←back to thread

A university president makes a case against cowardice

(www.newyorker.com)
450 points pseudolus | 3 comments | 03 Apr 25 12:29 UTC | HN request time: 0.746s | source
Show context
mmooss ◴[03 Apr 25 20:58 UTC] No.43575323[source]▶
I don't see much talk of donors? My impression is that, as in many situations, the super-wealthy are forming a dominant class - as if it's their right - rather than respect democracy and freedom, and attacking university freedom. Didn't some person engineer the Harvard leader's exit?

Roth says the Wesleyan board is supportive; maybe they are just lucky.

replies(2): >>43575903 #>>43576103 #
chriskanan ◴[03 Apr 25 22:12 UTC] No.43576103[source]▶
Being a super wealthy alum is a prerequisite for being a Trustee, and University Trustees are the group that University Presidents report to.
replies(1): >>43576558 #
Loughla ◴[03 Apr 25 23:08 UTC] No.43576558[source]▶
This is why I always have and always will prefer community colleges. Their boards are elected officials. Not perfect, but 1000 times better than just having wealth.
replies(2): >>43576689 #>>43588888 #
tialaramex ◴[03 Apr 25 23:27 UTC] No.43576689[source]▶
Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. The enthusiasm of Americans for adding yet more elected roles rather than, say, having anything done by anybody competent is part of how they got here. The only place elections are even a plausible choice is political office - with an election and as close as you can to universal suffrage now the idiots running things are everybody's fault, although Americans even managed to screw that up pretty good. Sortition would probably be cheaper, but elections are fine for this purpose.
replies(2): >>43577227 #>>43578218 #
mmooss ◴[04 Apr 25 04:05 UTC] No.43578218[source]▶
> Election is a bad way to choose almost anything.

Except the alternatives! No form of government is more effective, competent, just, or free of corruption.

replies(4): >>43578436 #>>43578626 #>>43580288 #>>43580854 #
1. bruce511 ◴[04 Apr 25 04:51 UTC] No.43578436[source]▶
That's the point the parent made. Elections are suitable for political officers.

Once you start electing other jobs, like judges or plumbers, then you get whoever you elected, rather than necessarily a person able to do the job.

In other words, getting elected is a specific skill set. Doing the job is a different skill set. In most fields those skill sets do not overlap.

Even in govt the overlap is marginal. Which is why some elected officials are pretty useless at actually "governing".

To my American friends all I can say is "you voted for this".

replies(1): >>43586700 #
2. tobbe2064 ◴[04 Apr 25 19:27 UTC] No.43586700[source]▶
Well,of course you get who ever you elected, that's a trueism that holds for any method.

What method do you prefer?Trust in the market and chose the one with the highest price, or, choose the one recommended by most, aka the popular choice or the elected?

replies(1): >>43590868 #
3. bruce511 ◴[05 Apr 25 04:55 UTC] No.43590868[source]▶
You're offering two choices which prove the point that electing is a poor way to fill a post.

"popularity" does not imply competence. Popularity is easily gamed and bought. Given that unlimited business money can be spent on elections, it's mostly bought.

I'm not sure what you mean by market, or highest price, but I assume you mean the above?

The opposite of elections is appointment. Based on competence. So, for example, in my company I want job x done well, so I appoint a person based on their ability to do x.

Of course this assumes I want x done well. If I'm elected, and I want x done badly, then I can appoint someone based on other factors, like ideology or loyalty etc.