Friday, February 03, 2017

Pulling Federal Funding in Academia

If President Trump is taken seriously about his tweets (and why not at this point), he is not likely to sit idly by and let federal money to flow to Berkeley and other hell holes (see the fires blazing) of academia.

One comment that I have seen in response was very defensive about allowing federal funds to be withdrawn. "But there is so much good research going on. We can't afford to withdraw the money!"

Let's play out the thought to test the validity of the critique.

Let's say we have the cure for the common cold that is on the verge of being resolved or the next DNA sequencing to forever remove cancer as a risk in our lives. Significant issues both.

If federal funds were withdrawn from the researcher because he is being paid by Berkeley, then he cannot continue his research at Berkeley. Does that mean he is forever forbade from doing research again, I would agree with the complaint.

If federal funds were withdrawn because Berkeley was a conduit (and kept a percentage for overhead expenses), then the researcher may start strategizing on how to reopen the funds' flow. "Could I get the money directly and then pay Berkeley rent? Could I move operations to another university to serve as the conduit?" If Berkeley were forbade from any benefit, the researcher would be stuck moving.

So now we end up with a prospective tenured professor that quickly is incentivized to put himself on the open market. He can shop for a better deal. His contract with Berkeley is probably an issue, but a few precedents of professors/researchers winning because of the university failing to provide the agreed work environment should bring the costs of contract disputes down rapidly in the first year.

So now this calcified university market suddenly springs a free-market leak. What are the incentives for universities to clamp down on threats to the life, liberties, and property of university staff and students?

Sounds like it is a win-win for society-at-large. Good professors have a sudden desire to move away from nut cases. Formerly undesirable universities or liberal arts colleges suddenly have the prospect of good professors knocking on their doors. Their students get an upgrade. Professors can negotiate to maintain their tenure (oh well, it is not all perfect).

One or two high profile professors jumping ship, the universities will find the merits of law and order.

What this tells us is that the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress were really subsidizing their rabble-rousers with student loans and federal grants. The threat of losing a few grants would likely make the rabble-rousers persona non grata on any campus or to any liberal.

Isn't the best system of government where the citizenry hold one another accountable without the call for intervention to police, courts, or school administrators? Professor to a student: "Knock off that rioting." Student: "Why should I you, old fuddy-duddy?" Professor: "I will lose my grant and my job." Student: "The man is just keeping us down!" Professor: "Write the man a letter. Draft a petition to send to the man. But quitting destroying property! I need to be able to pay my mortgage! I am not going to let your misbehavior cost me my mortgage payment. I will turn you in." Student: "Aw, professor, I am not after you." Professor: "It doesn't matter. Your behavior affects us all, even if you can't see it."

Ah, the joys of societal norms being used without court intervention.

Yes, it is clear, the professor or research seeking a cure for cancer would be inconvenienced and might have to move, but the corrective effect would be quick, profound, and manageable.

Let's do it.