Department of Education
First, it was about Trump's fight with education. The pretext to media prosecution and challenge of the U.S. president from the unlearned and the darkened became the abolition of the national Department of Education. No 1 wanted to remember that ED was formed comparatively late in 1980 for president Carter. Since then, the Department's budget has grown almost 20 times to $268 billion, while the effects of education are worse than they were then. An example based on the AI search engine response, i.e. perplexity.ai.
1980
Official census data from the 1980s. The 20th century pointed to almost common literacy, with indicators of about 97-99% in adults. These figures were based on self-assessment and minimum standards (e.g. completing six years of school or the ability to compose simple messages), which could mask the actual size of functional illiteracy.
Congressional hearings and independent investigation in the mid-1980s. The 20th century estimated that around 20% of adult Americans were functional illiterate, incapable to read at the level essential for everyday life and employment. On the another hand, a 1982 survey of English cognition showed that 13% of adults were illiterate in English.
2020
In 2019, the National Center for Educational statistic reported that 4.1% of adult Americans had literacy below level 1, meaning they were illiterate. fresh estimates propose 2022. 21% of adult Americans were illiterate, and 54% had literacy below grade 6. About 45 million adults are considered functional illiterate, reading below grade 5.
Thus, if he does not measure, it is worse than in the days before the establishment of this essential institution.
If anyone has doubts, they should usage an analogy with the European Union. As in Europe, education is done by individual countries, so in the US, state authorities do. Do we truly request a national office in the US, and do we request a Europe-wide Ministry of Education with a budget of 250 billion a year?
I bet that sooner than later, the European rulers will bring in something like this, and as in the United States, nothing good will come of it. but good jobs, of course.
Harvard
Now the media is utilizing again. Trump fights discipline and suppresses technological freedom!
As with this technological freedom at Harvard so far, I wrote earlier:
Then it ended with a resignation after six months of office of various rector Claudine Gay for a number of plagiarisms, but reportedly remained at the university. The acting rector is Alan M. Garber.
They're trying to convince us that Donald Trump's government letter is an unprecedented interference in university autonomy. The Associated Press Agency writes this way:
Trump's administration normalized an extraordinary step in holding back national money to put force on major academic institutions to submit to the president's political agenda and influence campus policy.
In the case of the precedent, it is worth recalling the multiple interferences of the Obama and Biden administration, for example the letters "Dear Colleague” of 2011 and 2024 threatening to suspend national backing unless all school districts, colleges and universities comply with the fresh explanation of Title IX, according to which students and teachers charged with sexual harassment will be convicted on the basis of a “presence of evidence” without the right to face the prosecutor and without providing evidence to enable them to defend and challenge the charge.
It was surely a force on educational institutions to comply with the President's political agenda.
One might besides wonder why Harvard, a private college that collects tuition and has its own trust fund of $53 billion in general, is drawing a bribe for taxpayers' money from the national budget. He'll reject that $2.2 billion a year and he can regulation his own way. As shortly as possible.
Maybe Harvard will get sobered up. The university's yearly budget is about $6.6 billion, so national 2.2 billion is simply a crucial share. This may not be so easy, for so far, aided billionaires, Bill Gates, Soros, Rockefeller and others have not been happy to pay their own money, and specified national sources of awakened grants as the USAID, from which they benefited abundantly, abruptly dried up.
P.O. Harvard Rector, Alan Garber claims president Trump's national government is allegedly trying to impose: ofcan teach, whomay adopt and employ, and whichfields of survey may be implemented. It is good to know the contents of the letter, to measure to what degree academic speaking and abundantly demonstrated sacred outrage have any relevance to reality.
We should not trust on the opinions of others, so I quote the extended passages of the letter and the mention to the first below, so that everyone can justice for himself how much he is indulging in technological freedom. In my opinion, these are comparatively reasonable requirements, and their introduction would let the university to reconstruct its erstwhile glory and even common sense.
I quote only passages due to the fact that the letter has 5 pages, but on the basis of the part presented here, 1 can more consciously make an opinion than listening to the celebration of the outraged bydwelling of media outlets specified as TVN.
The full letter is available on the Harvard website:
I downloaded it and it is besides available here:
In addition, I besides supply links to the answers of the University authorities, but I do not quote it. For an unknown reason, the recipient of the government letter, Alan M. Garber, did not sign the reply.
Dr. Alan M. Garber president Harvard University
Office of the president Massachusetts Hall Cambridge, MA 02138
Dear Dr. Garber:
The United States invested in the activities of Harvard University due to the value of technological discoveries and academic excellence for the country. However, specified investment is not unconditional. It depends on Harvard's adherence to national civilian rights and makes sense only erstwhile Harvard promotes an environment producing intellectual creativity and technological rigors that conflict with ideological takeover.
In fresh years, Harvard has failed to meet the intellectual and civilian rights conditions that justify national investment. However, we appreciate your commitment to correcting these negligencees and welcome your cooperation in fulfilling a given word by the university. Therefore, we present the following provisions as a rule and basis of the agreement that will keep Harvard's financial relations with the national government.
If accepted by Harvard, this paper will form the basis of an agreement which the parties will, in good faith, transform into a more comprehensive, binding settlement agreement. This letter contains and replaces the terms of the earlier national Government letter of 3 April 2025.
Management and leadership reforms.
By August 2025, Harvard must carry out a major management and restructuring improvement to let for crucial changes in line with this letter, including: promoting clear lines of authority and accountability; strengthening the position of professors and elder management, and among the professors and elder management only those of the university's most dedicated technological missions and engaged in the changes indicated in this list; limiting the authority of students and academic staff without permanent employment; limiting the power of academic staff (both permanent and non-permanent employment) and administrators more active in activism than in work; reducing the form of distension, duplication or decentralisation of management that hinders the anticipation of reforms indicated in this letter.
Employment improvement based on merit.
Until August 2025. The university must adopt and implement a merit-based employment policy and cease any preference based on race, skin color, religion, sex or national origin throughout the process of hiring, promotion, remuneration and related practices among staff, staff and management. specified adoption and implementation must be sustainable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All current and future faculty staff will be checked for plagiarism, and Harvard's plagiarism policy will be consistently enforced. All employment and related data will be made available to the national government and subject to a comprehensive audit by the national government during the improvement implementation period, at least by the end of 2028.
A merit-based recruitment reform.
Until August 2025. The university must adopt and implement a merit-based recruitment policy and discontinue any preference based on race, skin color, national origin or their substitutes throughout the undergraduate program, each master's degree program separately, in each of its vocational schools and another programs. specified adoption and implementation must be sustainable and demonstrated through structural and human resources changes. All recruitment data will be made available to the national Government and subject to a comprehensive audit by the national Government — and non-individualized, statistical recruitment information will be made available to the public, including information on rejected and accepted students divided by race, colour, national origin, average assessments and results in standardized tests — during the improvement implementation period, at least until the end of 2028. In the same period, the Dean of Recruitment for each programme or school must sign a public message after each recruitment cycle, confirming that these rules have been maintained.
[..]
It'll halt DEI.
The University must immediately close all programmes, offices, committees, positions and initiatives on diversity, equality and integration (DEI), regardless of its name, and halt all DEI-based policies, including disciplinary policies or control of DEI-based statements, whatever its name; show that it has done so in a manner satisfactory to the national government; and show to the satisfaction of the national government that these reforms are sustainable and effective through structural and personnel changes. By August 2025, the university must study to the government — certified for accuracy — confirming these reforms.
[...]
Transparency and monitoring.
The University will introduce organisational changes to guarantee full transparency and cooperation with all national regulators. Not later than 30 June 2025 and all 4th during the period of implementation of the reforms, at least until the end of 2028, The University will present to the national Government a study — certified for accuracy — documenting advancement in implementing the reforms described in this letter. The university must also, as expected by the national government, disclose the origin and intent of all abroad funds; cooperate with the national government on auditing investigative sources and applications of abroad funding, including how Harvard, its agents, and, where possible, 3rd parties operating on Harvard campus; study all requested information on immigration and related information to the United States Department of Homeland Security; and comply with all requirements for the SEVIS system.
We look forward to your immediate cooperation in implementing these key reforms that will enable Harvard to return to its first mission of innovative investigation and academic excellence.
Thank you for reading Substack Jack! Subscribe for free to receive fresh posts and support my work.
Annual budget and sources of backing for Harvard
This is simply a very complicated issue, and it would require years of survey to survey it properly. For example, in the ranking below, somewhere the national backing of $2.2 billion was rather hidden. It is invisible, blurry among various grants, etc.
The full yearly budget of Harvard University for the fiscal year 2024 was about $6.5 billion in operating gross and $6.4 billion in operating expenditure. The university's operating gross increased by 6% compared to the erstwhile year, resulting from diverse sources of income, specified as distribution of trust funds, tuition, investigation grants and philanthropy. Expenditure increased by 9%, reflecting investments in staff, staff, infrastructure and technology.
When asked about the sources of backing for Harvard perplexity.ai gives specified a list:
The main sources of backing for Harvard University are diverse and include the following key elements:
Revenue from the Trust Fund: The Harvard Trust Fund is the largest origin of income, providing about 37% of the university's full operating gross in fiscal year 2024. The trust fund, valued at over $50 billion, consists of over 14,000 funds, most of which are limited by donors to circumstantial programs, departments or purposes specified as scholarships and professories. Around 20-30% of trust funds are unlimited and supports overall operational expenditure and strategical initiatives.
Philanthropy (presents and donations): Gifts from graduates, parents, and another donors make a crucial contribution to Harvard's income. In fiscal year 2022 philanthropy accounted for about 45% of full revenue, including both contributions to the trust fund and gifts for current purposes. Harvard receives a wide scope of donations, with many donations being on average around US$ 155 per donor.
Education gross (tuitions and fees): Tuition fees and fees from students applying for a degree and lifelong learning programmes account for about 21% of Harvard's operating revenue. This includes tuition for undergraduate, master's and vocational studies.
Sponsored investigation grants: national and non-federal investigation backing accounts for about 16-17% of Harvard revenue. Much of the national investigation backing comes from the Department of wellness and Welfare, in peculiar from the National Institutes of wellness (NIH), which donated US$488 million in fiscal year 2024. investigation grants support the salaries of academics, laboratories and technological projects at many Harvard schools.
Other sources: Additional gross streams, including publications and another incomes, account for about 17-18% of the university's full revenue.
In summary, Harvard backing comes primarily from a large trust fund, donations, tuition and fees, as well as sponsored investigation grants. The Trust Fund plays a key function in addressing gaps between these sources of income and the university's operating costs.
Contributors, or money without grants
I tried to find Harvard's main donors, but the paths are confusing. The search engine AI, or perplexity.ai gives specified a list:
Here is simply a list of Harvard University's largest donors based on fresh and crucial contributions:
David E. Goel and Stacey L. Goel: They donated $100 million to fund the investigation and artistic performances center on the fresh Harvard campus at Allston.
Kenneth C. Griffin: Founder and CEO of Citadel, donated $50 million in 2020 and previously donated $150 million in 2014, of which $125 million was allocated to the college's financial assistance office, which was renamed in his honor.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: She passed at least $50 million to support the improvement of pre-school children and public wellness investigation in T.H. Chan School of Public wellness and Harvard Medical School.
David E. Rockefeller's fall: He donated $50 million; Rockefeller was a banker and grandson of Standard Oil founder John D. Rockefeller.
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan): declared $519 million to launch and support the Kempner Institute for the survey of Natural and Artificial Intelligence at Harvard.
Morningside Foundation: Gerald L. and Ronnie C. Chan's household trusts, declared $350 million to the School of Public wellness in 2014.
Lakshmi N. Mittal and family: they donated $25 million, including a donation to make a trust fund for the Harvard’s South Asia Institute, which was renamed in his honor.
Michael Bloomberg / Bloomberg Philanthropies: they donated at least $10 million; Bloomberg is simply a major philanthropist and erstwhile mayor of fresh York City.
Government of the United arabian Emirates: they donated at least $10 million, backing initiatives specified as the Emirates Leadership Institute at Harvard Kennedy School.
John Templeton Foundation: they donated at least $10 million, although they met with criticism for backing investigation combining religion and science.
These donors have donated any of the largest and most crucial donations to Harvard University in fresh years, supporting a wide scope of academic, investigation and public wellness initiatives.
Thank you for reading Substack Jack! Subscribe for free to receive fresh posts and support my work.
