[_cs2017_]

"Conveniently" is the wrong word to use here. "Conveniently ignores" implies that the author intentionally disregarded some known facts to make their argument look more persuasive. However, this is not the case here. The article's argument is that a reduction in government funding is very damaging even when it is small relative to the endowment size. This argument would not lose any of its power if the author covered the topic of whether the president has the power to withdraw funding.

(On a side note, the word "framing" is also the wrong word to use.)

One way to phrase your message correctly would be: "This article is about the impact of the president's decision, but I wish it also talked about whether the president has the authority to make that decision in the first place".

[kazinator]

"Conveniently" also insinuates that the author discarded some arguments or facts that don't suit their narrative, because they would then have to think more, which is precisely what is inconvenient. It's quite an insult, actually.

[xracy]

There's a reason that court cases typically address standing before addressing the underlying question. It matters much more that you're taking on a case before you determine the case on the merits. If the case doesn't have standing it is not worth considering.

"Conveniently Ignoring" the standing question is frankly an admission of compliance to something that is not the law. Who cares "why people can't live without food" if someone is saying "let's starve the population." One question isn't worth platforming while the other is on the table.

[physPop]

This isn't law, its journalism, and frankly the article is well written and asks a good question -- why are these (extremely wealthy) universities finances so brittle?

[dmurray]

The question is self-answering as soon as you read the first two sentences though.

> Columbia...has an endowment of roughly $15bn. Mr Trump’s administration withheld a mere $400m in federal funding.

With the best investing in the world, that $15bn might throw off 1 billion a year in perpetuity. $400m (a year) is a very serious chunk of the university's budget.

[ryandrake]

Exactly... Scaling the numbers down: It's as if a person has $1.5M net worth, and their investments produce $100K per year. They are also simply being handed $40K per year from someone they disagree with, but who otherwise reliably provides that income. Are they just going to turn that money down because of this ethical disagreement? A lot of people wouldn't.

[nkurz]

Or alternatively, their investments from one account produce $100K per year, their investments from another account (non-Federal grants) produce an unknown amount, and they have a job (tuition payments) that produces another unknown amount. How significant is 40% of the 100K?

We don't know unless we fill in the unknown numbers. Knowing that the amount of federal aid being removed is 40% of an estimate of the amount produced by one source (the endowment) isn't enough information to answer the question. The right question is what percentage of their budget this represents.

From what I can tell, Harvard's actual annual budget is about $6.5B (https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/10/financial-report-fis...). A $400M shortfall is thus about 6% of their annual budget. Significant, but also something they could probably cover for the next decade or two by drawing down their endowment until they adjust.

[xracy]

It isn't law, but why does the principle exist in law? That's what I'm asking you to think about. Why would judges who have to make decisions about people's lives do this? Is there a good reason for it?

Yes there is.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

Perhaps the commenter did not read the article and only reacted to the HN title.