- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,512
- 16,682
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Yes. If it comes from Qatar or Canada. It's wrong. Period.
Now if you want to start a thread on political hypocrisy (which this isn't about) then click the relevant button, think of a catchy title and off you go.
Political hypocrisy is just one aspect.
This thread is about the concerns surrounding potential foreign influence aimed at government institutions, correct?
We had all of those conversations before about how the University systems are tax-exempt, and are given a certain amount of latitude, based on the fact that with regards to their academic and research functions, they're essentially state actors. Meaning, it would neither be feasible nor practical for the government to try to take on some of those scientific research endeavors "in-house" in government agencies, so they're outsourcing that to Universities.
If Qatar is sending $4B into the American university systems for reasons of influencing academic perspectives...

Qatar and China Are Pouring Billions Into Elite American Universities
Foreign countries such as China and Qatar have poured $29 billion into campuses over the past few years. ‘Hostile powers are buying influence on American campuses at an industrial scale.’


Qatar’s Funding of US Universities: Influence and Controversy - https://eutoday.net
The case seeks the disclosure of financial records detailing Qatar’s contributions to several prominent institutions, including Harvard University and

And those Universities are engaged in public/private partnerships, then it's every bit as concerning as a 400m gift.
To say that it's not about hypocrisy is a bit of a debate game that gets played.
People feigning outrage of about the gift, when in fact, what they're actually upset about is the recipient, and then dismissing the critique with "well, this isn't about that" is a bit of a disingenuous debate game people play, because in reality, it's not really about the thing they're claiming it's about either if they're unwilling to discuss the broader topic as a whole and instead want to fixate on the one particular instance that just so happens to involve the politician they don't like.
It's very reminiscent of the "executive orders" debates we see every 4 years. People pretend to be outraged about EOs, someone points out that other presidents from the other team have also issued a lot of EOs, and are met with a response of "Well, that's off topic, this is just about this one particular president's EOs and nobody else's"...which means it wasn't the EOs that they were really upset about.
Upvote
0