२३ ऑक्टोबर, २०२२
"One of the nation’s top universities is apparently not great about doing its homework."
Said David Lat, quoted in "Blunder in Affirmative Action Case May Cost Harvard $15 Million/A missed insurance notice opened a window onto the cost of litigating challenges to race-conscious admissions programs to be heard this month by the Supreme Court" (NYT).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३९ टिप्पण्या:
While it seems likely that Harvard's racial discrimination in admissions will be held to violate Title VI and perhaps also the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, I'm skeptical it will make much difference.
My guess is that the higher education establishment will eliminate all objective measures for assessing applicants, and go full-bore "holistic admissions," which is progressive code for preferring racial minorities without leaving any trace evidence behind. Like the Deep South after Brown v. Board of Education, there will be massive resistance to any actual change.
It will take decades, if even then, for a decision against the diversity doctrine to make any difference. Their long-term strategy is to indoctrinate everyone they can into support for racial preferences.
No one will be fired at Harvard. That I can tell you.
This link will explain what this is about:
https://www.huntoninsurancerecoveryblog.com/2022/09/articles/claims/harvard-declares-class-is-in-session-tells-court-zurichs-motion-for-summary-judgment-must-be-denied-and-accuses-zurich-of-playing-games/
Boola boola!
Professor Baker said Zurich’s refusal to pay was unattractive but legally plausible.
You know what's unattractive? A very wealthy school with lots of resources that thinks it doesn't have to follow the rules it agreed to because the insurance company "surely knew".
I could not find in the article whose job it was to notify the insurance company and whether there was a reason they didn't and if there will be any consequences for that.
15 mill? That's barely a tickle, not a blow, for a joint as flush as Hahvahd.
Just add it onto tuition room and board. I would love to see an independent body analyze Harvard's ( College and University as a whole) administrative staff and make a recommendation to remove the non-working and incompetent. Probably could lower tuition by 25%or more after that is done.
Quel dommage.
Larry Summers almost blew Harvard's endowment back in 2009. Now they have another example of incompetence. Are they using Affirmative Action for administration as well as students ?
If the atmosphere within the administration of the University is as paranoid as it is withing the faculty, then it is understandable if administrative people are careful to do things that may be misconstrued as... problematic.
Well Harvard's endowment is so large that $15 million is just a rounding error.
Hard to find any “feel sorry for Harvard” in my kit bag. I think that folks are tired of the doo-doo spewing out of these “respectable and elite” institutions. Get your house in order before you tell me how to organize mine.
The endowments of schools like Harvard and Yale make you realize they are actually enormous hedge funds with a side-hustle of indoctrinating the children of elites. $15 million is nothing to them.
Litigation in defense of racism should be very hard.
If this means that Harvard will not only lose the AA case but it'll have to pay the full freight of defending the lawsuit then I'll all for it.
Loose change. No big deal.
It costs a lot of money to discriminate against people. Just think how many they could have educated instead with that money. It’s almost like education is no longer their mission.
Diversity [dogma], Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE) doctrine.
Why would a university with a $37 billion endowment buy insurance? Why not just keep the risk and ( maybe) outsource the claims administration?
In fiscal 2022 Harvard had $5.8 billion in revenue generating $4o6 million in profit. Their endowment fund is over $50 billion. Losing $15 million isn't going to cause them any sort of financial hardship.
Sounds like Harvard at outset could not conceive costs of defense might exceed $27.5M. One would think there would be lots of precedents for this situation. And the rule established in this case will affect lots of insureds and insurers going forward if not settled.
Established institutions get careless and make mistakes when they aren't forced to keep vigilant.
One supposes that at Harvard the old Yankee Brahmin holdovers and the new diversity hires are each hoping one of their own didn't make the mistake.
"Are they using AA for administration as well as students?"
Of course. The institutions are permeated, infused, and marinated in AA at all levels. I could write a book.
Rounding error on their endowment.
The endowments of schools like Harvard and Yale make you realize they are actually enormous hedge funds with a side-hustle of indoctrinating the children of elites.
Yes. Harvard could, like Princeton, basically fund its entire operation from the income and growth of the endowment, as Malcolm Gladwell pointed out, and charge zero tuition. Of course that would be assuming their mission is education, as opposed to empire-building.
"My guess is that the higher education establishment will eliminate all objective measures for assessing applicants, and go full-bore "holistic admissions," which is progressive code for preferring racial minorities without leaving any trace evidence behind."
Perhaps. But they'd have to turn the curriculum into pablum if they want to maintain reasonable percent-graduate-with-N-years rate. And, sans selective admission based on academic ability plus at least some rigorous coursework, why would a degree from such a place be worth anything at all?
Affirmative Discrimination. Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter
I'm skeptical it will make much difference...
Like the Deep South after Brown v. Board of Education, there will be massive resistance to any actual change...
Their long-term strategy is to indoctrinate everyone they can into support for racial preferences.
I think you're right. But that would be a huge improvement! They should go secret with their ugly fucking racism. They should have to meet up in sheds with masks on to hide who they fucking are. The standard is not eliminating racism.
That would be like saying, "Why outlaw murder? People keep doing that shit."
You say it's wrong, loud and proud. Drive their secret ugly shit underground. Make them feel like dirty fucking criminals. Because racism is stupid, race is stupid, and it's the 21st fucking century.
Sandra Day O'Connor with her "25 years and it's unconstitutional," I can't believe nobody mocked the shit out of her for saying that. I know people were mocking her in their minds. But some shit is so obviously bad you ought to say it out loud.
People will be like, "She was almost right!" That's how fucking stupid the Supreme Court is. Try to explain that shit in law school. Kids will want their money back.
Why would a university with a $37 billion endowment buy insurance?
Because it's not the fines that get you.
It's the class-action fucking lawsuits.
That's when the lawyers start pointing out how big the endowment is, and how you have to hurt Harvard bad if you want to change hearts and minds.
I don't know how big the class is. "Anybody who applied to Harvard and didn't get in." Send 'em a check.
When Judge Ho declared that he was no longer hiring clerks from Yale Law...
That got the attention of Yale Law.
I have a cynical view that many of these academics do not give a shit about human rights, or our Constitution.
But money, dear sweet money, they pay attention to that.
NelsonHaHa.jpg
In the almost-50 years I practiced law, I don't recall ever advising a client that You don't have to comply with a notice provision in an insurnance policy if the insurer "surely" knows about the claim. On the other hand, I didn't go to Harvard Law. At Columbia Law (in my day) we were taught to treat contracts seriously. I bet if there'd been a Columbia lawyer on the Harvard team at the relevant time, he/she would have said, Send the f*ing notice!
Mary Beth says,
You know what's unattractive? A very wealthy school with lots of resources that thinks it doesn't have to follow the rules it agreed to because the insurance company "surely knew"
Good point. But meanwhile, Harvard is now engaged in a vastly expensive exercise in virtue signaling in its project to expose Harvard's legacy of involvement in slavery. No doubt Harvard will spend a lot more than $15 million on all sorts of reparations-touted efforts, not one of which will benefit a single slave living or dead - and yes, Harvard, there are lots of living slaves, and no doubt your endowment invests in companies benefiting from their labor. But this exercise in virtue signaling will deflect from that unsavory fact and ensure those companies and others still line up to show how virtuous they are in their "giving." Call me a dinosaur, but I'd much rather Harvard just paid their insurance company what its owed.
I think Harvard's racial practices are smoke and mirrors -- they are intended to distract from the centuries-old priority given to the elite, blue-blooded children of alumni (i.e., "legacy") students above all else. The historically Jewish Brandeis University was founded because there were too many strong Jewish students competing for Harvard/Ivy League schools. Today Harvard's legacy (i.e., RICH) students wouldn't stand a chance against many competitive Jewish, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and other international students who believe that a degree from a brand name school is a ticket to wealth.
So, Harvard lost its academic focus many decades ago. It wants to preserve the country club atmosphere, and let in just enough "others" to support academic and political goals. It's discrimination disguised as wokeness, and consciously muddled to to dodge criticism.
All sorts of racial/ethnic justice programs are used for ulterior motives. Probably most of them.
Curious how the Times tries to get the anti-affirmative action plaintiff to cough up the names of its donors but doesn't pose the same question to Harvard or UNC. But the lawyer in charge didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
The left-wing non-profit industry is finally regretting their defense of tax laws that allow so-called "re-funder" non-profits to conceal the names of donors so long as they meet certain donation thresholds. In our cancel culture, this practice now serves conservatives well.
Expect the rule to be targeted by the left.
There has to be Risk management officer. The overseer of managing liability risk. They are the ones that bought the policy. Determined its scope of coverage. The person is responsible for creating the process to internally file the claim of loss. If that person still has a job, it is all you need to know about institutional incompetence.
Expect the [anonymity] rule to be targeted by the left.
Quoting the first source that google served up, "In a 6-3 decision, on July 1, 2021, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that the requirement that compelled disclosure of donor contributions by nonprofit organizations in the State of California was a violation of the First Amendment rights and the rights of donors."
Yes, Earnest Prole, the rule was targeted by the left.
It was also used a great deal by the left, and still is, such as when George Soros wants to support groups that use street violence.
But today, there's less need for leftists to hide their bankrolling of riots and destructive occupations staged by violent protesters and professional agitators, because that violence is validated or ignored by the media and Democrats.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा