this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
1079 points (98.2% liked)

Science Memes

11148 readers
4087 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 294 points 1 month ago (9 children)

I'd be ok with anonymous donations if they were truly anonymous both publicly and to the management of the institution receiving the money.

Maybe this is something that the government could facilitate - pool these resources, then help distribute them where they are needed. Almost like how taxes work.

Maintains uncomfortable eye contact with the camera

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 160 points 1 month ago (3 children)

If anyone is aware of the source, it's not anonymous, it's undisclosed.

[–] MalReynolds 67 points 1 month ago

Agreed, literal anonymous, way cool. Undisclosed, much less so.

[–] abbadon420@lemm.ee 27 points 1 month ago

The tweet speaks of "dark money". I like that term better. It feels worse

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I work for a nonprofit and “anonymous donor” definitely means “c-suite folks know who it came from”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] norimee@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This exactly. If you really want to stay anonymous then use a middleman and do it anonymous to the recipient as well.

Everyone involved with the institution, students, parents who pay tuition, teachers, authorities who financially support the institution (...) have a right to know in whose pocket they are.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Seraph@fedia.io 252 points 1 month ago (4 children)

It's not a donation if they get to dictate what the organization does - it's a bribe.

[–] IMongoose@lemmy.world 94 points 1 month ago (3 children)

There was a librarian who saved his whole life and when he passed donated I think 1 million dollars to his old university. That university then spent the money on a new score board for the football field. I bet if he saw that he would have wished he put some stipulations on his donation.

[–] Hazmatastic@lemm.ee 36 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I have a similar line of thinking. I'm a musician, so if I was filthy rich I might want to donate money to a school's music department. If the school is one fiscal entity, I would have to put that as a stipulation to ensure they gave the money to that department, not divert it to something overfunded or just padding the board's pocket as bonuses for "a job well done"

[–] crank0271@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you get filthy rich let's go party together

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 46 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Literally every donation to any organization anywhere comes with strings attached. Nobody just gives money blindly and says "Here, somebody else use this."

You drop money in the collection plate, it's because you want your faith to be shared and your church to prosper. You drop your change in the box at the convenience store, it's because you don't want to be walking around with three pounds of garbage money jingling in your pockets like Santa's nutsack. There's always a motive for giving.

[–] Instigate@aussie.zone 44 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I donate regularly to a charity and don’t try to dictate how they spend that money, because I have faith that they’ll responsibly use my donations.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Sure, but not just generally "charity." You pick and choose who you donste to, and you donate to charitable organizations that you think do good work. If they started smelting orphans, you'd probably stop writing checks.

[–] Zoidsberg@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

smelting orphans

Haven't heard that one before. Had a hearty chuckle.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I gave someone from high-school I hadn't spoken too in 15 years 2 grand so she didn't get evicted from her apartment and end up homeless. Never told her. Sometimes people just do nice things bcz it's the right thing to do.

Nobody should be homeless over hospital bills.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Removing these biases is the whole point of public funding for things. Everyone shares the same resources and people who have more wealth give more. The fact that major institutions that perform public functions rely on private donations is the problem.

[–] hannesh93@feddit.org 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

So someone donates money to their city's library with the specific purpose that they can expand their building to have more space that's a bribe?

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 month ago

Maybe that person hates books and likes seeing them locked away in book prison?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The question is; does this give the anonymous donor that ability? Being anonymous implies not.

[–] GreatBlueHeron@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm fairly certain it is only anonymous "on paper". Behind closed doors, they know where it came from and what is expected in return.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 55 points 1 month ago

Simpsons did it!

"Well, frankly, test scores like Larry's would call for a very generous contribution. For example, a score of 400 would require a donation of new football uniforms, 300, a new dormitory, and in Larry's case, we would need an international airport."

[–] twice_twotimes@sh.itjust.works 53 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Important additional context that didn’t make it into this tweet, this donation was explicitly directed toward promoting “free inquiry and expression” at UChicago. Decades ago that was a legit strength of UChicago that really was pretty ideologically neutral, and that history gives them a phenomenal tool for spinning dog whistles and ultra conservative policies as part of “the life of the mind.”

Here’s the announcement email from the University’s president yesterday.

Worth noting that Eman Abdelhadi is faculty at UChicago, speaking out against her own employer alongside hundreds of other faculty. Eman is particularly adept at making sure every time they use “free inquiry and expression” as a conservative dog whistle it gets thrown back in their faces. (She’s also just kind of a badass.)

UChicago admin work very hard to promote this image of the school as a bastion for “sane conservatives” by taking stances diametrically opposed to the what the students and faculty actually stand behind. The real UChicago is anti-genocide, pro-union, and knows that promoting free speech doesn’t mean tolerating hate speech.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah, so basically "The Department of Just Asking Questions." 🤢

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] A7thStone@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I only have two words "Chicago Boys". This shit has been going on there for a long time.

[–] twice_twotimes@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago

Oh 100% absolutely. I mean the gentrification of Hyde Park and Woodlawn with active, deliberate harm to the black community started at the University’s inception in 1898 (1895? 92? They keep changing the “established in” date on all their merch and propaganda, it’s hard to keep up) and continues to this day with no signs of slowing.

I also should have specified that if we’re talking about student/faculty attitudes the “real” UChicago community does not or at least should include Booth and the psychopathic econ department. That’s where all the money comes from (because it’s evil) but everyone except admin hates them. Also I’m pretty sure they would argue “community” means communism and community of any kind should be abolished in favor of a social free market or some shit, whatever garbage they are peddling these days.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 52 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Um, if it's anonymous can they influence anything?

[–] hannesh93@feddit.org 90 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Anonymous usually means that they don't want their name to show up publicly.

There's almost certainly knowledge of who that money is coming from at least with a couple of persons that received the funds.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 14 points 1 month ago

More like they don't want the wider public to know it was them that donated. Some folks that are extremely wealthy go to great lengths to keep their names out of people's minds and stay out of the public eye as a matter of personal security.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The university knows who’s paying its bills and has agreed to keep it a secret.

A truly anonymous donation should be double-blind to the donor AND recipient. If you don’t want credit, don’t expect influence either.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I don't know what you mean by

double-blind to the donor AND recipient

But to me that phrase kinda implies that the donor doesn't know who they donated to. Which…no. It should be blind to the recipient. Entirely blind. But people donating can still choose where to donate to.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The recipient doesn’t know the donor, and the donor has no way to prove their identity to the recipient.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] memfree@beehaw.org 29 points 1 month ago

It sounds like the donor had requirements. From The Tribune:

The University of Chicago has received a $100 million gift from an anonymous donor to support free expression, marking what may be the largest-ever single donation to support such values in higher education, the university announced Thursday.

And:

Discussions surrounding the donation have been ongoing for over a year, according to a university spokesperson.

From https://chicago.suntimes.com/education/2024/09/26/university-chicago-donation-free-speech-expression-forum :

The gift was ridiculed by advocates involved in the encampment that highlighted abuses against Palestinians in the Israel-Hamas War and torn down by the university in the spring.

“It’s truly a slap in the face,” said Yousseff Hasweh, a U of C grad who’s diploma was withheld by the university for two months, allegedly for his involvement in the protest.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

University of Chicago is the home of the federalist society.

[–] logos@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

And the home of the Chicago school of economics. It's a little like worrying Fox News is gonna change it's editorial bias because of a donation. That ship has sailed

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you think the donation will somehow make the University of Chicago more conservative?

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Just hold out the finger in the air for when there is a change in the intensity of propaganda

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Not publicly supported enough though lol. *leers at 40k of student debt

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›