[replying to two of your comments in one because it is basically the same point]
Moreover, as [the philosopher] has noted in his billionaire philantrophy series, megadonor charitable activity comes at the cost of hundreds of millions in tax revenues. In my book, that makes public criticism of those donors’ choices much more appropriate than wtf’ing a private person’s choice to pursue an academic career. And there are often deeply personal reasons for one’s career choice.
This seems pretty uncompelling to me. A private individual’s philanthropy reduces tax revenues relative to their buying yachts, but a private individual’s decision to pursue a lower-paid academic career instead of becoming a software engineer or banker or consultant (or whatever else their talents might favour) also reduces tax revenues. Yes, the academic might have deeply personal reasons for their career choice, but the philanthropist might also have deeply personal reasons for their philanthropy—or their counterfactual yacht buying.
The fact that Vanderbilt is a private university also seems like a weak defense—what are the funding sources for Vanderbilt? As far as I am aware they are largely 1) an endowment started by billionaire philanthropy 2) taxpayer funded research 3) taxpayer subsidized student loans and 4) tax deductible donations. If benefiting from tax expenditures is sufficient to invite scrutiny then few US academics are exempt.
To use an even clearer example: a married couple’s decision to file their taxes jointly potentially significantly reduces their taxes. But I think their decision to do so causes absolutely zero increase in the extent to which it is appropriate to criticize them.
I think a much weaker version of this argument—that making tax-deductable charitable donations invites scrutiny as to whether their object really is charitable vs being a mere vanity project—is valid. But the scope of charitable objectives in the tax rules is very broad (to the extent that often activism on both sides of a political issue qualify!).
[replying to two of your comments in one because it is basically the same point]
This seems pretty uncompelling to me. A private individual’s philanthropy reduces tax revenues relative to their buying yachts, but a private individual’s decision to pursue a lower-paid academic career instead of becoming a software engineer or banker or consultant (or whatever else their talents might favour) also reduces tax revenues. Yes, the academic might have deeply personal reasons for their career choice, but the philanthropist might also have deeply personal reasons for their philanthropy—or their counterfactual yacht buying.
The fact that Vanderbilt is a private university also seems like a weak defense—what are the funding sources for Vanderbilt? As far as I am aware they are largely 1) an endowment started by billionaire philanthropy 2) taxpayer funded research 3) taxpayer subsidized student loans and 4) tax deductible donations. If benefiting from tax expenditures is sufficient to invite scrutiny then few US academics are exempt.
To use an even clearer example: a married couple’s decision to file their taxes jointly potentially significantly reduces their taxes. But I think their decision to do so causes absolutely zero increase in the extent to which it is appropriate to criticize them.
I think a much weaker version of this argument—that making tax-deductable charitable donations invites scrutiny as to whether their object really is charitable vs being a mere vanity project—is valid. But the scope of charitable objectives in the tax rules is very broad (to the extent that often activism on both sides of a political issue qualify!).