Glenn Beck Misses the Mark on Educational Endowments

To the surprise of many, Glenn Beck continues to appear nightly on CNN where he delivers an exceedingly biased and convoluted form of commentary. Somehow, this conservative commentator remains on the air despite having once offered this singular gem, “I think Jesus Christ and Hitler had a lot in common.”

Such statements have led some to call him a menace and a moron. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC went one step further and referred to the commentator as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” and a “very dangerously bigoted guy.”

To see why Beck is referred to in such terms we need only turn to a recent example of a convoluted, error-filled argument the commentator penned for CNN regarding taxing higher education endowments. A single read of his op ed piece will leave most educated folks shuddering. With a second read you soon understand why it is that many folks wonder aloud, “How is this man given an opportunity to be on the air?”

A Recent Beck Diatribe
His commentary, “Tax-free hypocrisy from higher education,” represents a painful mix of conservative rhetoric and hateful narrow-mindedness. His sheer disdain for higher education is astonishing but the depths to which he tries to portray those who work in higher education as hypocrites is perhaps even more astonishing.

In discussing whether or not Harvard University, owners of the largest endowment in the country at $34.6 billion, should be taxed on that endowment, he shares his view of the mission of the university and that of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, owners of an endowment valued at $37.3 billion.

Beck states, “While their financial statements may look similar, their missions aren’t. The Gates Foundation is working to cure malaria, develop new tuberculosis vaccines, and stop the spread of AIDS. Most of our colleges and universities are only working to spread the radical political views of some of their professors.”

Beck spends most of his time supporting an idea that the State of Massachusetts is floating around, a flat tax on college endowments. The conservative Beck ridicules Harvard for taking a conservative position on such taxes. Beck quotes Kevin Casey, Harvard’s associate vice president for government, community and public affairs.

“You’d be taxing success here. Over time, this would put us at a real competitive disadvantage, which would drastically hurt the Commonwealth.”

The commentator then offers this jewel as a follow up.

“Does anyone else find it ironic that universities overflowing with liberal professors (a 2005 study revealed that 72 percent of professors view themselves that way) embrace conservative values only when it suits them?

As a conservative, I don’t believe in taxing anyone just because they have a lot of money or are an easy target. That applies to individuals, businesses and universities. I believe that taxing success discourages success, and that’s not what America stands for.”

In between, Beck appears to take just the opposite position with the notion of an endowment tax, essentially deciding that Harvard and the likes should be fair game. He also rails against a gluttonous institution and insists that the school could actually make access to its liberal professors and their radical political agendas free if it only wanted to.

Wrong Bag to Punch
Beck’s failure to recognize the recent trends at Harvard is unfair to the school. In addition, his insinuation that Harvard could simply roll all of its college endowments entirely in tuition relief is disingenuous.

In selecting Harvard as his punching bag, Beck obviously failed to do his homework. In comparing the school to the Gates Foundation, he first fails to recognize that Harvard in fact has an Aids Initiative as well. But that is only one of his many errors regarding one of America’s top educational institutions.

Though it is always possible to do more for students in the way of financial aid, over the last year Harvard has actually taken some very important steps regarding tuition costs for students. Each of those steps appears to utilize funds from the endowments.

At Harvard Law, the school has undertaken the task of increasing the number of law students who choose a public service career. As one component of the plan, the third year law school tuition costs would be waived for students who pledge to spend at least five years working at a nonprofit organization or for the government. This would save students more than $40,000 in tuition costs.

In March, Jeffrey Flier, the Dean of Harvard Medical School, announced that the school would increase its scholarships by $7-million annually. In addition, the school simultaneously decreased the family contribution amount for those earning less than $120,000 a year. The overall savings is expected to reduce the four-year medical degree costs by an average of $50,000 per student.

The most positive step however involves the recent announcement that families with incomes under $60,000 are not expected to contribute to their child’s education. In addition, Harvard reduced the expected family contribution for those with incomes between $60,000 and $80,000.

With two-thirds of Harvard students receiving financial aid the median Harvard graduate student debt after four years of college is $6,400. In fact, the average grant award for the next school year is expected to exceed $33,000, an amount that represents 70 percent of the total cost of attendance.

Ultimately, Beck is convinced that Harvard could do far more for its students. Given the sheer size of the school’s endowment fund, the commentator seems to think the school could make college free for its students if it wished to do so. And because the school does not make school free, then it deserves to have its endowment taxed.

Of course, when it comes to most endowments, schools generally have little control over the funds themselves. Most, in fact, are set up so that only a small percentage of the available fund may be spent by the institution while another group allow only a portion of the interest earned by the fund to be spent. In addition, the money that may be spent by the school is generally earmarked with specific use requirements. Therefore, Beck’s insistence that the school could do more is really nothing more than a simplistic assumption.

National Figure
One would think that someone offering commentary at a national level would have their material reviewed at some point by superiors and therefore be accountable for what he or she has said. Clearly that does not appear to be the case for this commentator.

Ironically, in the same article, Beck had the audacity to offer:

“I also believe in something else: consistency and accountability. And that’s where most of our colleges and universities fail miserably.”

Sadly we must note that Beck has failed miserably to create a meaningful argument. In fact, in his discussion of possibly taxing higher education endowments, Beck is neither consistent nor accountable.

But somehow the man is still on the air.

Glenn Beck photos by Steve Rhodes.