In the context of the
embroiled hatred violently spewing out between Israelis and Palestinians in
October 2023, some rich, very vocal alumni at Harvard and the University of
Pennsylvania threated to stop donating money in order to pressure the
respective university administrations (and boards of trustees) to clamp down on
pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel speech on the campuses. Over at Yale, 25,000 signatures
were quickly obtained from students in favor of firing a faculty employee for
having written against Israel’s violence against residents of Gaza. Yale’s
administration backed up the faculty member’s right of free speech, especially
as it was on social media rather than in a classroom or even on campus. Tenure
itself, it should be noted, exists in part to protect professors from being
fired for airing unpopular opinions. Nietzsche wrote that no philosopher is a
person of one’s own time, so it is only natural that thinkers may have unusual and
even controversial opinions. I contend that as respites for contemplation and
learning, universities should not be pressured into taking sides on controversial
political issues that do not directly affect higher education, and,
furthermore, that even rich alumni have an obligation to safeguard their
respective alma maters rather than seek to turn them into hotbeds of
ideological unrest. Of course, money talks, even if it is not in itself free
speech, which, even if unpopular, universities should protect. Hence, the
question arises: To what degree are Ivy League universities like Harvard and
Penn vulnerable to the threats of even a few rich alumni? Does it make a
difference whether the demands of such ideologues gain traction among the rank-and-file
alumni? Whereas a university’s administration can usually ignore student
protests, those of wealthy donors may be another story.
The full essay is at "Harvard and Penn Alumni Revolt."