[JumpCrisscross]

> if these institutions hadn't spent decades burning their own credibility

They burned their credibility among those with whom they never needed it in the first place. Harvard as a taxpayer-funded institution is oxymoronic. Return it to an elite institution that the President can commend in private and mock at a rally in rural Kentucky or whatnot.

[derektank]

>They burned their credibility among those with whom they never needed it in the first place.

I think universities should probably be concerned with their credibility among democratically elected political representatives if they are going to be accepting public funds. If the university wants to forgo federal grants, then yes, they don't require any credibility with anyone but academia and their donors, and more power to them.

[JumpCrisscross]

> universities should probably be concerned with their credibility among democratically elected political representatives if they are going to be accepting public funds

Agree. I don’t think they should accept federal funds to the extent that they do. Maybe it’s time for elite institutions to get past the 70s camp era and start behaving (and wielding the power of) being elite.

[kelipso]

It’s current year. They might hobble along for a few years without federal funding but they need federal funding to keep their academic reputation and be elite institutions.

[JumpCrisscross]

> they need federal funding to keep their academic reputation and be elite institutions

Why? The funding chased their reputations during the world wars. There are plenty of ways of collaborating on expensive research facilities with the federal government while keeping a boundary between church and state within the elite halls.

[kelipso]

Top researchers prefer federal funding, it’s fairly predictable..till now. It’s messy now so I might be wrong.