The recent fracas between the Trump administration and Harvard University, over free speech has brought forth many questions to fore. The question of role of institutions of higher ed in our society, the limits of free speech and dissent and the limits of government interference in research efforts.
The question of why universities should get tax exemption is also being brought up by some in the MAGA universe who question the value of education. I have had a few run-ins with a handful of these folks and one commonality that has stood out in all these conversations that I’ve had with them is the disdain they have for higher ed. For many of these folks, unless education is financially viable – by this they mean lucrative – all education is seen as “useless”. By this measure, the humanities, social sciences and all the other stuff is seen as “soft fluff” that needs to be discarded. The techno optimism that we are witnessing among Elon Musk fans and those in this universe is a reflection of this type of thinking – that doesn’t see a role for organizations that act with the spirit of public benefit or those that seek to understand the human condition in a deeper way. This also leads to our core discussion of why public benefit education or institutions that act for the greater good get tax exemption in our country.
The history of tax exemption for nonprofits is long and complicated, in the US. The IRS website actually has a useful article that describes the voluntary nature of associational life in the US, that predates its founding as a republic.
The authors point out that these early era “nonprofits” were favored “to fill a gap in social welfare programs where the young Government’s efforts proved insufficient. Another suggestion is that many early Americans embraced charitable organizations over Government programs because they feared “the rebirth of monarchy, or bureaucracy.” Americans have been and are, to a considerable degree wary of too much government. These associations provide much needed freedom for Americans to engage in some way, with public life. The following decades led to the establishment of private philanthropy to this mix of voluntary associations in helping address public ills – poverty, public health etc.
The operating philosophy of why these tax-benefits were given was to build this infrastructure that could support public life in a manner that government could not. These efforts have undergone several reforms and the tax exemption laws have been modified over a dozen times, most recently in 2006.
To qualify for tax exemption, the organization must benefit the public in some way, as opposed to a private interest. The authors also add that “The activities of public charities are limited in that they must further one or more of the purposes for which they were granted tax-exempt status.”
The issue of taking the tax exemption from Harvard University, which is one of the premier universities in the US, and perhaps the whole world, stems from the fact that the Trump administration is weaponizing the use of anti-semitism. As the well-known journalist Gideon Levy has pointed out and several thoughtful journalists, activists and writers – both Israeli and American – that the Israeli government has weaponized the discourse of anti-semitism to suppress any criticism of the state of Israel. Here’s an interview with Levy that is worth a watch. American government’s adoption of this discourse is not just worrying but goes against the grain of what academic freedom is supposed to be – the freedom to critique and hold to account any government or other agents of power. Academic inquiry is about examining ethical conduct and power.
This NYT article breaks down the extent to which the donors of Harvard have already gotten the administration to cave in, including by firing the leadership of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, suspending students and creating an atmosphere, where voicing criticism of a genocide is punishable.
Harvard university has already capitulated to Trump administration’s demands by firing the leadership of its Center for Middle Eastern Studies. The recent about turn, in terms of standing upto the administration is new, even though it is a welcome move. How it stands upto the administration and what other universities will be decided in the weeks and months to come. But for now, it is surely a sign of our times that one of the oldest values – that of upholding public benefit – is being questioned. The Harvard case is a symptom of this kind of thinking – in an era where rampant privatization and devaluing of anything intellectual is in full force.
