KOCHADEMIA 3
ESTB 6 26
literature_review_conservative_philanthropy_in_higher_education_1
---
---
GGL 6 26
Staff Pipelines: The Koch apparatus acts as a political training ground, with many former staffers and network leaders moving into senior roles on Capitol Hill (such as the Senate Finance Committee) and inside presidential administrations. [1]
---
daniel simmons He is a graduate of Utah State University and George Mason University School of Law. dAD RANDY
---
---
theconv What’s wrong with secret donor agreements like the ones George Mason University inked with the Kochs
....The activist group wants to learn, among other things, which anonymous donor ponied up $20 million alongside the Koch Foundation’s $10 million to rename George Mason’s law school after the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
The university did share some of the Koch agreements with the media, but not until after it was sued.
Activists and journalists have long monitored Koch higher education donations because of the scope and breadth of their giving, which totaled about $150 million between 2005 and 2015, according to media reports. Still, the concern should extend beyond the Kochs to cover transparency for all gift agreements of whatever political hue.
Consider what happened when John Allison, an avowed fan of author and libertarian icon Ayn Rand, led BB&T. The U.S. bank offered colleges and universities grants averaging $1.1 million, usually with the stipulation that they design a new course incorporating Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”
BB&T also demanded that grantees create faculty positions, centers, speaker series and scholarships as part of a “Moral Foundations of Capitalism” program.
Accounting scholar S. Douglas Beets identified at least 63 schools that took this deal. But he had to scour local news stories and press releases to find them. If open records laws automatically made all such agreements public, he would not have had to do all that sleuthing.......
ref 1 :{Tuition and government funding does not adequately support the mission of many colleges and universities, and increasingly, corporations are responding to this need by making payments to institutions of higher learning with significant contracted expectations, including influence of the curriculum and content of college courses. One large, public banking corporation, BB&T, has funded grants to more than 60 colleges and universities in the United States to address what the corporation refers to as the “moral foundations of capitalism.”
These grants vary in size but average $1.1 million and typically require design of a new course that includes discussion of Atlas Shrugged, one of the novels of the author Ayn Rand. With many of the participating universities, the agreement with BB&T also stipulates the creation of chaired faculty positions, library reading rooms, designated capitalism centers, speaker series, scholarships, and the distribution of free student copies of Atlas Shrugged. Several ethics concerns about these grants, including their threat to academic freedom, are discussed in this article, as well as the need for focused guidance for university administrators regarding the temptation of large donations with attached questionable expectations.}:
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
ref 2 ihe
fears of corporate influence on higher education are nothing new. But are colleges and universities, which receive smaller and smaller shares of their budgets from public funding, and which have struggled to bounce back from the 2008 recession, more likely to accept gifts with ideological strings attached than they would have been previously?
That’s the idea behind a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Academic Ethics, called, "BB&T, Atlas Shrugged and the Ethics of Corporation Influence on College Curricula." It says it is the first study to track a particular set of donations by the financial services holding company BB&T to colleges and universities stipulating that they teach the works of free-market capitalist Ayn Rand and address the “Moral Foundations of Capitalism.”
The paper says these agreements, which have largely ceased, happen under a veil of secrecy, often without the knowledge of faculty members, and that BB&T’s foundation is set on correcting what it sees as an overly liberal curriculum.
“This has been reported on ad hoc, mostly by individual universities and their campus newspapers,” said Douglas Beets, the article’s author and a professor of business at Wake Forest University, which has its own BB&T-funded program. “But otherwise you can’t find information on [BB&T’s] website, and that’s one of the major problems -- this is not transparent.” And Beets says that, given current discussions over allegations of corporate influence over university research agendas, the Ayn Rand grants need more attention.
Prior to Beets’s study, he says, the most comprehensive list of colleges and universities affiliated with BB&T Moral Foundations program was kept by Clemson University’s Institute for the Study of Capitalism. But the list was not complete, and the funds each institution received, in exchange for what kinds of curricular requests, were not listed.
By scouring local news stories and university press releases, along with other means, Beets determined that at least 63 colleges and universities received Moral Foundations grants, averaging about $1 million each.
The grants typically stipulate that the institution will offer a course featuring Ayn Rand’sAtlas Shrugged -- a famously pro-free market novel -- and provide even unenrolled students in the relevant department a free copy of the book; in some cases, Atlas Shrugged is the only book on the course syllabus. The requirements are notable because, even though donors regularly will give support to a given department or field of study, dictating a book to be read would for many professors and others cross a line into inappropriate donor influence.
Beets quotes a BB&T spokesperson telling Bloomberg in 2008, “These gifts are really about the study of capitalism from a moral perspective and all we want is to make Rand part of the dialogue.”
One contract included the creation of an Ayn Rand “reading room” in the department, while others stipulated the development of a dedicated “center” of some sort -- in some cases, just a website. Others funded faculty chairs or other professorships, contractually geared in some cases to ideological allies. A 2011 Western Carolina University advertisement said applicants for its BB&T Distinguished Professor of Capitalism should be “at least familiar with, if not actively receptive to, the writings of Ayn Rand.”
Many of the contracts required an Ayn Rand-inspired speaker series, and some specified the series was to appeal to the general public.
Beets broke down the grants by three metrics to determine their proportionate influence on each institution: funds per student, university endowment per student and grant divided by endowment. Barton College, Johnson C. Smith University and Presbyterian College are among those colleges with the biggest grant-per-student values, at $500 each.
Beets determined that 78 percent of identified contract agreements were announced from 2006-10, although some were made as early as 2002 and some as late as 2012. Amounts varied widely, from $150,000 to Shenandoah University to $4.9 million to Clemson University. The mean contract was $1.1 million.
Contracts between BB&T and the participating institutions typically ran over 10 years, with the stipulation that nonperformance of requirements could result in cessation of funding.
Geography seemed to be the main determinant of where BB&T looked to grant. Most identified institutions are in the bank’s operating region, the Southeastern U.S., with 39 located in North Carolina, the bank’s home state.
The grants resulted in “superlatives” at some colleges and universities, according to the study. At the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, for example, the contract doubled the number of endowed professorships, to four from two. At Fayetteville State University, the contract was the largest corporate donation ever.
Beets asserts that it wasn’t shared ideology with BB&T’s former chief executive, John Allison, who reportedly made his managers read the book, that led colleges and universities to accept the grants. Rather, he says it was financial desperation from shifting funding structures. No longer able to count on public funding, many colleges and universities had to look elsewhere.
“College presidents often delegate a significant degree of fund-raising to subordinate deans and department heads, thereby charging those whose former priority was the quality of academic programs with fund-raising responsibilities and consequently shifting and reprioritizing their job descriptions,” Beets wrote. “These factors combine to make unusual and ideologically based grants alluring that once would have been considered unethical threats to the missions of higher education.”
It stands to reason, then, that regional universities in North Carolina, which have been hit hard by state budget cuts, and smaller, private colleges would be the most vulnerable.
One notable exception is Meredith College, a small, private liberal arts institution in Raleigh, N.C., which rejected a $420,000 Moral Foundations grant in 2006 that would have funded a course on global capitalism and ethical values. The decision was based on a faculty vote, 54-34. Opposed professors said they worried the contract would result in loss of some academic freedom, given that an outside entity would be dictating part of the curriculum.
Melyssa Allen, a college spokeswoman, said the faculty at that time also approved a resolution supporting academic freedom and limiting external funding for curricular offerings. “There was a consensus among faculty in attendance that academic freedom is a core value at Meredith,” Allen said.
A curriculum committee at Auburn University, a public institution with an enrollment of 25,000, turned down a $1.5 million grant from BB&T in 2009.
Beets says these grants can have outsize influence, as some states have programs that match corporate donations with public funding. Beets also points to a major funding overlap with Charles and David Koch, billionaires who have poured millions into conservative causes; some 42 institutions with Moral Foundations programs also had received donations from the Koch brothers’ charities. Both BB&T and the Kochs also have been major contributors to the Ayn Rand Institute.
One campus that’s accepted both BB&T and Koch grants is Florida State University, the latter of which caused much tumult on that campus. The institution accepted a $3 million BB&T Moral Foundations grant in 2008, in exchange for creating a course on market ethics, among other requirements.
“We are very appreciative of the confidence that BB&T has placed in Florida State University to create programs to emphasize the moral and ethical dimensions of our free enterprise system,” T. K. Wetherell, FSU's former president, said in an news release announcing the grant. "In these difficult economic times, it is more important than ever that public universities find new ways to partner with the private sector to develop the sorts of academic programs that our society will need in the coming decades."
The BB&T grant is still active; it’s set to expire in 2018. A spring 2015 syllabus for the course, called Market Ethics: The Vices, Virtues and Values of Capitalism, does feature a discussion called “Taxation is theft” but otherwise hardly suggests it’s a breeding ground for ardent capitalists.
“Critics of capitalism say it is an amoral system, or worse, that it encourages immoral behavior,” the syllabus reads. “Capitalism exploits people, it is unfair, and it values material things over more virtuous values. This course will examine the vices, virtues and values of capitalism to evaluate its ethical properties … the course is not designed to give you answers to these questions, but rather to raise questions and clearly structured issues so that you can think through them and form your own ideas.”
Still, the grant has riled faculty members who say that BB&T and Koch Industries are buying their way into the curriculum. Part of the problem was the way Allison, the CEO, dictated terms of the grant to administrators.
“It is very important to us that any program we support meets the highest academic standards and encourages students to hear all points of view,” Allison wrote in a letter to the deans of business and social sciences. “Frankly, we are confident that, when given a fair hearing, capitalism will prevail. Unfortunately, we find that many graduates of business schools, while understanding the ‘technology’ of business, do not have a clear grasp on the moral principles underlying free markets.”
Allison requested that the economics department create the new course, and that Ayn Rand be required reading. The finance department would add additional readings and course content on free markets, according to the letter, and both working paper and speaker series would be organized. All business graduate students and finance and economics majors will get a copy of Atlas Shrugged. BB&T requested two professorships, and that the program initially be directed by a department head, among other details.
The deal caught the attention of Kent Miller, a professor emeritus of psychology at Florida State, and Ray Bellamy, a medical faculty member, who expressed their concerns in the American Association of University Professors’Academe journal in 2012.
“Could these provisions be considered intrusive?” they wrote. “In exchange for his ‘gift,’ the donor got to assign specific readings, select speakers brought to the campus and instruct them with regard to the focus of their lectures, shape the curriculum with new courses and specify the number of students in the courses, name the program’s directors and initiate a student club. BB&T also received a disturbing amount of free online advertising through the web pages of FSU’s BB&T Center for Free Enterprise.”
They continued, “We do not know how thoroughly the college has obeyed Allison’s instructions. But if there is any concern about avoiding even the appearance of outside interference in the university, we are in trouble. The university has never existed as an ivory tower, but the ideals of academic freedom, the search for truth, scientific integrity, open debate and faculty control of the curriculum are worth defending. The university should be a place where the search for and transfer of knowledge are not shaped by outside money.”
A group called Progress Coalition also has criticized the grants, saying they violated the university's gift acceptance policy. Ralph Wilson, a recent Ph.D. student in math from Florida State and the group's co-founder, said the BB&T agreement amounts to "selling academic credit to outside influences." And even giving out free books to students signals they're "valid," he said.
Dennis Schnittker, a Florida State spokesman, said the instructor of the market ethics course determines what Ayn Rand readings are appropriate, and that the university has never dictated what should be taught. The university “has a long tradition of strong faculty governance and faculty sets the curriculum,” he said. “Donors do not unduly influence the curriculum.”
At UNC Charlotte, faculty outcry over the initial letter of agreement for Moral Foundations on that campus caused the university to revise its deal with BB&T. Steven Ott, dean of the Charlotte Belk College of Business on that campus, said that under the new agreement, “faculty assigned to the course would determine course content, in their sole and unfettered discretion.” Additionally, he said via email, language requiring a faculty member to have a positive interest in and be well versed in objectivism was elimination. The Ayn Rand reading room requirement also was scratched.
Not all faculty members are opposed to the program, however. In 2008, professors at Marshall University were debating the ethics of that campus’s BB&T grant. But Calvin A. Kent, the vice president for business and economic research and distinguished professor of business at Marshall, who was set to teach the Ayn Rand-based course, told*Inside Higher Edthat telling professors he was looking forward to teaching *Atlas Shrugged. Telling professors what not to teach violated academic freedom, he said, whereas simply suggesting that they teach one view among others is not.
"The expectation is that this book will be used. I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation," he said. "I would not go around telling the history department or the English department that they have no business using a particular novel or a particular historian. … For someone to tell us that we should or should not include something smacks of censorship.”
Beets disagreed. He said it was simply inappropriate for a corporation -- whether it was pushing Ayn Rand or Karl Marx -- to buy its way into the curriculum.
“I have to admit I’m biased because I’m a university professor,” he said, “but the content and course work in a university has traditionally been based on faculty standards. … I’m not sure what you’re buying when you’re a student and paying top dollar and not really getting the professor’s best course design. Instead you’re getting the corporation’s perspective of what they want to you learn, and that’s a different education and feel.”
Cynthia Williams, a BB&T spokeswoman, said the bank was essentially out of the Ayn Rand business, since it stopped awarding Moral Foundations of Capitalism grants roughly five years ago, when Allison left the bank. BB&T’s foundation now focuses on financial literacy and leadership programs for K-12 students, adults and some college students. Williams rejected the idea that the bank had a transparency problem in relation to Moral Foundations, saying that it doesn’t advertise any of its charitable work.
“When we give money to someone, we just give it," she said.
Beets said that even if the bank’s stopped giving grants, the story still needs to be told.
“Much of the reason for the continuing importance of BB&T's influence on university curricula is the precedent it sets for other corporations,” he said. “BB&T was able to pay an average of $1.1 million to many colleges and universities to include a specific ideology in college courses with minimal transparency and minimal concern from academia, BB&T stockholders or depositors, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. And in many cases, state governments even matched their payments. This is a successful example of exporting corporation ideology that many corporations are likely to follow in the future.”
---
Why some public universities get to keep their donors secret
in April 2018, the public learned that George Mason University had let the Charles Koch Foundation have a say in the hiring and review of faculty. The revelation confirmed long-held suspicions that Virginia’s largest public university was susceptible to pressure from wealthy people who make big donations to a foundation that solely exists to support the school.
The news also raised more questions. For example, how was the school able to conceal the strings-attached gift agreements for years? Do other public universities have similar arrangements, in which donations flow not to them, but to affiliated foundations?
Most importantly, do these foundations give donors a legal right to shape a public institution of higher education without public oversight if they so choose?
As a journalist-turned-professor who researches the tension between privatization and the public’s right to know, I can tell you the vast majority of public colleges and universities have separate foundations that exist to receive and manage their private donations. And unless state lawmakers do more to address the transparency status of these foundations, I’m concerned there are few ways to detect the kind of influence allowed at George Mason.
The George Mason case
Transparent GMU, a student advocacy group formed in 2013, had tried for years to access the Koch agreements under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA). The group suspected that George Mason might be trading academic influence for Koch dollars.
Don’t let yourself be misled. Understand issues with help from experts
An agreement forged in 2008 for a $1.5 million donation with strings attached from the Charles Koch Foundation to Florida State University caused a public outcry; Florida State later changed its policies.
Transparent GMU’s VFOIA requests were denied on the basis that the George Mason University Foundation possessed the agreement records and, as a private entity, did not have to share them.
The group sued the foundation in 2017. Transparent GMU argued that because the nonprofit accepts, disburses and administers funds for the sole benefit of a public university, it should be subject to VFOIA requests just like the university.
More than a year later, while the case was still pending, the university released the agreements and acknowledged that allowing donors to influence faculty decisions “falls short of the standard of academic independence we should expect in every gift.”
In the wake of the scandal, in May 2019 the university revised its gift acceptance policy. The university now accepts conditions attached to a private donation in writing, which makes them part of the public record. The Charles Koch Foundation also announced that it will now make public all multi-year agreements with colleges and universities.
But Transparent GMU ultimately lost its court challenge. In a unanimous decision that leaves no path for appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled Dec. 12 that as a privately held corporation with its own bylaws, the George Mason University Foundation is not a public body. Therefore, it’s not obligated to disclose records.
State by state
Unless it’s related to the federal government, public information access is regulated state by state under individual Freedom of Information laws. Each state defines in its own way what constitutes a public body, public records and public meetings.
Only Nevada explicitly defines university foundations as governmental entities under its public records act. A handful of other states, including Colorado, Georgia and Minnesota, have laws dictating that foundations disclose certain financial records while still remaining private. In most cases, even in Nevada, donor identities remain confidential.
Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act applies to public agencies, bodies supported wholly or principally by public funds, and entities “of the public body created to perform delegated functions of the public body.”
The state Supreme Court cited the Webster’s dictionary definition of the word “of” in deciding the George Mason foundation wasn’t a product “of” the university, even though it exists to support that school, pays the majority of the president’s salary, operates on campus, is part of the GMU website and staff directory, and is considered a “component unit” in university accounting.
“Had the General Assembly intended the unreserved inclusion of nonprofit foundations, that exist for the primary purpose of supporting public institutions of higher education, as public bodies under VFOIA, it could have so provided, but it has not,” Justice Cleo Powell wrote. “Policy determinations of this nature are peculiarly within the province of the General Assembly, not the judiciary.”
California case
Courts in other states have followed the same logic. In 2001 a California appellate court found that the California State University, Fresno Association, a nonprofit that operates the university’s commercial enterprises, wasn’t a public agency under the state’s Public Records Act (CPRA).
The court looked at the language of the law, weighed it against the spirit of transparency, and saw a puzzling gap.
“We are fully cognizant of the fact that our conclusion seems to be in direct conflict with the express purposes of the CPRA ‘to safeguard the accountability of government to the public,’” Justice Rebecca Wiseman wrote. “The Legislature’s decision to narrowly define the applicability of the CPRA, balanced against its sweeping goal to safeguard the public, leaves us scratching our judicial heads and asking, ‘What was the Legislature thinking?’”
But courts don’t act as super-legislatures to determine the wisdom or propriety of statutes, she continued. “The rewriting of a statute is a legislative, rather than a judicial function, a practice in which we will not engage.”
Ten years later, California passed a law that makes university foundations’ financial records, contracts and correspondence subject to public disclosure.
Under the Richard McKee Transparency Act of 2011, donors can remain anonymous unless they receive something in exchange that’s worth more than $2,500 or a no-bid contract within five years of the donation, or if they attempt to influence university curriculum or operations.
Pending in Virginia
Following the George Mason court decision, David Bulova, a Democratic Virginia state delegate from Fairfax County, where the university’s main campus is located, introduced two related bills. Both would preserve the private status of foundations that support public universities while also imposing new transparency requirements on them.
One, introduced Jan. 4, would make the amount, date, purpose and terms of a public-university donation subject to FOIA, and only grant donor anonymity if the donor requests it and does not set conditions related to academic decision-making.
The second proposal follows George Mason University’s lead. It would make universities accept in writing any terms or conditions placed on a donation and then provide that document upon request.
If those bills become law in Virginia, they could serve as good models for legislators in other states. Efforts to define university foundations as public entities usually go nowhere, but states can require more transparency of private organizations that are so clearly enmeshed with public institutions.
*This article has been updated to clarify that Florida State changed its policies after a controversial gift.
- Higher education
- Philanthropy
- Koch Brothers
- George Mason University
- Virginia
- University endowments
- Nonprofit law
- Philanthropy and nonprofits
Author
Alexa Capeloto Associate Professor of Journalism, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Disclosure statement
Alexa Capeloto does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Partners
DOI
https://doi.org/10.64628/AAI.qqv9ugr4v
PRINCETON BEACH HEAD?
CHICU DEI
After the cancellation of his MIT lecture, Abbot was offered a lecture appearance by Robert George, the director of Princeton University’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, which he gave on October 21 to a virtual audience of around 3,000. George, a well-known conservative intellectual, announced on Twitter that “MIT’s caving in to a cancel mob’s demand to disinvite a distinguished scientist who had been invited on the basis of his achievements to give an honorific lecture shows just how badly science today has been politicized. The integrity of science can’t survive politicization.”
GGL 6 26
AI Overview
Robert P. George is Princeton University’s McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. A prominent conservative Christian legal scholar, his work bridges philosophy and constitutional law, focusing on natural law, civil liberties, and the cultural foundations of free societies. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The capitalized terms in your query likely refer to his engagements with or recognition by several notable organizations and foundations that support classical liberal, free-market, or conservative intellectual endeavors:
- KOCH: George has been a notable recipient of support, fellowships, and program backing from foundations associated with Charles Koch, which often fund academic initiatives focused on free markets and constitutional principles.
- IHS (Institute for Humane Studies): He has frequently engaged with or lectured at this organization, which supports the study of classical liberalism and individual liberty. [1]
- HUMANE: This likely refers to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), which provides fellowships and educational programming where George serves as a lecturer and prominent intellectual figure.
- HAYEK: George is deeply aligned with classical liberal and free-market philosophies, and his programs at Princeton regularly engage with the ideas of F.A. Hayek and the Austrian School of Economics regarding the rule of law and limited government. [1]
===
MUCH TALK HOMOPHOBE
This article currently says "In 2009, George founded the American Principles Project,[1] which aimed to create a grass-roots movement around his ideas,[2] though he separated from the organization in 2016 when it embraced the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump." The last part does not have a citation, and I couldn't find a reference for it. What is it based on? Dreamyshade (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
---
---
Keeping Libertarianism Alive in the Academy: Organizations, Scholars, and the Idea Pipeline
- October 2024
- Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 10(4)
Abstract
:{:{In this article, the authors draw on the literatures about academic career pipelines and the sociology of ideas to understand how an outside group of organizations provides resources to aspiring scholars as young as high schoolers and as senior as emeriti professors. One of the goals of these organizations is to promote libertarian ideas in the academy. The authors show how, in contrast to other academic pipeline building, libertarian-leaning organizations fear that their perspectives encounter resistance in the progressive field of higher education. }:
Therefore, to keep libertarian ideas alive, they pursue strategies to guarantee a supply of graduate students for eventual academic jobs and provide professors with relatively easy access to funding, granting them autonomy vis-à-vis their home institutions. This funding may be used in part for programs that specifically hire libertarian PhDs, which in turn provide young scholars with a step ladder into the academy. The authors call this set of strategies an “idea pipeline.” On the whole, these efforts are designed to make a career studying libertarian ideas more desirable and viable for those inclined toward these viewpoints and to ward off the demise of libertarian thought in the academy.}:
hAYEk’s theory is that . . . you need to influence people who are
doing cutting-edge research. And if those ideas get legitimacy
and get some kind of purchase in the academy, then there’s going
to be a trickle-down effect to people who teach those ideas. . . . Our
hope is that if we can have a certain market share—whatever it
is, 10 percent—of all professors who are sympathetic, or at least
not hostile, to these ideas, then we have a chance to actually
have our ideas on the table.
—A senior-level staff member at the Institute
for Humane Studies
From my kind of outsider perspective, [the Institute for Humane
Studies] seems to be interested in making sure if there are young
people who . . . are libertarians, and are interested in becoming
academics, then they’re trying to help them achieve those goals.
—A libertarian assistant professor of economics
at a regional state university
What I’m thinking about is not just what the academy looks like
now, but what it’s going to look like a generation from now.
That’s the bet we’re making.
—A senior-level staff member at the Mercatus CenteR
....
10 Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World
But by a large margin, IHS and Mercatus do the most to
ensure that promising graduate students learn about libertar-
ian viewpoints, get networked to other scholars, and gather
the skills and cultural resources of “the hidden curriculum”
to succeed in the academic job market.
“Connectivity throughout the Arc
of Scholars’ Careers”: Resources for
Professors
As scholars move into professorships, libertarian-leaning
organizations continue to play a significant role in the idea
pipeline by helping faculty prepare for tenure, acquire pro-
fessional status, and build research centers. Having publica-
tion outlets for libertarian-friendly papers and dedicated
venues for meetings, are felt by respondents to be especially
important. This is because libertarians, like conservatives
(Shields and Dunn 2016), believe their colleagues can be dis-
missive of, or hostile toward, their viewpoints. At this stage,
IHS and Mercatus continue to be important players, but other
organizations, such as the Association of Private Enterprise
Education (APEE), the Liberty Fund, the Mont Pelerin
Society, the Mises Institute, and Public Choice Society also
figure in. CKF and other donors play a critical role in bring-
ing support full circle: their funding means that professors
can dedicate their teaching and research toward areas of
unique interest to libertarianism, thereby propagating the
idea pipeline for future scholars.
Conferences and Networking as Refuge
Spaces to connect are crucial for reinforcing the idea pipe-
line. APEE, of which several of our interviewees are mem-
bers, “gives young scholars a place to present their papers,
give it a trial run,” said Peter Boettke, an economist at George
Mason University. Boettke pointed out that providing
resources to junior faculty is a benefit in the other direction,
too, because if organizations do not cultivate new partici-
pants and leadership, some organizations might “die on the
vine” because of their older membership. He had seen this
happen at the Mont Pelerin Society, at which, he said, “you
have more obituaries at a meeting than you do new papers!”
Keeping the pipeline filled with young blood, in the face of
“an aging population” is, practically speaking, existential for
generating libertarian ideas.
Among the most lauded of all such meeting places are
those that allow scholars to immerse themselves in the full
spectrum of libertarian thought, especially the colloquia
hosted by the Liberty Fund, an organization with a $350
million endowment from its founder, industrialist Pierre
Goodrich (Liberty Fund 2023). At Liberty Fund seminars,
participants “get together for two or three days, and you have
a set of readings,” said Michael Munger, a political scientist
at Duke University. “There is a strong norm that no conclu-
sions will be drawn, and that no deep truths will be identi-
fied. You’re just trying to learn more about this reading.”
Dan D’Amico mock-indignantly said that Liberty Fund sem-
inars are “very indulgent to participate in.” Likening the col-
loquia to a Catholic retreat where “you stop everything, and
you hang out and think about God,” he said that in Liberty
Fund’s case, participants “do that with Adam Smith, James
Buchanan, and F.A. Hayek.”
Like others, Eric Mack, a professor emeritus of philoso-
phy at Tulane, extolled the experience, not only for the sheer
pleasure of it, but for its effects on participants’ networks. “It
helps people’s careers.” Elaborating, he explained that “a
junior faculty member” can “come back to campus” and tell
their colleagues, as Mack himself has done, “Well yeah, I
was talking to [famed economist] Gordon Tullock this
week.” Such an unusual experience can lead to “forming
relationships. And all of a sudden, they’re getting people to
write recommendations for them.” Similarly, Chandran
Kukathas, a political scientist at Singapore Management
University, told us about being fortunate enough to have
attended a “star-studded” debate between David Friedman
and Robert Nozick, two titans in libertarian circles.
The weekend seminars sponsored by the Liberty Fund, as
well as those coordinated by IHS, serve an additional func-
tion. As Fletcher, the former IHS staff member, pointed out,
“one of the dominant values that IHS provides is, over-
whelmingly, a community and a network.” Chamlee-Wright
agreed with this view. “Intellectual community is really the
lifeblood of a rewarding, rich, meaningful academic career,”
she said.
That sense of camaraderie can be really valuable, especially if
you feel like you’re someone who hasn’t found your place
within your home institution. Feeling like you’re always doing
battle—that can feel like a really lonely place. So that sense of
intellectual community can be a real lifeline.
Publication Venues
Another way organizations keep libertarian ideas alive is by
providing outlets for publishing. On the more radical side of
the libertarian sphere, Florida State’s Bruce Benson and
Loyola University of New Orleans economist Walter Block
have turned to venues such as the Mises Institute’s Journal of
Libertarian Studies. As a junior faculty member fresh out of
his PhD program, Benson had a “pretty interesting” paper on
property rights. However, he told us, “I didn’t think it would
....
concl
...ions to our concept of idea pipelines. As we have indicated,
previous research describes other instances of outside orga-
nizations playing crucial roles in sustaining emerging aca-
demic subfields (Arthur 2009; Mascarenhas 2011; Proietto
1999; Schmitt et al. 2023), but more should be done to under-
stand how actors external to the academy selectively enable
career paths in ways that may influence the intellectual direc-
tions taken by scholars. Beyond libertarians, how has the
conservative right built up its ideas pipeline? Although much
has been written about the organizational inroads made by
the conservative movement during the latter quarter of the
twentieth century (Hertel-Fernandez 2019; Himmelstein
1992), analysis of how the movement has worked inside the
academy to develop graduate students and professors within
a conservative idea pipeline has been little explored (cf.
Teles 2008). Similar questions could also be asked about
how outside organizations may have facilitated the leftward
shift of the academy in the postwar years (Gross 2013). And,
of course, there are any number of ideas potentially being
funneled into disciplines and subfields for nonpolitical rea-
sons worthy of investigation as well.
As for the libertarian idea pipeline, it is not clear what lies
ahead. IHS has, for the time being, moved away from sup-
porting undergraduates, as has FEE. Recently, CKF has also
shifted some of its funding toward what Ryan Stowers, the
organization’s chief executive, described as “broader post-
secondary learning spaces,” as opposed to traditional col-
leges and universities. These strategic organizational changes
are on top of a volatile political climate where many libertar-
ian intellectuals (inside and outside academia) feel discon-
nected from the increasingly populist orientation of the
Libertarian Party (Doherty 2022). Additionally, the
Republican Party remains vocally critical of higher educa-
tion because of its perceived role in left-wing indoctrination.
To wit, conservative politicians regularly threaten to with-
draw the historic tax benefits of some colleges and universi-
ties (e.g., Patel 2024). Although this discourse may seem to
lend ballast to libertarian organizations’ claims of a hostile
space in academia, it is likely that any policy changes that
constrain schools’ ability to operate would hurt libertarian
and nonlibertarian scholars alike.6
In short, the idea pipeline we detail in this article rests
atop shifting sands. Some aspects of the pipeline, once put
into place, will endure for decades (such as tenure-track
hires). Other aspects of the pipeline can disappear on th
...
---
---}:
STUDENT PAPER
Examining the Koch Scholars Program
:{:{on November 25, 2014}:
Seventy-five applications sat in a pile on Professor William Shughart’s desk with 75 students all wanting to hear the same words: “Congratulations! We would like you to participate in Utah State University’s Koch Scholars Program.”
The Jon M. Huntsman School of Business website defines Koch Scholars Program as “a select group of intellectually curious faculty and students … who are interested in how politics and economics affect individual freedom and responsibility.”
Each semester, 15 students are admitted to the Koch Scholars Program, funded by the Charles G. Koch Foundation (CGK Foundation).
A businessman and philanthropist, Charles Koch, is chairman of the board and CEO of Koch Industries and co-owns the company with his brother, David Koch.
According to the Forbes list of “The World’s Most Powerful People,” the Koch brothers have built a $43.6 billion empire. Their product interest ranges from the Dixie cup to Stainmaster Carpet.
The Koch Brothers have made frequent appearances in the news lately with headlines like “Animal Rights Groups Claims Abuse by Koch Foods” from CBS Local, “The Koch Brothers Sneak into School” from Huffington Post and “The Koch Network Spent $100 Million This Election Cycle” from the National Journal.
When asked whether he considered their ethics to be in question, Professor Shughart declined to answer.
Another professor, however, did answer.
“I don’t even know who the Koch brothers are,” said Chris Fawson of the economics and finance department. “Do they have names?”
Fawson was a Koch Professor for four years and is an advocate for the program.
“I think it’s one of the best mentoring opportunities on campus for students from across campus. … I loved doing Koch Scholars,” he said.
With Charles G. Koch Professor of Political Economy Randy Simmons, Fawson played a critical role in introducing the Koch Scholars Program to USU.
“The program was founded by Randy Simmons and Chris Fawson,” said Shughart, who is now a Koch Professor. “We are not influenced one bit by the Koch Brothers. They finance this program because they like what we do. We’re not doing what they want us to do. They like what we do. They fund us, I don’t know, probably $80,000 or $100,000 a year. But all the money goes to books, to food and stipends.”
The foundation grant agreement with USU includes a provision that the Koch foundation be involved in reviewing candidates for tenure-tracked professor positions and requires that those hired with Koch funding follow certain objectives and principles, which are outlined in the agreement.
In this instance the CGK Foundation, an outside entity, has the ability to reject or approve the hiring of certain university staff.
Under in Section 2(c)(iii) of Terms of Agreement, it reads, “USU agrees to recruit and maintain the Professors in accordance with the Objectives and Purposes.”
“Many of our best students have participated in (Koch Scholars),” said Michael Lyons of the political science department. “Some have liked it. Some have walked away as critics. And, you know, I don’t think it’s in any sense harming our students.”
The Koch Brothers are characterized by their conservative orientation, Lyons said, and it strikes him as “highly unfortunate” to see its influence at a university in one of the most conservative states in the country, “where the last thing in the world we should be doing is reinforcing conservative ideology.”
“I don’t think ideology belongs in a university,” said Lyons. “The exploration of values does, but … the worst thing you can do is simply conform to the existing cultural environment of the state, to reinforce everything everybody thinks already. That accomplishes nothing in terms of teaching students critical thinking.”
It has been suggested that Koch Scholars impedes on the free exchange of ideas by promoting certain ideologies.
“I think that’s insanity,” Fawson said. “There’s no ideology that’s promoted, other than to think critically about a set of readings.”
Samples of readings for the scholars include “Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith, “Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy”by Joseph Schumpter, “Ender’s Game”by Orson Scott Card and “The Hunger Games“ by Suzanne Collins.
“I did not feel manipulated into any schools of thought,” said Joslyn Olsen, a former Koch Scholar. “I will say, however, that my own beliefs about politics and government certainly evolved over the course of the semester. I believe that was a natural progression of new-found viewpoints and insights rather than any form of coercion.”
Many students in the political science and economics departments participate in the Koch Scholars Program.
“Political scientists have a responsibility to explore political ideologies, and economists have a responsibility to explore ideologies of economic systems,” Lyons said. “So it’s a legitimate field of inquiry, but the question is, do scholars make an attempt to present, in good faith, all the possible ideological or value perspectives on questions? Or is there a deliberate attempt to slant things? Discussions about ideology are completely appropriate and, I think, necessary. Advocacy of ideology doesn’t belong at a university.”
Lyons has never participated in the Koch Scholars Program and as such, does not necessarily believe the program advocates for certain ideology.
“It would be fascinating to see what the nature of our agreement with the Koch brothers is,” he said.
Of the allegations in the media against Charles Koch, Fawson said, “I think that humans are complex people that have a variety of virtues and vices. All of us have them, right? So can people write things critical of Charles Koch? Sure. He’s not perfect, right? The mere fact that they use the word ‘Koch brothers’ means nothing to me. That’s not a name. That’s not a person. That’s how you villainize people; you label them a certain way and attack the label that you’ve created.”
Fawson encourages students who are concerned about participating in Koch Scholars to broaden their perspective.
“Follow your own conscience,” said Fawson. “If you’re uncomfortable with what somebody does, don’t associate with them.”
— *brennakelly818@gmail.com
---
---