Late last week, the National Institutes of Health announced a major reduction in the maximum allowable rate at which universities and research labs are compensated for facilities and administrative costs associated with federal grants:
This is a great post, but now... what I would really like to read is an analysis of the issue on its merits, because the overhead question has been out there for a long time. Why might a university deserve more than 15% of grant totals? What costs are being covered, and which of these are …
Agreed. To some extent the merits are part of the negotiating process and lead to differences in rates across institutions, but this process should be much more transparent.
Good post. I fear and do not doubt this statement to be true: “It’s important to understand that the NIH announcement is just the opening salvo in an all-out assault on universities that has yet to begin in earnest.” With that in mind, I have difficulty reconciling “institutional neutrality” when those in power want Columbia and Barnard and Fordham remade in the mold of New College and Hillsdale. Neutrality is difficult to maintain, and I would argue not wise, when under assault. Yet, at the same time I agree that reforms are needed - as you write.
Thank you for the reminder about your writing on the topic. I remember reading this last May and widely agree with what you wrote. Their policy does seem to be an appropriate carve out.
My concern at this time (which is different than my concerns last spring) - this seems like a moment of political challenge (or at least a threat of a challenge) to core functions and missions of many colleges and many (perhaps most) senior academic leaders have been silent in public. A couple perspectives if you haven't seen them yet:
Thanks Troy. If you read the Kalven report you'll see that the motivation for institutional neutrality is to create space for individual members of the community, acting alone of in self-selected groups (for signing petitions or writing open letters) to take any position they choose. I strongly endorse this view. I don't think Garber's statement on the fiscal and scientific consequences of the ICR rate cap violates neutrality at all, and neither do the lawsuits trying to block it.
Here are the last two paragraphs from my May 2024 post for those who never saw it:
"American research universities and liberal arts colleges continue to be major export engines and magnets for talent. We produce something for which there is strong global demand. Together with the movie and music industries, live theater, sports leagues, pharmaceuticals, finance, and technology, higher education is a sector in which we still enjoy leadership if not dominance.
To keep it that way, it is important to protect and preserve what is most precious, abandon practices that expose us to legitimate criticism, think a few steps ahead to the largest threats facing our institutions, and try to address internal divisions in the most constructive manner possible. Otherwise centuries of tradition and mountains of amassed wealth will not save us from disaster."
Perhaps what the future looks like for research and higher ed is lean years during Republican administrations and fat years during Democrat presidencies?
This is a great post, but now... what I would really like to read is an analysis of the issue on its merits, because the overhead question has been out there for a long time. Why might a university deserve more than 15% of grant totals? What costs are being covered, and which of these are …
Agreed. To some extent the merits are part of the negotiating process and lead to differences in rates across institutions, but this process should be much more transparent.
This is a very astute analysis, Rajiv. Thanks for it.
Thanks Glenn!
Good post. I fear and do not doubt this statement to be true: “It’s important to understand that the NIH announcement is just the opening salvo in an all-out assault on universities that has yet to begin in earnest.” With that in mind, I have difficulty reconciling “institutional neutrality” when those in power want Columbia and Barnard and Fordham remade in the mold of New College and Hillsdale. Neutrality is difficult to maintain, and I would argue not wise, when under assault. Yet, at the same time I agree that reforms are needed - as you write.
Troy take a look at the way Harvard adopted neutrality, there's a carve out for issues that directly affect mission:
https://rajivsethi.substack.com/p/harvards-institutional-voice
Sorry to belabor this, but wanted to mention that your concluding paragraph in May was spot on perfect.
Thank you for the reminder about your writing on the topic. I remember reading this last May and widely agree with what you wrote. Their policy does seem to be an appropriate carve out.
My concern at this time (which is different than my concerns last spring) - this seems like a moment of political challenge (or at least a threat of a challenge) to core functions and missions of many colleges and many (perhaps most) senior academic leaders have been silent in public. A couple perspectives if you haven't seen them yet:
One from Wesleyan's President:
https://slate.com/life/2025/02/colleges-universities-trump-policy-resistance.html
And the letter to Yale's President from their faculty (I think this happened yesterday):
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2025/02/13/faculty-letter-calls-on-mcinnis-to-vocally-resist-trump-policies/#:~:text=“We%20stand%20with%20you%2C%20President,ethical%2C%20interdependent%2C%20and%20diverse%20community
Best, Troy
Thanks Troy. If you read the Kalven report you'll see that the motivation for institutional neutrality is to create space for individual members of the community, acting alone of in self-selected groups (for signing petitions or writing open letters) to take any position they choose. I strongly endorse this view. I don't think Garber's statement on the fiscal and scientific consequences of the ICR rate cap violates neutrality at all, and neither do the lawsuits trying to block it.
Here are the last two paragraphs from my May 2024 post for those who never saw it:
"American research universities and liberal arts colleges continue to be major export engines and magnets for talent. We produce something for which there is strong global demand. Together with the movie and music industries, live theater, sports leagues, pharmaceuticals, finance, and technology, higher education is a sector in which we still enjoy leadership if not dominance.
To keep it that way, it is important to protect and preserve what is most precious, abandon practices that expose us to legitimate criticism, think a few steps ahead to the largest threats facing our institutions, and try to address internal divisions in the most constructive manner possible. Otherwise centuries of tradition and mountains of amassed wealth will not save us from disaster."
https://rajivsethi.substack.com/p/minority-report
Perhaps what the future looks like for research and higher ed is lean years during Republican administrations and fat years during Democrat presidencies?
Yes quite possible but some of the structural changes I described will not be reversible