage here of its programs, activities and events. At a glance, here are some things I saw on its news site [http//www.bc.edu/bcnews]:
*Alumnus, diversity champion, and author Steve Pemberton speaks on fortitude, faith, and the power of small kindnesses.
*How a courageous group of future nurses and teachers came together to found BC women’s hockey.
*What happens when the teacher is also the provost? Undergraduates join BC’s chief academic officer in exploring The Worlds of ‘Moby-Dick.’
*After a half-century, Boston College’s signature service learning program is more popular than ever.
I’m sure there are interesting things going on at Lasell, too.
PS. No, I’m not a BC alum.
Essteess,
I don’t think your examples are as newsworthy or controversial as the thread’s subject — turning down a great deal of funding for a program otherwise strongly supported and benefiting BC colleagues working in that area because of conservative political leanings of the benefactor, especially since those leanings have no bearing on the program.
I just think this would be more newsworthy, in a V14 context, if the debate concerned funding for an initiative that would involve direct BC outreach to Newton — like, for example, bringing Newton schoolkids to the BC campus for educational activities under the direction of faculty and undergrads.
Don’t get me wrong: Obviously, it’s a hot topic, and one can see above the lively discussion which ensued. But the discourse largely centered on “Who’s Worse: The Koch Bros. or George Soros?” and general philosophical questions about politics and philanthropy — and relatively little about BC, let alone Newton.
I’m neither defending or criticizing BC as an institution, or the BC international studies board on its stance, nor am I objecting to the fact that people in Newton, and V14, have strong views on campus speech or philanthropic controversies that they would like to express. I simply question whether, given its premise (at least as I understand it), V14 is where that discussion should take place.
Essteess, since BC is in Newton and many of its alumni live here, it’s newsworthy in Newton. All readers are welcome to skip any post.
The broader topic of college philanthropy is illustrative of a faculty and student movement to rid colleges of strings that are sometimes attached to donations, such as donors being able to select professors or requiring a seat on their board, – that now has involved a Newton based college.
As a Jesuit college BC joined a large group of Jesuit colleges whose students have been protesting their colleges accepting large donations from donors who don’t share their values.
Then I hope and trust that V14’s primary contributors will bring to our attention stories that offer an insight into BC as something other than an adversary of Newton or a flashpoint in academic controversies. I have no skin in the game here: I’m not an alum, as I said, I don’t love BC unconditionally and don’t expect anyone else to, either. But from time to time I hear of some pretty cool stuff going on at the Heights — e.g. research, student formation — that make me think it’s not a bad thing to have such an institution in our midst. That’s all.
Essteess, this thread is not adversarial toward BC or just a flashpoint in academic controversies and never expressed that it’s a bad thing to have BC in our midst. It’s about a new phenomenon in which students are involved in bringing about a change in how donations are approved. As the BC spokesman said, it’s not just faculty and administration but students who are getting involved.
If you have “no skin in the game,” why so protective of BC who can, should and did speak for themselves?
I hope these colleges also encourage students to:
– quit their jobs if their immediate manager has different political views
– request to move teams if any team members have different political views. Or ask for the team member to be removed
– quit if the CEO has different political views
– quit if majority shareholders has different political views
– during a job interview, ask the political views of their manager, CEO before accepting a job
not advocating the above would be hypocritical right?
Bugek, what a bunch of malarkey.
@Essteess – I agree. Replace “BC” with “Stanford” and all the comments in the thread would be the same, and equally pertinent – .i.e. no Newton content
Marti — I was putting this post in context of the “general body of work” on V14 apropos BC. Look, I get it: Controversies like Webster Woods spark debate on blogs like this, and that’s as it should be. Sometimes, the discussion gets intense and perhaps on the hyperbolic side — a fact of life in social media. Can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, yadda yadda.
There have been plenty of hot-button issues involving Newton Public Schools examined on V14 — again, as should be the case. But I also appreciate the posts about, say, a teacher or student achievement, or a school program that has been beneficial to students’ educational/emotional growth — a reminder that, day-in and day-out, kids in Newton are getting educated, and usually to a positive end.
Maybe those posts aren’t as compelling or stirring as the ones about controversy — kind of like that old journalistic joke, “Why didn’t you write about the 356 planes that *didn’t* crash yesterday?” They simply offer the possibility of enriching or expanding our perceptions.
I’m not being “protective” of BC, which is obviously more than capable of standing up for itself, just wondering if there are other aspects of the college that get lost or overlooked sometimes in the crossfire. In the meantime, I’ll continue to read V14 which, whatever its warts, is a lively, interesting window on this community.
Here’s a confession and the back story: I started this thread on Wednesday really for one reason: I wasn’t enamored with the day old thread about Lenny Gentile so I was looking for something fresh that could sit on top of the site’s home page. I looked at the usual news sites for something Newton-related and didn’t find anything, then I found this. I agree that it’s tenuous but not inappropriate either. (Never expected 30-plus comments.) This isn’t the first time we’ve thrown something up on Village 14 just to keep it fresh. I’m sure it won’t be the last. OK, carry on.
Greg, that’s the burden and the beauty of maintaining a blog: You work your brain inside-out for an idea, you take a chance and go a little outside the norm, and maybe it doesn’t quite work out — but in the end, nobody dies, no property is destroyed, no animals are harmed, etc. And, actually, the post wound up generating a mini-discussion that seemed to get some of us of thinking on what the mission and scope of V14 should be. Not a bad outcome.