[27] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: LIVING WAGE SIT-IN AT HARVARD (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hawkinson)
Thu Apr 19 11:39:49 2001
Resent-To: mit-talk-mtg@charon.mit.edu
Resent-From: matt <deberg@xennahtron.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:42:31 -0400
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
To: Cameron Bass <cbass@MIT.EDU>
Cc: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
Message-ID: <20010418194231.P1116@multics.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010418165959.00bc79e0@hesiod>; from cbass@MIT.EDU on Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 05:04:42PM -0400
It troubles me that this discussion is taking place on mit-talk. This
is not activism-at-MIT@mit.edu. This seems no more pertinent to MIT
than starving children in Cambodia, with the exception that they are
our neighbors; while there is some good citizen requirement ("Now is
the time for all good men to come to the aid of..."), one could see
all sorts of arguments that suggests improving the local life at
Harvard might hurt MIT. Regardless, though, this seems terribly
off-topic for mit-talk.
> Harvard can afford this. Its not something thats going to cripple
> their finances. THeir endowment is enough to buy quite a few third
> world countries,
Misconception debunking alert! Endowments do not exist to be spent.
They exist to generate interest income which can be spent.
Very different.
MIT couldn't spend its endowment on such things if it wanted to,
and I doubt tht Harvard can.
I certainly don't know what the proposed change would cost Harvard,
and whether it would "easily" come out of their operating budget.
I would be quite surprised if it was so easy, though, and
I would suggest that it is grossly inappropriate for you to suggest
that Harvard can easily spend the money without submitting
some numbers. I suspect they are easily, if not publically, avaialble
to someone willing to do the research.
--jhawk
