Category Archives: ethics

University Funding and University Overhead

Posted on by
Reply

Maya Sen, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, thinks the Trump administration’s insistence on a cap of 15% for “indirect costs” as part of all Federal research grants to colleges/universities is too low for too many such institutions; such caps should continue to be negotiated school by school. She insists, for instance, that Harvard needs its 69% cut of research grants for its indirect cost.

An across-the-board 15% cap, she insists, ignores any individualized considerations, leaving schools with higher costs in the lurch. And, she claims,

University research depends on federal money—11% of Harvard’s operating revenue comes from such grants.

Her alternative:

There’s a better solution than a blanket cap. Universities could instead commit to addressing administrative bloat and shoring up research integrity—both reasonable points that academics themselves have flagged.

Couple things about that. One is Harvard’s $53.2 billion endowment with its 2024 return on investment of 9.6%—a fairly typical ROI for Harvard; even if its yearly ROI varies quite a bit around that figure. That’s a lot of money carefully not being used for the school’s operating revenue, or its grant “indirect costs.”

The other is that proposed Universities could instead commit to addressing administrative bloat and shoring up research integrity. We’ve seen already the value of those commitments—empty virtue-signaling words in far too many cases. See for instance, Sen’s own Harvard and its refusal to enforce its commitment to protect Jewish students from Harvard’s population of pro-terrorist “students.”

Bonus thing regarding those schools with higher costs about which Sen worries being left in the lurch: any lurch is solely the product of those “higher cost” schools. They can straightforwardly cull their administrative bloat and adjust their spending allocations to deal with remaining costs. All that would take is a modicum of courage, with backbone injected via reduced revenues caused by reduced Federal froo-froo included in any research grants.

No. The administration’s across-the-board 15% cap needs to be implemented.

Speculative Lawsuits

Posted on by
Reply

A collection of Leftist State Attorneys General led by New York’s Letitia James has filed an amicus brief in an existing suit against the Federal government over President Donald Trump’s (R) move to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That might leave American banks without a government watchdog, they claim in their brief.

Furthermore, [t]he AGs didn’t accuse any banks of wrongdoing. These AGs further claim

The absence of a functioning CFPB…creates a regulatory vacuum even greater than what existed before the Great Recession. The very large financial institutions that compete with state-chartered banks will have carte blanche to loosen their regulatory compliance and profit accordingly.

Further, as cited by The Wall Street Journal,

The AGs argued that the administration is creating a regulatory gap that will encourage the largest banks to game the system by taking a more lax approach, while smaller state-chartered banks will still be subject to state supervision.

Might. Will have. And those two possibles in the latter: “will encourage” and “will still be.” These are purely speculative, with no harm being alleged. No actual wrong doing, in so many words, is being alleged. Basing a law suit, or even an amicus, on speculation about an unknown future—however likely plaintiffs might claim that future to be—is anathema in the American legal system. The requirement to allege—credibly—actual harm already done prevents a potful of frivolous, of politically motivated, of purely fee-seeking lawsuits where no harm exists, even where no harm is likely to exist in some nebulous future.

The Leftist AGs’ move is typical of the Left’s and their Progressive-Democratic Party politicians’ lawfare business.

This is yet another reason why it’s so difficult for us average Americans to have nice things in our nation. It’s time to start requiring plaintiffs to pay the defendants for the costs of lawsuits which plaintiffs bring and lose, and to require those providing amicus briefs on the side of plaintiffs to share in paying those costs.

Presidential Authority

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is moving to reassert a President’s authority over the Executive Branch of our Federal government, lately signing an Executive Order that imposes new White House supervision over so-called independent agencies.

The editors of the WSJ center their support for this on

Article II’s command that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” If Congress has charged such agencies with enforcing laws, then the President should be able to supervise how they do their job.

They’re right as far as they go, but the matter is far more basic than that. The first sentence of Section 1 of our Constitution’s Article II lays out the foundational nature of an American Presidency:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Our Executive Branch is run by a single executive officer, not by a committee of board members, especially not by an executive and a number of other executives operating independently of him and of each other.

This is the unitary executive, as some legal scholars term it. It’s long past time it got restored. Trump is entirely correct in this matter.

Chlorinated Water and Cancer Risk

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Post‘s headline screams

Chemical found in US drinking water is linked to 15% higher risk of colorectal cancer, 33% for bladder cancer

The chemical in question is a collection of trihalomethanes (THM)—chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform—that can form when chlorine reacts with water. Chlorine is routinely added to our nation’s potable water by water producers in order to eliminate bacteria and viruses from our drinking water. Chlorine is very effective at that.

The second paragraph in the Post‘s article lays out the…fear:

A new analysis out of Sweden reports that disinfecting water with chlorine creates chemical byproducts that can increase the risk of bladder cancer by 33% and colorectal cancer by 15%.

What’s the baseline rate of those cancers in the US, though? How big an increase are those 15% and 33% bumps? Those bits of context, critical to understanding the true nature of these risks, are elided by the news outlet.

Here are some data with which to fill in those gaps. According to the American Cancer Society,

[T]he lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 24 for men and 1 in 26 for women.

According to the National Cancer Institute,

Approximately 2.2% of men and women will be diagnosed with bladder cancer at some point during their lifetime

Applying the increased risk values to these really quite low baseline probabilities, we get

• likelihood of men getting colorectal cancer rises from 4.2% to 4.8%
• likelihood of women getting colorectal cancer rises from 3.8% to 4.4%
• likelihood of men or women getting bladder cancer rises from 2.2% to 4.2%

Keep in mind the lifetime nature of those risks, which is nicely matched by the lifetime practice we have of drinking chlorinated tap water. Thus, it’s certainly true that these increases are worth watching, especially the bladder cancer risk increase, but these already very low baseline risks remain quite low even with chlorinated water.

Further balancing those risk increases are the enormously reduced risk of infection by serious and debilitating water-borne disease.

Lazy Congress

Posted on by
Reply

This chart, via DOGE, shows the number of regulations that have been written for each law passed by Congress, just since 2010. (Right click on the image and from the drop-down menu choose “Open Image in New Tab” to get a bigger image.)

Go to the link, and mouse over the bars in the graph to get amplifying data beyond the appalling data visible in the image.

This shows how non-specific Congress’ bills are, and yet the President signs them into law. This laziness by Congress and the too-laissez faire attitude of Presidents are unconscionable. Congress needs to write laws to be complete and specific, rather than outsourcing specifity to Executive Branch entities, and Presidents need to veto these too-vague bills.