MSG Hockey v. Michigan

I ran into one of the Cornell admin guys who told me that there are discussions with Michigan concerning a game on the Saturday after T-giving
at Madison Square Garden for 2012. Has anyone else heard anything about this? It sounds great.

This would be the most amazing thing in the history of ever. (Well, almost.)

Let's make it happen.

If it happens: I'll bet twenty dollars right now that there will be an uproar from poorly informed Michigan fans when we use some of "their" cheers during the game.

Ideal. I was hoping for the BU game to morph into a situation where Cornell is considered the "host" of a regular MSG game. Many Big Boys don't want to make a commitment to come to Lynah? How about a game in front of 18000 in NYC? Yeah, they'll line up for that.

hypotenuse
I ran into one of the Cornell admin guys who told me that there are discussions with Michigan concerning a game on the Saturday after T-giving
at Madison Square Garden for 2012. Has anyone else heard anything about this? It sounds great.

At least at MSG we get to choose between buying their airfare or this!

Beeeej
If it happens: I'll bet twenty dollars right now that there will be an uproar from poorly informed Michigan fans when we use some of "their" cheers during the game.

No, the Michigan fans are great with respect to that connection between the Cornell and Michigan hockey programs. My best friend at law school is an alumnus of Michigan and a Michigan hockey fan. He claims that they print shirts in Ann Arbor that read something to the effect that "Chants: Created at Cornell; Perfected at Michigan." Also, many of their bloggers mock other Midwestern teams (Miami in particular) for stealing Michigan's chants because Michigan realizes that they in fact stole their chants from Cornell, so it becomes a series of copies. This article recounts the Michigan side of the story where they give credit to the Faithful at Yost in 1991 for teaching Michigan fans how to be proper college hockey fans.

"The personal cheers and cleverness of Cornell clicked with them, and on that weekend in mid-March, the crowd took its first step toward becoming what it is today. In the face of the rowdy Ivy League crowd, it began to defend its building."

That Cornell-Michigan series at Yost in 1991 holds the record for series and weekend attendance at Michigan still.

RichH
Ideal. I was hoping for the BU game to morph into a situation where Cornell is considered the "host" of a regular MSG game. Many Big Boys don't want to make a commitment to come to Lynah? How about a game in front of 18000 in NYC? Yeah, they'll line up for that.

That would be great and the first step in maybe creating a Cornell Invitational tourney at MSG. One thing about NYC: it has more Albanians than Albania, and it probably has more graduates of a lot of schools than the city the school is in.

Trotsky

RichH
Ideal. I was hoping for the BU game to morph into a situation where Cornell is considered the "host" of a regular MSG game. Many Big Boys don't want to make a commitment to come to Lynah? How about a game in front of 18000 in NYC? Yeah, they'll line up for that.

That would be great and the first step in maybe creating a Cornell Invitational tourney at MSG. One thing about NYC: it has more Albanians than Albania, and it probably has more graduates of a lot of schools than the city the school is in.

Red/White tourney anyone? (Cornell, Wisconsin, Miami, and of course BU)

css228

Trotsky

RichH
Ideal. I was hoping for the BU game to morph into a situation where Cornell is considered the "host" of a regular MSG game. Many Big Boys don't want to make a commitment to come to Lynah? How about a game in front of 18000 in NYC? Yeah, they'll line up for that.

That would be great and the first step in maybe creating a Cornell Invitational tourney at MSG. One thing about NYC: it has more Albanians than Albania, and it probably has more graduates of a lot of schools than the city the school is in.

Red/White tourney anyone? (Cornell, Wisconsin, Miami, and of course BU)

Four games, Friday and Saturday? Sign me up!

I think I was at the last Michigan/Cornell game, a 2-2 draw in '96-'97 at Yost. A 3-3 tie. No Manderville heroics, but a good game. Michigan State, Cornell and BU were the only ones to give Michigan any trouble that year. Tymchyshyn tied it up late in the third I think. The tie was the best outcome for me, as I was a Michigan grad student at the time.

Michigan is down this year........I'm very surprised at some of the teams they've lost to this year. They'll rebuild but I doubt they'll be a top 5 team if they play next year.

Trotsky

RichH
Ideal. I was hoping for the BU game to morph into a situation where Cornell is considered the "host" of a regular MSG game. Many Big Boys don't want to make a commitment to come to Lynah? How about a game in front of 18000 in NYC? Yeah, they'll line up for that.

That would be great and the first step in maybe creating a Cornell Invitational tourney at MSG. One thing about NYC: it has more Albanians than Albania, and it probably has more graduates of a lot of schools than the city the school is in.

More Trojans than Troy, too.

Ben

css228

Trotsky

RichH
Ideal. I was hoping for the BU game to morph into a situation where Cornell is considered the "host" of a regular MSG game. Many Big Boys don't want to make a commitment to come to Lynah? How about a game in front of 18000 in NYC? Yeah, they'll line up for that.

That would be great and the first step in maybe creating a Cornell Invitational tourney at MSG. One thing about NYC: it has more Albanians than Albania, and it probably has more graduates of a lot of schools than the city the school is in.

Red/White tourney anyone? (Cornell, Wisconsin, Miami, and of course BU)

Four games, Friday and Saturday? Sign me up!

I know that the B1G schools have started to worry with Hockey East, with their addition of Notre Dame, making deals with what will be NBC Sports that they have fallen behind in the publicity war for their hockey programs. All Notre Dame home games will air on NBC Sports after the 2013-14 seasons. The B1G schools fear that they might be resigned to their current markets and coverage from only the BTN. B1G is always interested in money and major market exposure. The Conference might be willing to enter agreements for a tournament or a biannual cycle of a B1G team playing Cornell at The Garden, opposite years of BU-Cornell, to gain the additional media exposure and access to the coveted New York market. That would ensure that Cornell plays a B1G team (Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, or Wisconsin) in non-conference play at least every other year. We could use B1G's fears to our advantage.

RatushnyFan
Michigan is down this year........I'm very surprised at some of the teams they've lost to this year. They'll rebuild but I doubt they'll be a top 5 team if they play next year.

IINM, Michigan has made the NCAAs every season since 1991. I won't trust them until they're out of the CCHA Tourney.

Aaron M. Griffin

Beeeej
If it happens: I'll bet twenty dollars right now that there will be an uproar from poorly informed Michigan fans when we use some of "their" cheers during the game.

No, the Michigan fans are great with respect to that connection between the Cornell and Michigan hockey programs. My best friend at law school is an alumnus of Michigan and a Michigan hockey fan. He claims that they print shirts in Ann Arbor that read something to the effect that "Chants: Created at Cornell; Perfected at Michigan." Also, many of their bloggers mock other Midwestern teams (Miami in particular) for stealing Michigan's chants because Michigan realizes that they in fact stole their chants from Cornell, so it becomes a series of copies. This article recounts the Michigan side of the story where they give credit to the Faithful at Yost in 1991 for teaching Michigan fans how to be proper college hockey fans.

"The personal cheers and cleverness of Cornell clicked with them, and on that weekend in mid-March, the crowd took its first step toward becoming what it is today. In the face of the rowdy Ivy League crowd, it began to defend its building."

That Cornell-Michigan series at Yost in 1991 holds the record for series and weekend attendance at Michigan still.

And this quote from the article:

Berenson is 8-1 in regionals at Yost, with the lone loss coming in the first game against Cornell in 1991.

“I don’t know in any one of those three years (1998, 2002, 2003) if we could have beat that team — the teams we played against — either in a neutral site or definitely in their building,” Pearson said. “But because of the situation, the atmosphere, being in Yost, it really helped us get by those teams.”

Trotsky

RatushnyFan
Michigan is down this year........I'm very surprised at some of the teams they've lost to this year. They'll rebuild but I doubt they'll be a top 5 team if they play next year.

IINM, Michigan has made the NCAAs every season since 1991. I won't trust them until they're out of the CCHA Tourney.

Well, I'd bet good money that that will happen within a couple years...

Trotsky
One thing about NYC: it has more Albanians than Albania...

Josh '99

Trotsky
One thing about NYC: it has more Albanians than Albania...

jokerserious.jpg

More Cretans than Crete.

I actually wrote about this in another thread somewhere about six months ago. I am a Cornell alum and then attended Michigan law. On MGoBlog (a huge Michigan sports blog), somebody posted that they saw Red Berenson at a fundraising event and he mentioned this somewhere around June or July. Looks like they are really interested.

On a related note - I'd love to see this turn into an annual tournament. What are the rules with that? Would we have to give up Estero? I'd love to see something like Cornell/BU/Michigan and one of the western teams, like Denver or CC. I think the team who may be most likely to be a fourth is Notre Dame. They are going to lose Michigan as an annual game when the Big Ten Conference starts. There would thus be two sets of classic rivals who would be in a tournament together each year. It would also work because there would be one team from each of the big 4 conferences.

ansky629
It would also work because there would be one team from each of the big 4 conferences.

There would be no NCHC teams... and Notre Dame is joining HE so there would only 3 of the Big 4.

css228

ansky629
It would also work because there would be one team from each of the big 4 conferences.

There would be no NCHC teams... and Notre Dame is joining HE so there would only 3 of the Big 4.

Assuming the ECAC isn't considered the fifth league after the big shift.

marty

css228

ansky629
It would also work because there would be one team from each of the big 4 conferences.

There would be no NCHC teams... and Notre Dame is joining HE so there would only 3 of the Big 4.

Assuming the ECAC isn't considered the fifth league after the big shift.

I'm pretty sure that spot is reserved for the Whateversleft Collegiate Hockey Association.

ansky629
On a related note - I'd love to see this turn into an annual tournament. What are the rules with that? Would we have to give up Estero? I'd love to see something like Cornell/BU/Michigan and one of the western teams, like Denver or CC. I think the team who may be most likely to be a fourth is Notre Dame. They are going to lose Michigan as an annual game when the Big Ten Conference starts. There would thus be two sets of classic rivals who would be in a tournament together each year. It would also work because there would be one team from each of the big 4 conferences.

Wait. Each year? The same 4 teams? That's boring. Plus Cornell would surely lose "ownership" of the event, as well as attendance drops.

The reason the games with BU have sold out an 18,000 seat arena is because it's appealing to the casual fans and alumni who don't normally follow the team closely. One game is an easy commitment, and the keystone *event* you can plan one day to see old friends around. Casual fans, especially those coming in from outside the city, aren't going to bite for more than 1 game, especially those that don't include their alma mater.

I think we're better served inviting a team in each year for a one-off game on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. Cornell vs. Michigan in 2012, Cornell vs. Notre Dame in 2013, Cornell vs. Denver in 2014, etc. Teams would line up for that, and you'd come close to selling out every year.

The one thing I'm nervous about is the fact that all the marketing and organizing for the Red Hot Hockey events seems to have been done by BU. Our Athletic Department has to step up if this is going to work. They never put in bids to host a regional (say at Blue Cross Arena), and they've been content to let BU handle everything for the MSG games.

RichH


Wait. Each year? The same 4 teams? That's boring. Plus Cornell would surely lose "ownership" of the event, as well as attendance drops.

The reason the games with BU have sold out an 18,000 seat arena is because it's appealing to the casual fans and alumni who don't normally follow the team closely. One game is an easy commitment, and the keystone *event* you can plan one day to see old friends around. Casual fans, especially those coming in from outside the city, aren't going to bite for more than 1 game, especially those that don't include their alma mater.

I think we're better served inviting a team in each year for a one-off game on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. Cornell vs. Michigan in 2012, Cornell vs. Notre Dame in 2013, Cornell vs. Denver in 2014, etc. Teams would line up for that, and you'd come close to selling out every year.

The one thing I'm nervous about is the fact that all the marketing and organizing for the Red Hot Hockey events seems to have been done by BU. Our Athletic Department has to step up if this is going to work. They never put in bids to host a regional (say at Blue Cross Arena), and they've been content to let BU handle everything for the MSG games.

100% agree. I don't think a two day tournament or showcase with set matchups would do nearly as well as a one game event, particularly when it comes to drawing casual fans. One of the worst aspects of four team tournaments is the fact that so many fans don't watch the games not involving their team. As a result, there are thousands of guaranteed empty seats and reduced atmosphere at both games, which is a shame.

As for the marketing efforts, to be fair, Cornell Alumni Affairs did a tremendous job planning events around the game and drumming up interest via email and social media this time around (it felt like to me anyway).

I think a rotation of top schools one at a time is the best approach, with BU in regular rotation. Perhaps CU/BU could do every an eight year plan: MSG,off,Lynah, off, MSG, off, Agganis, off.

marty

css228

ansky629
It would also work because there would be one team from each of the big 4 conferences.

There would be no NCHC teams... and Notre Dame is joining HE so there would only 3 of the Big 4.

Assuming the ECAC isn't considered the fifth league after the big shift.

I'd think the new WCHA would be considered the fifth league after losing most of its power programs, but itd be close and could go either way. Point still stands that Notre Dame's joining HE so it might make more sense to get an NCHC team.

I'd be content to alternate the MSG game. BU in the odd numbered years and Michigan/Wisconsin/Minnesota in the even years.

I'd love to see a tradition develop where we play Wisconsin.

Besides they wear red/white. It can still be Red Hot Hockey...

heykb
I'd be content to alternate the MSG game. BU in the odd numbered years and Michigan/Wisconsin/Minnesota in the even years.

I'd love to see a tradition develop where we play Wisconsin.

Besides they wear red/white. It can still be Red Hot Hockey...

Cornell hold most of the cards in this. Playing in MSG has to be a big draw, but we've shown that our fan base is able to fill the Garden much more than, say, BU. One would have to think that going to schools further away, we still make the event much more of sure thing financially.

So if a school wants to perform in the World's Most Famous Arena, it almost certainly has to consider Cornell among the potential partners.

On top of this, we're already sort of the home team (as New York's land grant institution) and even more so if we win Bloomberg's sweepstakes.

(OT: But what ever happened to "Any Person, Any Study"? Would the new New York City campus use, "Any Person, Any Study as long as it's STEM"?)

Swampy
(OT: But what ever happened to "Any Person, Any Study"? Would the new New York City campus use, "Any Person, Any Study as long as it's STEM"?)

Why would that be any different from the medical school, which is also in New York City? It's still Cornell - if you want to study something else, go to Ithaca.

heykb
I'd be content to alternate the MSG game. BU in the odd numbered years and Michigan/Wisconsin/Minnesota in the even years.

I think that anything more than this might be too ambitious.

Al DeFlorio

heykb
I'd be content to alternate the MSG game. BU in the odd numbered years and Michigan/Wisconsin/Minnesota in the even years.

I think that anything more than this might be too ambitious.

And superfluous. I can't see anything wrong with this idea at all.

Beeeej

Swampy
(OT: But what ever happened to "Any Person, Any Study"? Would the new New York City campus use, "Any Person, Any Study as long as it's STEM"?)

Why would that be any different from the medical school, which is also in New York City? It's still Cornell - if you want to study something else, go to Ithaca.

Well, I consider graduate school to be different from undergraduate, and the proposed tech campus would have undergrads, as I understand it. Also, a good academic case can be made for locating Med Schools in big cities (primarily because they need lots of poor people to practice on). STEM fields have much less need to be in a city, although I'm sure Bloomberg wets his pants hoping his idea pans out with the next Silicon Valley.

Swampy

Beeeej

Swampy
(OT: But what ever happened to "Any Person, Any Study"? Would the new New York City campus use, "Any Person, Any Study as long as it's STEM"?)

Why would that be any different from the medical school, which is also in New York City? It's still Cornell - if you want to study something else, go to Ithaca.

Well, I consider graduate school to be different from undergraduate, and the proposed tech campus would have undergrads, as I understand it. Also, a good academic case can be made for locating Med Schools in big cities (primarily because they need lots of poor people to practice on). STEM fields have much less need to be in a city, although I'm sure Bloomberg wets his pants hoping his idea pans out with the next Silicon Valley.

Ezra Cornell's promise was university-wide. The fact that the campuses are in diverse locales (including Qatar) does not undermine that promise or its realization at all because study in those given fields is offered at satellite locations that are equally part of Cornell University. Do you purport that "any person" means that Cornell should have infinite enrollment with no admissions criteria? One could reasonably construct that phrase to mean such.

I'd like if Cornell played a game in MSG once a year and established it as a kind of home away from home (why did we wear road jerseys this year?). It would be great if they alternated with BU and a rotating group, but it doesn't matter if BU doesn't want to do it anymore. In fact, rather than negotiating with the other schools, Cornell should go negotiate a deal with MSG to play one game a year and then go invite other schools to come play once the deal has been signed.

jtn27
I'd like if Cornell played a game in MSG once a year and established it as a kind of home away from home (why did we wear road jerseys this year?). It would be great if they alternated with BU and a rotating group, but it doesn't matter if BU doesn't want to do it anymore. In fact, rather than negotiating with the other schools, Cornell should go negotiate a deal with MSG to play one game a year and then go invite other schools to come play once the deal has been signed.

An ambitious plan would be a Cornell game at MSG every year playing BU every third year. The other two years could be home and home with them on another weekend, while we played someone else at MSG over Thanksgiving. Perhaps the MSG lure would be big enough to entice others like Michigan or Wisconsin into a home and home deal, too.

Am I the only one that misses the "family time" on Thanksgiving weekend when I go to NYC for Red Hot Hockey? Yes, the wife goes along. But, the extended family is back in upstate NY doing things together and we miss out. Going to NYC once every three years to watch something as special as CU-BU hockey in MSG is a sacrifice (from family life) worth making. We always have a good time. But, doing it every year? That's not going to happen here. Family is too important. I'm surprised nobody has expressed similar sentiments.

The current "dosage" of Red Hot Hockey is perfect for us. Keep it coming!!

Swampy

Beeeej

Swampy
(OT: But what ever happened to "Any Person, Any Study"? Would the new New York City campus use, "Any Person, Any Study as long as it's STEM"?)

Why would that be any different from the medical school, which is also in New York City? It's still Cornell - if you want to study something else, go to Ithaca.

Well, I consider graduate school to be different from undergraduate, and the proposed tech campus would have undergrads, as I understand it. Also, a good academic case can be made for locating Med Schools in big cities (primarily because they need lots of poor people to practice on).

Then poor folks to practice on may be a bit harsh. When the University of Illinois started its medical campus in Chicago there weren't enough people -poor or otherwise - in Champaign to make it a viable location. Years later three more med schools were established including Champaign-Urbana.

The med school is listed as beginning in 1898. Cornell History

redice
Am I the only one that misses the "family time" on Thanksgiving weekend when I go to NYC for Red Hot Hockey? Yes, the wife goes along. But, the extended family is back in upstate NY doing things together and we miss out. Going to NYC once every three years to watch something as special as CU-BU hockey in MSG is a sacrifice (from family life) worth making. We always have a good time. But, doing it every year? That's not going to happen here. Family is too important. I'm surprised nobody has expressed similar sentiments.

The current "dosage" of Red Hot Hockey is perfect for us. Keep it coming!!

I for one don't miss the family time because my children use that weekend to visit home in the Capital District away from their apartments in NYC. Unless we make it down for a hockey weekend I will be watching the games on TV.

IMO, one reason the Saturday after T'giving date has worked is that there are a bazillion Cornell people who are in greater NYC for the weekend anyway. If you have to go visit Mom/Dad/Aunt Florence/Grandma in the area for the holiday, you are sooo ready for some excuse to get a few hours out of the house and Red Hot Hockey is purpose-built for that.

Given that it has been a complete sellout every time, there is a reasonable chance that making it annual would work as a business proposition. Maybe some people only go on alternate years to see the BU game, but some folks will be interested to see a Wisc or Mich just because we don't play them very often. Quality opponent plus MSG plus good date choice should equal sellout, too, just like BU.

It sure seems like a better shot than Colgate + Newark.

redice
Am I the only one that misses the "family time" on Thanksgiving weekend when I go to NYC for Red Hot Hockey? Yes, the wife goes along. But, the extended family is back in upstate NY doing things together and we miss out. Going to NYC once every three years to watch something as special as CU-BU hockey in MSG is a sacrifice (from family life) worth making. We always have a good time. But, doing it every year? That's not going to happen here. Family is too important. I'm surprised nobody has expressed similar sentiments.

The current "dosage" of Red Hot Hockey is perfect for us. Keep it coming!!

I was going to point out that you don't have to go to Red Hot Hockey, but then I realized that Cornell Hockey is for many of us the obligation over family time. So yeah, I understand.

heykb
It sure seems like a better shot than Colgate + Newark.

While it's pretty much a given that you'd get more butts in seats against [insert any big name here] at MSG than against [insert less appealing opponent here] in Newark, I wonder whether maybe the economics of using the two facilities are such that you're financially better off with 5,413 in Newark (the attendance last November against Colgate) or 3,500 in Uniondale (the attendance when we played them at the Mausoleum the equivalent day in 1998) than, say, 8,000 at MSG if you were to have a "name" opponent that doesn't have the same cachet with Cornell fans as BU does, or if you were to oversaturate the interest of casual fans by having the game every year.

jtn27
(why did we wear road jerseys this year?)

My understanding is that because (as RichH mentioned above) the BU Athletic Department does the organization and coordination with the venue, they get to be the home team.

redice
Am I the only one that misses the "family time" on Thanksgiving weekend when I go to NYC for Red Hot Hockey? Yes, the wife goes along. But, the extended family is back in upstate NY doing things together and we miss out. Going to NYC once every three years to watch something as special as CU-BU hockey in MSG is a sacrifice (from family life) worth making. We always have a good time. But, doing it every year? That's not going to happen here. Family is too important. I'm surprised nobody has expressed similar sentiments.

The current "dosage" of Red Hot Hockey is perfect for us. Keep it coming!!

IMO, the worst part about the game being on the Saturday night after Thanksgiving is that I have to stick around my parents' house for an extra day and a half instead of heading back to Boston at the ass crack of dawn on Friday.

Josh '99

jtn27
(why did we wear road jerseys this year?)

My understanding is that because (as RichH mentioned above) the BU Athletic Department does the organization and coordination with the venue, they get to be the home team.

I figured they just rotated.

redice
Am I the only one that misses the "family time" on Thanksgiving weekend when I go to NYC for Red Hot Hockey? Yes, the wife goes along. But, the extended family is back in upstate NY doing things together and we miss out. Going to NYC once every three years to watch something as special as CU-BU hockey in MSG is a sacrifice (from family life) worth making.

Every huh?

Chris '03

Josh '99

jtn27
(why did we wear road jerseys this year?)

My understanding is that because (as RichH mentioned above) the BU Athletic Department does the organization and coordination with the venue, they get to be the home team.

I figured they just rotated.

It has been rotated. BU was the home team in '07 and this year, we were the home team in '09.

Josh '99

jtn27
(why did we wear road jerseys this year?)

My understanding is that because (as RichH mentioned above) the BU Athletic Department does the organization and coordination with the venue, they get to be the home team.

Cornell and BU have agreed not to follow traditional neutral site rules under which the higher ranked team is considered the "home team." They have agreed instead that they will rotate which team is the home team. That is why BU was "home" in 20007 and 2011, but Cornell was "home" in 2009.

Aaron M. Griffin

Cornell and BU have agreed not to follow traditional neutral site rules under which the higher ranked team is considered the "home team." .

???

I know that holds in postseason tournaments where seeds control but I've never heard it applied as a "traditional neutral site rule."

Chris '03

Aaron M. Griffin

Cornell and BU have agreed not to follow traditional neutral site rules under which the higher ranked team is considered the "home team." .

???

I know that holds in postseason tournaments where seeds control but I've never heard it applied as a "traditional neutral site rule."

That's the procedure to which I was referring. When tournament games are held at neutral sites. Sorry for my lack of clarity. My statement regarding the rotation of the designation for home teams at Red Hot Hockey is accurate and still stands.

Aaron M. Griffin

Swampy

Beeeej

Swampy
(OT: But what ever happened to "Any Person, Any Study"? Would the new New York City campus use, "Any Person, Any Study as long as it's STEM"?)

Why would that be any different from the medical school, which is also in New York City? It's still Cornell - if you want to study something else, go to Ithaca.

Well, I consider graduate school to be different from undergraduate, and the proposed tech campus would have undergrads, as I understand it. Also, a good academic case can be made for locating Med Schools in big cities (primarily because they need lots of poor people to practice on). STEM fields have much less need to be in a city, although I'm sure Bloomberg wets his pants hoping his idea pans out with the next Silicon Valley.

Ezra Cornell's promise was university-wide. The fact that the campuses are in diverse locales (including Qatar) does not undermine that promise or its realization at all because study in those given fields is offered at satellite locations that are equally part of Cornell University. Do you purport that "any person" means that Cornell should have infinite enrollment with no admissions criteria? One could reasonably construct that phrase to mean such.

Yes, of course. The "any person" part always referred to people independent of race, creed, class, etc., but students had to be top notch. This followed directly from the philosophy behind Cornell, namely the uncompromising pursuit of truth. This idea of "any person" was revolutionary in its day.

Actually, if you read the history of Cornell (I'll have to look up the Internet to give you the exact sources), the "any study" idea was both revolutionary at the time and Andrew Dickson White's. Cornell himself originally wanted to build an agricultural school in Ovid, NY, but White talked him out of it. White's actual vision was a university that was "broad and balanced," including all fields of higher learning and being balanced between them.

In his first academic plan, White gave one reason for this. Only a balanced university would give equal respect to applied fields such as agriculture at a time when most institutions taught the classics as "real" academic work. There are, of course, other good reasons why a university should be broad and balanced. Many of these are obvious, but one less obvious stems from White's own area of expertise.

White was a historian whose main area of interest was the relation between religion and science. His major work on the subject devotes a large amount of space to the Italian Inquisition, and particularly the trial and subsequent life imprisonment of Galileo. So White was very, very conscious of how dominant ideologies could corrupt higher learning. Another of White's goals was that the university should be a place where people primarily "seek truth for its own sake" and would be free of external influences, such as commercial, political, and religious influences. Notably, for White, the purpose of the university was not for students to get jobs, not to invent the next new thing, etc. This would not make the university an ivory tower because White's vision included applied fields, but it would create distance so the university would be an independent, critical organization in the larger culture, even within applied fields.

So with this background, consider that in White's time Darwin had recently published Origin of Species, William Smith had published "the map that changed the world," paleontologists were piecing together things that formerly were thought to be merely rocks but turned out to be dinosaur bones, literary scholars were beginning to claim the parts of the Bible supposedly written by one man under divine inspiration had in fact been written by six or more individuals in different times and places, and archeologists were beginning to find things in the Middle East that contradicted Biblical accounts of ancient life. At the same time, White was getting letters from New York citizens telling him to make sure Cornell gave students a "Christian education." If one wanted the whole truth, one needed all the disciplines I mentioned and more, and the faculty and students needed to share ideas and collaborate. With scientific and literary evidence pulling the rug out from under the fundamentals of the Judeo-Christian tradition and challenging any literal reading of the Bible, it would have been too easy to shunt only one discipline, say evolutionary biology, away where Darwin could be taught with only minimal challenge to societal orthodoxy.

Today, corporate capitalism and the ideologies surrounding it are our version of the Italian Inquisition. Unlike the Inquisition, this is a form of what Bertram Gross called, "Friendly Fascism" -- a soft way for the domination of ideas that creates a playing field tilted in favor of corporations and corporate culture. And this ideological hegemony has made its way into higher education. See, for example, Jenifer Washburn's University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education.

So when Bloomberg creates a corporate agenda in which universities will help corporations regain profitability through research and teaching in the STEM disciplines, it's sort of as if the University of Padua were to have transfered Galileo from physics and astronomy to medicine, where his skills with optics could have helped in the biotech research of his time, namely studying leaches for bloodletting. (The microscope had been invented about 50 years before Galileo's trial.) Given the crisis of global capitalism, ideas like Bloomberg's hold out hope through nothing but faith in technology, but where is Cornell giving equal encouragement to investigating the idea that perhaps there is something intrinsic in the system that has caused the economy not only to suck but also to be on a downward spiral for the past forty years?

I think in a true spirit of mutual intellectual respect and interchange, different disciplines need to be in close geographic proximity and be treated equally. (Where are the campuses for the humanities, the arts, the social sciences, etc.?) White's vision that such an institution can provide a strong independent voice that is critical of dominant beliefs, and serve humanity by doing so, is still valid.

Thank you. Truly good stuff.

Wow....what he said!!....(Swampy, to be sure).

Josh '99

heykb
It sure seems like a better shot than Colgate + Newark.

While it's pretty much a given that you'd get more butts in seats against [insert any big name here] at MSG than against [insert less appealing opponent here] in Newark, I wonder whether maybe the economics of using the two facilities are such that you're financially better off with 5,413 in Newark (the attendance last November against Colgate) or 3,500 in Uniondale (the attendance when we played them at the Mausoleum the equivalent day in 1998) than, say, 8,000 at MSG if you were to have a "name" opponent that doesn't have the same cachet with Cornell fans as BU does, or if you were to oversaturate the interest of casual fans by having the game every year.

I'd be very surprised if a significant number of fans who were at the MSG game said they were there chiefly because of the fact we were playing BU, and here's why:

1. The demographics didn't seem to be that lopsided in favor of older alums;
2. Cornellians from any era after BU left for Hockey East (when was it, the 80's?) might know, "Screw BU," but I doubt if more than one out of four know why we say that;
3. Is it really the case whereby CU alums only attended because of the opponent? Or is it more likely that they were there because of the opportunity to see CU hockey without having to drive 4 hours?

(I would suggest that we fire up some good, old-fashioned eLynah polling to find out, but the data would be by no means representative of the population that attended the event.)

Having the place sold out and chock full of people wearing carnelian (and if you weren't, I've got a whole bunch of with your name on it) is a real treat that I look forward to every time it happens. Let's not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs and saturate people with games every year. Every other year is enough (not that I wouldn't be there if it were every year -- I'd be there in a second -- I just am not sure the level of interest can sustain it), and screw BU. They want to do their own T-day thing? Then let's invite non-ECAC programs with reasonably large NYC-area alum populations. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's not an ECAC opponent, it's something reasonably novel, and we always seem to play poorly against non-conference opponents, so it doesn't have to necessarily be a "big-time program" in order for it to be a challenge for us to win.

HeafDog
As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's not an ECAC opponent, it's something reasonably novel, and we always seem to play poorly against non-conference opponents, so it doesn't have to necessarily be a "big-time program" in order for it to be a challenge for us to win.

Not related to your concept of a whether the game would be a challenge, but I don't think an MSG game against a small-time opponent would be a good idea. Even if 80% of the fans at RHH were Cornellians (obviously very generous), I don't think you'd get nearly the same turnout to see Cornell play Mercyhurst or Sacred Heart. It hasn't been just an opportunity to see Cornell play in NYC; it's been an opportunity to see Cornell play a big-time opponent in NYC, and I think the distinction is very important.

HeafDog
Cornellians from any era after BU left for Hockey East (when was it, the 80's?) might know, "Screw BU," but I doubt if more than one out of four know why we say that.

I think you'd be surprised. Most people know BU was a pretty huge rival, if only because they ask after their first game at Lynah, "why do we say Screw BU?"

Robb

HeafDog
As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's not an ECAC opponent, it's something reasonably novel, and we always seem to play poorly against non-conference opponents, so it doesn't have to necessarily be a "big-time program" in order for it to be a challenge for us to win.

Not related to your concept of a whether the game would be a challenge, but I don't think an MSG game against a small-time opponent would be a good idea. Even if 80% of the fans at RHH were Cornellians (obviously very generous), I don't think you'd get nearly the same turnout to see Cornell play Mercyhurst or Sacred Heart. It hasn't been just an opportunity to see Cornell play in NYC; it's been an opportunity to see Cornell play a big-time opponent in NYC, and I think the distinction is very important.

Well, perhaps, yeah. I agree with you a certain extent. But that's why I said, "non-ECAC programs with reasonably large NYC-area alum populations." (Sacred Heart and Mercyhurst not only have relatively small student, and thereby alum, populations, but also are not very well known schools overall.) I guess what I meant was that playing Michigan or BU at MSG would obviously be successful, but the event could still generate as much interest with, say, a Michigan State, I bet.

HeafDog

Robb

HeafDog
As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's not an ECAC opponent, it's something reasonably novel, and we always seem to play poorly against non-conference opponents, so it doesn't have to necessarily be a "big-time program" in order for it to be a challenge for us to win.

Not related to your concept of a whether the game would be a challenge, but I don't think an MSG game against a small-time opponent would be a good idea. Even if 80% of the fans at RHH were Cornellians (obviously very generous), I don't think you'd get nearly the same turnout to see Cornell play Mercyhurst or Sacred Heart. It hasn't been just an opportunity to see Cornell play in NYC; it's been an opportunity to see Cornell play a big-time opponent in NYC, and I think the distinction is very important.

Well, perhaps, yeah. I agree with you a certain extent. But that's why I said, "non-ECAC programs with reasonably large NYC-area alum populations." (Sacred Heart and Mercyhurst not only have relatively small student, and thereby alum, populations, but also are not very well known schools overall.) I guess what I meant was that playing Michigan or BU at MSG would obviously be successful, but the event could still generate as much interest with, say, a Michigan State, I bet.

But the goal shouldn't be just making a game at MSG a financial success. The goal should be instituting something special that will cement Cornell's status as an elite hockey program. (Put the legend in legendary, as in "legendary Big Red sweater."

Swampy
But the goal shouldn't be just making a game at MSG a financial success.

Right there. That's the exact moment you lost many athletic administrators.

HeafDog

Robb

HeafDog
As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's not an ECAC opponent, it's something reasonably novel, and we always seem to play poorly against non-conference opponents, so it doesn't have to necessarily be a "big-time program" in order for it to be a challenge for us to win.

Not related to your concept of a whether the game would be a challenge, but I don't think an MSG game against a small-time opponent would be a good idea. Even if 80% of the fans at RHH were Cornellians (obviously very generous), I don't think you'd get nearly the same turnout to see Cornell play Mercyhurst or Sacred Heart. It hasn't been just an opportunity to see Cornell play in NYC; it's been an opportunity to see Cornell play a big-time opponent in NYC, and I think the distinction is very important.

Well, perhaps, yeah. I agree with you a certain extent. But that's why I said, "non-ECAC programs with reasonably large NYC-area alum populations." (Sacred Heart and Mercyhurst not only have relatively small student, and thereby alum, populations, but also are not very well known schools overall.) I guess what I meant was that playing Michigan or BU at MSG would obviously be successful, but the event could still generate as much interest with, say, a Michigan State, I bet.

What I'm saying is that regardless of the other school's NYC-area alum populations, you'll get fewer NYC-area Cornellians if the opponent is not perceived as big-time. It's a double whammy on attendance - fewer opposing fans AND fewer Cornellians. I'm guessing that Wisconsin has relatively few fans in the NYC area, but a game vs them would still draw better overall (due to higher interest from Cornell fans) than many schools who have more alums in NYC (e.g. UConn).

Robb
I'm guessing that Wisconsin has relatively few fans in the NYC area, but a game vs them would still draw better overall (due to higher interest from Cornell fans) than many schools who have more alums in NYC (e.g. UConn).

Wisconsin fans also travel better than any other fans in the country (yes /heresy). I'll bet the Wisconsin contingent at an MSG game would be about as large as BU's, and they would be far more fun to party with afterwards.

Robb

HeafDog

Robb

HeafDog
As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's not an ECAC opponent, it's something reasonably novel, and we always seem to play poorly against non-conference opponents, so it doesn't have to necessarily be a "big-time program" in order for it to be a challenge for us to win.

Not related to your concept of a whether the game would be a challenge, but I don't think an MSG game against a small-time opponent would be a good idea. Even if 80% of the fans at RHH were Cornellians (obviously very generous), I don't think you'd get nearly the same turnout to see Cornell play Mercyhurst or Sacred Heart. It hasn't been just an opportunity to see Cornell play in NYC; it's been an opportunity to see Cornell play a big-time opponent in NYC, and I think the distinction is very important.

Well, perhaps, yeah. I agree with you a certain extent. But that's why I said, "non-ECAC programs with reasonably large NYC-area alum populations." (Sacred Heart and Mercyhurst not only have relatively small student, and thereby alum, populations, but also are not very well known schools overall.) I guess what I meant was that playing Michigan or BU at MSG would obviously be successful, but the event could still generate as much interest with, say, a Michigan State, I bet.

What I'm saying is that regardless of the other school's NYC-area alum populations, you'll get fewer NYC-area Cornellians if the opponent is not perceived as big-time. It's a double whammy on attendance - fewer opposing fans AND fewer Cornellians. I'm guessing that Wisconsin has relatively few fans in the NYC area, but a game vs them would still draw better overall (due to higher interest from Cornell fans) than many schools who have more alums in NYC (e.g. UConn).

You've never been to Kettle of Fish for a Packers game. Wisconsin would represent. Hell, half of Wisconsin's students are from Long Island anyway.

If we were to have Cornell-BU alternating with Cornell-Wisc, I'd plan my Thanksgiving around it every year.

I just don't believe people would tire of it. I believe it would become a tradition.

In New Orleans, Southern plays Grambling in football every year on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. That's one tough ticket to get; think Alabama-Auburn. Because it's a tradition.

We can easily have a tradition started and the athletic department will cash a nice check every year with RHH.

I guess all we can do is spitball some ideas around and wait to see how Andy Noel turns it into a wrestling event.

heykb
If we were to have Cornell-BU alternating with Cornell-Wisc, I'd plan my Thanksgiving around it every year.

I just don't believe people would tire of it. I believe it would become a tradition.

In New Orleans, Southern plays Grambling in football every year on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. That's one tough ticket to get; think Alabama-Auburn. Because it's a tradition.

We can easily have a tradition started and the athletic department will cash a nice check every year with RHH.

I guess all we can do is spitball some ideas around and wait to see how Andy Noel turns it into a wrestling event.

Still think a Red/White tournament for a Red/White championship could have some legs, but if we could alternate BU and Wisconsin and that'd be way more than I ever expected and I'd be thrilled.

RichH

Swampy
But the goal shouldn't be just making a game at MSG a financial success.

Right there. That's the exact moment you lost many athletic administrators.

Does anyone know how the financials for an event like Red Hot Hockey break down? Does MSG get a flat fee or a cut of ticket sales? How much is left to split between the schools?

nyc94

RichH

Swampy
But the goal shouldn't be just making a game at MSG a financial success.

Right there. That's the exact moment you lost many athletic administrators.

Does anyone know how the financials for an event like Red Hot Hockey break down? Does MSG get a flat fee or a cut of ticket sales? How much is left to split between the schools?

We don't want it to just be a financial successes, but if it isn't a financial success it won't be sustainable.
Is my impression correct that all the ticket sales this year went through the schools, rather than MSG and Ticketmaster as they did the first two times around? That's a slight change in the business model.
Here's where you ask what it would cost you to rent MSG [www.thegarden.com]

David Harding

nyc94

RichH

Swampy
But the goal shouldn't be just making a game at MSG a financial success.

Right there. That's the exact moment you lost many athletic administrators.

Does anyone know how the financials for an event like Red Hot Hockey break down? Does MSG get a flat fee or a cut of ticket sales? How much is left to split between the schools?

We don't want it to just be a financial successes, but if it isn't a financial success it won't be sustainable.
Is my impression correct that all the ticket sales this year went through the schools, rather than MSG and Ticketmaster as they did the first two times around? That's a slight change in the business model.
Here's where you ask what it would cost you to rent MSG [www.thegarden.com]

I'm just curious. But I assume a financial success would go a long way to drawing the schools we do want to play, especially those that we have been led to believe won't travel because they do not want to give up their own home games.

Another reason for playing a big time school annually at MSG. According to the WSJ: "Cornell Wins Contest for City Tech Campus."

What's the chance that Bloomberg gave the anonymous gift?

marty
What's the chance that Bloomberg gave the anonymous gift?

Does he have any other connection with Cornell?

Swampy

marty
What's the chance that Bloomberg gave the anonymous gift?

Does he have any other connection with Cornell?

I'd be surprised if it's Bloomberg. I'd think, if it ever came out, there would be howls about conflict of interest and the like.

Al DeFlorio

Swampy

marty
What's the chance that Bloomberg gave the anonymous gift?

Does he have any other connection with Cornell?

I'd be surprised if it's Bloomberg. I'd think, if it ever came out, there would be howls about conflict of interest and the like.

I've seen a few published reports that the gift is NOT from Bloomberg (sorry -- can't link to anything off hand).

scoop85

Al DeFlorio

Swampy

marty
What's the chance that Bloomberg gave the anonymous gift?

Does he have any other connection with Cornell?

I'd be surprised if it's Bloomberg. I'd think, if it ever came out, there would be howls about conflict of interest and the like.

I've seen a few published reports that the gift is NOT from Bloomberg (sorry -- can't link to anything off hand).

Got an email earlier today about "a live event of special interest to all Cornellians." The link is http://www.alumniconnections.com/links/link.cgi?l=2765047&h=143329&e=CEL-20111219101657, and the event was supposed to start at 2:30 PM. Maybe it's coming from Chicago or it's being broadcast by the people who do redcast.

Swampy

scoop85

Al DeFlorio

Swampy

marty
What's the chance that Bloomberg gave the anonymous gift?

Does he have any other connection with Cornell?

I'd be surprised if it's Bloomberg. I'd think, if it ever came out, there would be howls about conflict of interest and the like.

I've seen a few published reports that the gift is NOT from Bloomberg (sorry -- can't link to anything off hand).

Got an email earlier today about "a live event of special interest to all Cornellians." The link is http://www.alumniconnections.com/links/link.cgi?l=2765047&h=143329&e=CEL-20111219101657, and the event was supposed to start at 2:30 PM. Maybe it's coming from Chicago or it's being broadcast by the people who do redcast.

When events involve politicians, you can count on them starting late.

George64

Swampy

scoop85

Al DeFlorio

Swampy

marty
What's the chance that Bloomberg gave the anonymous gift?

Does he have any other connection with Cornell?

I'd be surprised if it's Bloomberg. I'd think, if it ever came out, there would be howls about conflict of interest and the like.

I've seen a few published reports that the gift is NOT from Bloomberg (sorry -- can't link to anything off hand).

Got an email earlier today about "a live event of special interest to all Cornellians." The link is http://www.alumniconnections.com/links/link.cgi?l=2765047&h=143329&e=CEL-20111219101657, and the event was supposed to start at 2:30 PM. Maybe it's coming from Chicago or it's being broadcast by the people who do redcast.

When events involve politicians, you can count on them starting late.

I suppose you can also count on them rewriting history for their own purposes. A few minutes into his speech, Bloomberg described the Morrill Act as having primarily an economic goal, but that's entirely untrue. Here's what Justin Smith Morrill said about this in his speech on the 25th anniversary of the Morrill Act. (BTW, there are different versions of this speech kicking around the Internet. The quote comes from p. 20 of this version. Also notice that he only mentions one institution by name, on p. 24 , and describes it as the "most complete" ). Here's the quote:

Justin Smith Morrill (1887)
The Land-Grant Colleges were founded on the idea that a higher and broader education should be placed in every state within the reach of those whose destiny assigns them to, or who may have the
courage to choose industrial vocations where the wealth of nations is produced; where advanced civilization unfolds its comforts, and where a much larger number of the people need wider educational
advantages, and impatiently await their possession. The design was to open the door to a liberal education for this large class at a cheaper cost from being close at hand, and to tempt them by offering not only sound literary instruction, but something more applicable to the productive employments of life. It would be a mistake to suppose it was intended that every student should become either a farmer or mechanic when the design comprehended not only instruction for those who may hold the plow or follow a trade, but such instruction as any person might need—with "the world all before them where to choose" —and without the exclusion of those who might prefer to adhere to the classics. Milton in his famous discourse on education, gives a definition of what an education ought to be, which would seem to very completely cover all that was proposed by the Land-Grant Colleges; and Milton lacked nothing of ancient learning, nor did he suffer his culture to hide his stalwart republicanism. He says: " I call, therefore, a complete and generous education, that which fits a man to perform justly, skillfully and magnanimously all the offices, both private and public, of peace and war."

You'll notice here the main purpose is to serve the student. Even as late as 1887 about 34% of the adult population was self-employed, and in 1862 this percentage was probably over 50%. The Republicans, like Morrill, idealized the self-employed, independent individual, and the Act sought to make such small businesses (and worker cooperatives!) more economically viable. In a famous speech Lincoln extolled the virtues of self-employment. This was pretty typical of Republicans at the time, and the Morrill Act was intended primarily to give liberal education (i.e. education for "free men and women" to the "free labor" in the Republican's slogan, "Free Land, Free Labor!" This is why Jonathan Baldwin Turner, who first proposed the land grant idea, said, "Education prepares the way for the millenium of labor."

But Bloomberg's speech today tells an entirely different story. George Orwell called it.

Swampy
But Bloomberg's speech today tells an entirely different story. George Orwell called it.

Call me crazy, but I heard a sum total of about a dozen words about the federal land grant program in Bloomberg's speech, and none of what I remember hearing contradicts any historical facts. If you've got a copy of the text of his speech that shows me otherwise, I'm happy to take a look.

Im thinking that the gift is from Sanford Weill, class of '55(i think)

Beeeej

Swampy
But Bloomberg's speech today tells an entirely different story. George Orwell called it.

Call me crazy, but I heard a sum total of about a dozen words about the federal land grant program in Bloomberg's speech, and none of what I remember hearing contradicts any historical facts. If you've got a copy of the text of his speech that shows me otherwise, I'm happy to take a look.

All I'm saying is he made it sound as if the land grant was primarily about developing the economy, which the tech campus clearly is, when in fact is was about giving a liberal education to the children of the industrial classes. The land grant was also a program developed primarily by the Republican Party, which at the time had a very low opinion of life-long wage labor, while the tech campus is all about creating jobs.

As far as the rest of the speech goes, Bloomberg said things that are very typical of what the country's elite is saying these days, whether Democrat or Republican. The whole narrative begs a slew of questions. Is further economic growth sustainable? Will the entrepreneurial ethic, which he takes for granted as being desirable, lead to more or less inequality? Is the global economic system, which the elites finally had to admit is open to systemic risk, subject to systemic dysfunction? The left wing of the national elite thinks tougher regulation can control the banking system, but when banks innovate they usually try to discover ways to get around regulation. So going forward, how can the system start moving again without returning to the high-risk economy?

I don't object to Cornell becoming even more active in technology, but I do object to it becoming lopsided. I also object to sweeping questions such as these under the rug and uncritically joining in the narrative, thereby strengthening and perpetuating it.

Swampy

Beeeej

Swampy
But Bloomberg's speech today tells an entirely different story. George Orwell called it.

Call me crazy, but I heard a sum total of about a dozen words about the federal land grant program in Bloomberg's speech, and none of what I remember hearing contradicts any historical facts. If you've got a copy of the text of his speech that shows me otherwise, I'm happy to take a look.

All I'm saying is he made it sound as if the land grant was primarily about developing the economy, which the tech campus clearly is, when in fact is was about giving a liberal education to the children of the industrial classes. The land grant was also a program developed primarily by the Republican Party, which at the time had a very low opinion of life-long wage labor, while the tech campus is all about creating jobs.

As far as the rest of the speech goes, Bloomberg said things that are very typical of what the country's elite is saying these days, whether Democrat or Republican. The whole narrative begs a slew of questions. Is further economic growth sustainable? Will the entrepreneurial ethic, which he takes for granted as being desirable, lead to more or less inequality? Is the global economic system, which the elites finally had to admit is open to systemic risk, subject to systemic dysfunction? The left wing of the national elite thinks tougher regulation can control the banking system, but when banks innovate they usually try to discover ways to get around regulation. So going forward, how can the system start moving again without returning to the high-risk economy?

I don't object to Cornell becoming even more active in technology, but I do object to it becoming lopsided. I also object to sweeping questions such as these under the rug and uncritically joining in the narrative, thereby strengthening and perpetuating it.

The Morrill Land-Grant Act might have been presented in terms of egalitarian rhetoric and notions of educating the young progeny of the less fortunate industrial classes, but the primary motive of the act was not divorced from economic calculus as you imply.

7 U.S.C. § 304
...each State which may take and claim the benefit of this subchapter, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life. (emphasis added)

Your argument is only tenable if you assert that advancement of professions is a goal aimed at assisting individuals without any larger macroeconomic goal. Advancement of professions goes far beyond a bald investment of governmental funds in the liberal education of the industrial classes. Governments do not act without motives. They do not act without advancing hard interests. Those in academia might muse about how great it is to obtain an education, but the fact is that the government will not invest in financing such endeavors unless they pay dividends to the government or society as a whole. Education is worth nothing until it is put into action. Your argument forces one to make the assumption that the government chose purposely to invest in the development of agricultural and technological studies, narrow fields, without considering how such investments or resultant accomplishments would buoy the economy of the United States. I think that such is a poor assumption. I am not saying that Morrill, Lincoln, White, or Cornell neither cared nor acted in accord with the laudable principle of the advancement of education for the "sons of toil," as Morrill called those who were the children of the industrial class, but the United States Congress passed the act because of the benefits it would have in developing the technological and scientific foundations of the industrial United States.

The Morrill Land-Grant Act did not pass until the Confederate states had seceded from the Union. Northern supporters of the Act could not muster sufficient support to gain passage of the Act while the Southern states were present in the United States Congress to object and obstruct the progress of the Land-Grant Act. Why would the South have opposed it? Do you purport it is because the representatives of the South would prefer that their people remained lacking in liberal education? Were the representatives of Southern states less compassionate toward the poorer classes than their Northern counterparts? You present the success of the Morill Land-Grant Act as if it was decided upon principles of access to education. You must then agree with one of those interpretations regarding Southern opposition. Why else would they oppose it?

The actual answers lies in the fact that the Morrill Land-Grant Act was structured in such a manner that it subsidized the economic development of Northern industries. The Republican Party was built upon the economic tendencies and philosophies of its predecessors in the Northeast, the Federalist and Whig parties. This preference toward policies that protected Northern industries from external competition and subsidized the development of Northern technological industries continued through the Republican Party. The Republican Party supported the Morrill Land-Grant Act to advance the industrial engine of the Northeast through an influx of capital and perpetual resources in the form of technical universities that were directed toward the industries and practices of the Northeast. The North supported it for economic reasons. The South opposed it for economic reasons.

Swampy
The land grant was also a program developed primarily by the Republican Party, which at the time had a very low opinion of life-long wage labor, while the tech campus is all about creating jobs.

What are you implying there? One can support creation of jobs without supporting the creation of wage slavery in an industrial underclass. You make it seem like disgust at the latter necessitates opposition to the former. That is far from the truth. The Republican Party supported that Morrill Land-Grant Act as it is written to enable people to pursue "professions." I would consider "jobs" and "professions" in this context to be synonymous, and the distinction you try to make between the Morill Land-Grant Act and Bloomberg's land-grant is illusory. I would argue that the Morrill Land-Grant Act with its advancement of industrial technology foresaw that it would increase wage laborers while Cornell NYC Tech Campus will create employment opportunities largely in the service sector.

Did the Republican Party really oppose lifelong wage labor? That is how the industries of the Northeast rose and thrived. They were successful on the cheap labor of immigrants. Republicans were fine with lifelong laborers because they were the lifeblood of their constituent industries. Admittedly, the administration of T. Roosevelt indicates that Republicans knew that laborers were vulnerable, could be abused far too easily by their employers, and needed protection, but Republicans did not oppose wage labor. The Republican Party acted to protect the vulnerable but did not act to erode the foundations upon which the economy of its home region was built. It was the Democratic Party that was still enamored with Jefferson's yeoman farmer and the emerging American Federation of Labor, that admitted only skilled laborers, that supported the Democratic Party and inculcated opposition to wage labor within the Party.

It is interesting that you verge upon embracing Neo-Marxist critiques of the global financial system when you mention important questions that should be asked, but yet in your opinion of what motivated the Morrill Land-Grant Act violate the fundamental tenet of Marxism: economic interests govern the path of all decisions and history.

The Morrill Land-Grant Act was neither principled nor economic solely. It was both. That is why it passed and why it was successful in creating some of the greatest universities in the United States. The Act merged hard interests and the lofty rhetoric of egalitarianism, giving rise to universities such as MIT, Berkeley, and Cornell. You are right in so far as you claim it was for the liberal education of the youth of the industrial class of this nation. Bloomberg was right in stating that economic motives guided its structure, ensured its passage, and motivated initial Southern opposition.

Enough. Drop the puck!

sethred
Im thinking that the gift is from Sanford Weill, class of '55(i think)

From the NYTimes:

The donor whose $350 million gift will be critical in building Cornell University’s new high-tech graduate school on Roosevelt Island is Atlantic Philanthropies, whose founder, Charles F. Feeney, is a Cornell alumnus who made billions of dollars through the Duty Free Shoppers Group.

sethred
Im thinking that the gift is from Sanford Weill, class of '55(i think)

Is Apple selling the i think? Would make a great stocking stuffer.

I respect Sandy Weill a great deal for what he's accomplished and what he's done for Cornell, but very little he's ever done has been anonymous.

Beeeej
I respect Sandy Weill a great deal for what he's accomplished and what he's done for Cornell, but very little he's ever done has been anonymous.

Hey-oooooooooooo!

Also, he looks exactly like Steve Lawrence's character in the Blues Brothers.

Jordan 04
From the NYTimes:

The donor whose $350 million gift will be critical in building Cornell University’s new high-tech graduate school on Roosevelt Island is Atlantic Philanthropies, whose founder, Charles F. Feeney, is a Cornell alumnus who made billions of dollars through the Duty Free Shoppers Group.

Damn, that's one very interesting guy.

(I apologize for linking to the Atlantic which was barely nosed out by Urban Bâby as this year's recipient of the prestigious Organization of Which One Would Most Like to See the Entire Subscription List Die in a Fire award.)

Trotsky

(I apologize for linking to the Atlantic which was barely nosed out by Urban Bâby as this year's recipient of the prestigious Organization of Which One Would Most Like to See the Entire Subscription List Die in a Fire award.)

Teehee.

Jordan 04

Trotsky

(I apologize for linking to the Atlantic which was barely nosed out by Urban Bâby as this year's recipient of the prestigious Organization of Which One Would Most Like to See the Entire Subscription List Die in a Fire award.)

Teehee.

Gotta be a good Photoshop in that...

Trotsky
(I apologize for linking to the Atlantic which was barely nosed out by Urban Bâby as this year's recipient of the prestigious Organization of Which One Would Most Like to See the Entire Subscription List Die in a Fire award.)

Sorry, why the hate for The Atlantic? Just curious. You can PM me if you want to keep the thread on-topic.

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
(I apologize for linking to the Atlantic which was barely nosed out by Urban Bâby as this year's recipient of the prestigious Organization of Which One Would Most Like to See the Entire Subscription List Die in a Fire award.)

Sorry, why the hate for The Atlantic? Just curious. You can PM me if you want to keep the thread on-topic.

A: "Ivy Leaguers living in New York City are the most tedious, affected, self-absorbed twats on Earth."

B: "What are you talking about?! That's one of the most grotesquely bigoted, least informed generaliz-"

A: (pulls up any random Atlantic article)

(pause)

B: "Crap."

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
(I apologize for linking to the Atlantic which was barely nosed out by Urban Bâby as this year's recipient of the prestigious Organization of Which One Would Most Like to See the Entire Subscription List Die in a Fire award.)

Sorry, why the hate for The Atlantic? Just curious. You can PM me if you want to keep the thread on-topic.

A: "Ivy Leaguers living in New York City are the most tedious, affected, self-absorbed twats on Earth."

B: "What are you talking about?! That's one of the most grotesquely bigoted, least informed generaliz-"

A: (pulls up any random Atlantic article)

(pause)

B: "Crap."

So, for what it's worth, The Atlantic two years ago ran the best article I have ever read on the problems with health care delivery in the US. So, it's not all pretentious crap.

Aaron M. Griffin

Swampy

Beeeej

Swampy
But Bloomberg's speech today tells an entirely different story. George Orwell called it.

Call me crazy, but I heard a sum total of about a dozen words about the federal land grant program in Bloomberg's speech, and none of what I remember hearing contradicts any historical facts. If you've got a copy of the text of his speech that shows me otherwise, I'm happy to take a look.

All I'm saying is he made it sound as if the land grant was primarily about developing the economy, which the tech campus clearly is, when in fact is was about giving a liberal education to the children of the industrial classes. The land grant was also a program developed primarily by the Republican Party, which at the time had a very low opinion of life-long wage labor, while the tech campus is all about creating jobs.

As far as the rest of the speech goes, Bloomberg said things that are very typical of what the country's elite is saying these days, whether Democrat or Republican. The whole narrative begs a slew of questions. Is further economic growth sustainable? Will the entrepreneurial ethic, which he takes for granted as being desirable, lead to more or less inequality? Is the global economic system, which the elites finally had to admit is open to systemic risk, subject to systemic dysfunction? The left wing of the national elite thinks tougher regulation can control the banking system, but when banks innovate they usually try to discover ways to get around regulation. So going forward, how can the system start moving again without returning to the high-risk economy?

I don't object to Cornell becoming even more active in technology, but I do object to it becoming lopsided. I also object to sweeping questions such as these under the rug and uncritically joining in the narrative, thereby strengthening and perpetuating it.

The Morrill Land-Grant Act might have been presented in terms of egalitarian rhetoric and notions of educating the young progeny of the less fortunate industrial classes, but the primary motive of the act was not divorced from economic calculus as you imply.

7 U.S.C. § 304
...each State which may take and claim the benefit of this subchapter, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life. (emphasis added)

Your argument is only tenable if you assert that advancement of professions is a goal aimed at assisting individuals without any larger macroeconomic goal. Advancement of professions goes far beyond a bald investment of governmental funds in the liberal education of the industrial classes. Governments do not act without motives. They do not act without advancing hard interests. Those in academia might muse about how great it is to obtain an education, but the fact is that the government will not invest in financing such endeavors unless they pay dividends to the government or society as a whole. Education is worth nothing until it is put into action. Your argument forces one to make the assumption that the government chose purposely to invest in the development of agricultural and technological studies, narrow fields, without considering how such investments or resultant accomplishments would buoy the economy of the United States. I think that such is a poor assumption. I am not saying that Morrill, Lincoln, White, or Cornell neither cared nor acted in accord with the laudable principle of the advancement of education for the "sons of toil," as Morrill called those who were the children of the industrial class, but the United States Congress passed the act because of the benefits it would have in developing the technological and scientific foundations of the industrial United States.

The Morrill Land-Grant Act did not pass until the Confederate states had seceded from the Union. Northern supporters of the Act could not muster sufficient support to gain passage of the Act while the Southern states were present in the United States Congress to object and obstruct the progress of the Land-Grant Act. Why would the South have opposed it? Do you purport it is because the representatives of the South would prefer that their people remained lacking in liberal education? Were the representatives of Southern states less compassionate toward the poorer classes than their Northern counterparts? You present the success of the Morill Land-Grant Act as if it was decided upon principles of access to education. You must then agree with one of those interpretations regarding Southern opposition. Why else would they oppose it?

The actual answers lies in the fact that the Morrill Land-Grant Act was structured in such a manner that it subsidized the economic development of Northern industries. The Republican Party was built upon the economic tendencies and philosophies of its predecessors in the Northeast, the Federalist and Whig parties. This preference toward policies that protected Northern industries from external competition and subsidized the development of Northern technological industries continued through the Republican Party. The Republican Party supported the Morrill Land-Grant Act to advance the industrial engine of the Northeast through an influx of capital and perpetual resources in the form of technical universities that were directed toward the industries and practices of the Northeast. The North supported it for economic reasons. The South opposed it for economic reasons.

Swampy
The land grant was also a program developed primarily by the Republican Party, which at the time had a very low opinion of life-long wage labor, while the tech campus is all about creating jobs.

What are you implying there? One can support creation of jobs without supporting the creation of wage slavery in an industrial underclass. You make it seem like disgust at the latter necessitates opposition to the former. That is far from the truth. The Republican Party supported that Morrill Land-Grant Act as it is written to enable people to pursue "professions." I would consider "jobs" and "professions" in this context to be synonymous, and the distinction you try to make between the Morill Land-Grant Act and Bloomberg's land-grant is illusory. I would argue that the Morrill Land-Grant Act with its advancement of industrial technology foresaw that it would increase wage laborers while Cornell NYC Tech Campus will create employment opportunities largely in the service sector.

Did the Republican Party really oppose lifelong wage labor? That is how the industries of the Northeast rose and thrived. They were successful on the cheap labor of immigrants. Republicans were fine with lifelong laborers because they were the lifeblood of their constituent industries. Admittedly, the administration of T. Roosevelt indicates that Republicans knew that laborers were vulnerable, could be abused far too easily by their employers, and needed protection, but Republicans did not oppose wage labor. The Republican Party acted to protect the vulnerable but did not act to erode the foundations upon which the economy of its home region was built. It was the Democratic Party that was still enamored with Jefferson's yeoman farmer and the emerging American Federation of Labor, that admitted only skilled laborers, that supported the Democratic Party and inculcated opposition to wage labor within the Party.

It is interesting that you verge upon embracing Neo-Marxist critiques of the global financial system when you mention important questions that should be asked, but yet in your opinion of what motivated the Morrill Land-Grant Act violate the fundamental tenet of Marxism: economic interests govern the path of all decisions and history.

The Morrill Land-Grant Act was neither principled nor economic solely. It was both. That is why it passed and why it was successful in creating some of the greatest universities in the United States. The Act merged hard interests and the lofty rhetoric of egalitarianism, giving rise to universities such as MIT, Berkeley, and Cornell. You are right in so far as you claim it was for the liberal education of the youth of the industrial class of this nation. Bloomberg was right in stating that economic motives guided its structure, ensured its passage, and motivated initial Southern opposition.

I agree with much of what you say but think you misunderstand my main point and my critique. Whether or not the Morrill Act was motivated by economic interests, these were the economic interests of small farmers and artisans. Northern Democrats were strong in the cities, and Republicans were strong in rural areas (which comprised the majority of the country). Republicans won the 1860 election because the Democrats split between North and South. So even if for the sake of argument we take as axiomatic that economic interests motivates policy (which I don't), the Act was not necessarily intended to serve the interests of urban employers on the East Coast. It is also true that corporations were very rare and mainly confined to large-scale public works, like bridges and railroads, before the Civil War. Markets were also primarily local. Only after the merger movement in 1896 does one see national corporations and a corporate economy resembling what we know today. Additionally, in 1862 developed labor markets did not exist in much of the country, and certainly not labor markets for college graduates. Substantial labor markets for college graduates came into being in the 20th century.

The North and South were on a collision course. From the Missouri Compromise to the Compromise of 1850 to the Dred Scott decision,legal slavery was spreading. Small-scale capitalists and independent tradesmen feared they could not compete with slave labor, so they wanted to impede its spread. This in turn became the political conflict of its time, and the Republican cry of "Free Land, Free Labor" can be seen as a containment strategy.

The Morrill Act was part of this strategy. It would make farmers and artisans more productive. (Ezra Cornell called himself a "farmer-mechanic." ) But these were independent, self- or family-employed individuals, not "hirelings" (as Lincoln called life-long wage laborers). It is true that the Republicans thought anyone who did not save to start their own business was lazy, imprudent, or unlucky, but this was at a time when 70% or more of the free adult population was self-employed. It's very doubtful that they would have this view today, when about 5% are self-employed.

Southern slaveowners objected to the Act because it (a) embodied knowledge in non-slave students who could not be easily appropriated, and (b) because the Act expanded the power of the federal government.

Still, the productivity gains of "scientist-farmers" were limited, and their knowledge could also be used by slaveowners. Liberal education was important, however, for the republican society the Republicans envisioned (and, yes, from which they would benefit economically). "Liberal education" was a term used in Roman times to mean the education of free men and women, so there's a direct connection to "Free Land, Free Labor."

A previous version of the Morrill Act had been passed and vetoed in 1859. Therefore, the southern states only prevented the veto from being overridden, not from being passed. Morrill himself said the Act was deliberately vague because the states were best suited to determine their own needs. But I think he also think he left it vague in order to get more votes and because he (and the other land-granters) did not know exactly what a university that did what they wanted would look like. That's why I think his 1887 speech is so important. He says a liberal education was the real goal, and the only institution he mentions by name is "Cornell."

While I think self-interest always plays a part in the politics of national economic policy, I also think the actual policies themselves are the outcomes of conflicts and compromises. Also, all policy is mediated by conceptions (a.k.a. "ideology" ), so even policies motivated by self-interest can have the unintended consequences of acting against those interests. Moreover, one cannot see the future with any certainty. So the idea that the framers of the 1862 Morrill Act somehow foresaw the rise of corporate capitalism and therefore would approve of the 2011 NYC land grant strikes me as ludicrous.

As for neo-Marxism, the idea that people pursuing their self-interest can undermine their class interest is standard Marxist fare. So too is the idea that each individual seeking his/her own interest can lead to the thwarting of the interests of others, thereby undermining the collective self-interest. One can also find books on both the left and right claiming that Lincoln was influenced by Marxism. (Go to Amazon and enter "Marx Lincoln." He almost certainly read Marx. Between 1850 and 1862 Marx and Engels wrote for the New York Tribune, which was called the most influential newspaper in its day. For $2/yr. people across the country subscribes to the weekly and get their national and international news. Horace Greeley was both the Tribue's editor and a follower of Charles Fourier's socialism. Greeley also co-founded New York State's first land-grant college (with the unlikely name of "The People's College of Havana"!) and served on Cornell's first Board of Trustees. Yet Greeley was perhaps the most influential Republican of his time. He served on the Republican platform committee for the 1860 election and came away saying, "I got everything I wanted" (from the committee).

But I'm not really concerned about honoring sacred texts or being logically consistent with all the parts body of thought that have no necessary logical connections. At a time when both socialism and capitalism have failed (except perhaps in Scandinavia, where things seem relatively benign for the time being), it strikes me that big questions need to be debated, free of the name-calling and religious fervor associated with names like Marx, Smith, Keynes, or Hayek.

It is here where I take exception to yesterday's proceedings -- not only for reducing the complex history of the land grant colleges to an impossible, historically slanted -- if not outright mendacious -- sound bite, but also (1) for betraying Cornell's tradition of being "broad and balanced" in the service of seeking truth independently and without commercial or political influences and (2) for materially contributing to the common, taken-for-granted assumption (ideology) that more technology is the thing we most need to solve our socioeconomic problems.

It will be interesting to see where, in the large network that is Cornell University, an alternative narrative appears, besides the unlikely space of an electronic forum devoted to hockey!

Swampy

Aaron M. Griffin

Swampy

Beeeej

Swampy
But Bloomberg's speech today tells an entirely different story. George Orwell called it.

Call me crazy, but I heard a sum total of about a dozen words about the federal land grant program in Bloomberg's speech, and none of what I remember hearing contradicts any historical facts. If you've got a copy of the text of his speech that shows me otherwise, I'm happy to take a look.

All I'm saying is he made it sound as if the land grant was primarily about developing the economy, which the tech campus clearly is, when in fact is was about giving a liberal education to the children of the industrial classes. The land grant was also a program developed primarily by the Republican Party, which at the time had a very low opinion of life-long wage labor, while the tech campus is all about creating jobs.

As far as the rest of the speech goes, Bloomberg said things that are very typical of what the country's elite is saying these days, whether Democrat or Republican. The whole narrative begs a slew of questions. Is further economic growth sustainable? Will the entrepreneurial ethic, which he takes for granted as being desirable, lead to more or less inequality? Is the global economic system, which the elites finally had to admit is open to systemic risk, subject to systemic dysfunction? The left wing of the national elite thinks tougher regulation can control the banking system, but when banks innovate they usually try to discover ways to get around regulation. So going forward, how can the system start moving again without returning to the high-risk economy?

I don't object to Cornell becoming even more active in technology, but I do object to it becoming lopsided. I also object to sweeping questions such as these under the rug and uncritically joining in the narrative, thereby strengthening and perpetuating it.

The Morrill Land-Grant Act might have been presented in terms of egalitarian rhetoric and notions of educating the young progeny of the less fortunate industrial classes, but the primary motive of the act was not divorced from economic calculus as you imply.

7 U.S.C. § 304
...each State which may take and claim the benefit of this subchapter, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life. (emphasis added)

Your argument is only tenable if you assert that advancement of professions is a goal aimed at assisting individuals without any larger macroeconomic goal. Advancement of professions goes far beyond a bald investment of governmental funds in the liberal education of the industrial classes. Governments do not act without motives. They do not act without advancing hard interests. Those in academia might muse about how great it is to obtain an education, but the fact is that the government will not invest in financing such endeavors unless they pay dividends to the government or society as a whole. Education is worth nothing until it is put into action. Your argument forces one to make the assumption that the government chose purposely to invest in the development of agricultural and technological studies, narrow fields, without considering how such investments or resultant accomplishments would buoy the economy of the United States. I think that such is a poor assumption. I am not saying that Morrill, Lincoln, White, or Cornell neither cared nor acted in accord with the laudable principle of the advancement of education for the "sons of toil," as Morrill called those who were the children of the industrial class, but the United States Congress passed the act because of the benefits it would have in developing the technological and scientific foundations of the industrial United States.

The Morrill Land-Grant Act did not pass until the Confederate states had seceded from the Union. Northern supporters of the Act could not muster sufficient support to gain passage of the Act while the Southern states were present in the United States Congress to object and obstruct the progress of the Land-Grant Act. Why would the South have opposed it? Do you purport it is because the representatives of the South would prefer that their people remained lacking in liberal education? Were the representatives of Southern states less compassionate toward the poorer classes than their Northern counterparts? You present the success of the Morill Land-Grant Act as if it was decided upon principles of access to education. You must then agree with one of those interpretations regarding Southern opposition. Why else would they oppose it?

The actual answers lies in the fact that the Morrill Land-Grant Act was structured in such a manner that it subsidized the economic development of Northern industries. The Republican Party was built upon the economic tendencies and philosophies of its predecessors in the Northeast, the Federalist and Whig parties. This preference toward policies that protected Northern industries from external competition and subsidized the development of Northern technological industries continued through the Republican Party. The Republican Party supported the Morrill Land-Grant Act to advance the industrial engine of the Northeast through an influx of capital and perpetual resources in the form of technical universities that were directed toward the industries and practices of the Northeast. The North supported it for economic reasons. The South opposed it for economic reasons.

Swampy
The land grant was also a program developed primarily by the Republican Party, which at the time had a very low opinion of life-long wage labor, while the tech campus is all about creating jobs.

What are you implying there? One can support creation of jobs without supporting the creation of wage slavery in an industrial underclass. You make it seem like disgust at the latter necessitates opposition to the former. That is far from the truth. The Republican Party supported that Morrill Land-Grant Act as it is written to enable people to pursue "professions." I would consider "jobs" and "professions" in this context to be synonymous, and the distinction you try to make between the Morill Land-Grant Act and Bloomberg's land-grant is illusory. I would argue that the Morrill Land-Grant Act with its advancement of industrial technology foresaw that it would increase wage laborers while Cornell NYC Tech Campus will create employment opportunities largely in the service sector.

Did the Republican Party really oppose lifelong wage labor? That is how the industries of the Northeast rose and thrived. They were successful on the cheap labor of immigrants. Republicans were fine with lifelong laborers because they were the lifeblood of their constituent industries. Admittedly, the administration of T. Roosevelt indicates that Republicans knew that laborers were vulnerable, could be abused far too easily by their employers, and needed protection, but Republicans did not oppose wage labor. The Republican Party acted to protect the vulnerable but did not act to erode the foundations upon which the economy of its home region was built. It was the Democratic Party that was still enamored with Jefferson's yeoman farmer and the emerging American Federation of Labor, that admitted only skilled laborers, that supported the Democratic Party and inculcated opposition to wage labor within the Party.

It is interesting that you verge upon embracing Neo-Marxist critiques of the global financial system when you mention important questions that should be asked, but yet in your opinion of what motivated the Morrill Land-Grant Act violate the fundamental tenet of Marxism: economic interests govern the path of all decisions and history.

The Morrill Land-Grant Act was neither principled nor economic solely. It was both. That is why it passed and why it was successful in creating some of the greatest universities in the United States. The Act merged hard interests and the lofty rhetoric of egalitarianism, giving rise to universities such as MIT, Berkeley, and Cornell. You are right in so far as you claim it was for the liberal education of the youth of the industrial class of this nation. Bloomberg was right in stating that economic motives guided its structure, ensured its passage, and motivated initial Southern opposition.

I agree with much of what you say but think you misunderstand my main point and my critique. Whether or not the Morrill Act was motivated by economic interests, these were the economic interests of small farmers and artisans. Northern Democrats were strong in the cities, and Republicans were strong in rural areas (which comprised the majority of the country). Republicans won the 1860 election because the Democrats split between North and South. So even if for the sake of argument we take as axiomatic that economic interests motivates policy (which I don't), the Act was not necessarily intended to serve the interests of urban employers on the East Coast. It is also true that corporations were very rare and mainly confined to large-scale public works, like bridges and railroads, before the Civil War. Markets were also primarily local. Only after the merger movement in 1896 does one see national corporations and a corporate economy resembling what we know today. Additionally, in 1862 developed labor markets did not exist in much of the country, and certainly not labor markets for college graduates. Substantial labor markets for college graduates came into being in the 20th century.

The North and South were on a collision course. From the Missouri Compromise to the Compromise of 1850 to the Dred Scott decision,legal slavery was spreading. Small-scale capitalists and independent tradesmen feared they could not compete with slave labor, so they wanted to impede its spread. This in turn became the political conflict of its time, and the Republican cry of "Free Land, Free Labor" can be seen as a containment strategy.

The Morrill Act was part of this strategy. It would make farmers and artisans more productive. (Ezra Cornell called himself a "farmer-mechanic." ) But these were independent, self- or family-employed individuals, not "hirelings" (as Lincoln called life-long wage laborers). It is true that the Republicans thought anyone who did not save to start their own business was lazy, imprudent, or unlucky, but this was at a time when 70% or more of the free adult population was self-employed. It's very doubtful that they would have this view today, when about 5% are self-employed.

Southern slaveowners objected to the Act because it (a) embodied knowledge in non-slave students who could not be easily appropriated, and (b) because the Act expanded the power of the federal government.

Still, the productivity gains of "scientist-farmers" were limited, and their knowledge could also be used by slaveowners. Liberal education was important, however, for the republican society the Republicans envisioned (and, yes, from which they would benefit economically). "Liberal education" was a term used in Roman times to mean the education of free men and women, so there's a direct connection to "Free Land, Free Labor."

A previous version of the Morrill Act had been passed and vetoed in 1859. Therefore, the southern states only prevented the veto from being overridden, not from being passed. Morrill himself said the Act was deliberately vague because the states were best suited to determine their own needs. But I think he also think he left it vague in order to get more votes and because he (and the other land-granters) did not know exactly what a university that did what they wanted would look like. That's why I think his 1887 speech is so important. He says a liberal education was the real goal, and the only institution he mentions by name is "Cornell."

While I think self-interest always plays a part in the politics of national economic policy, I also think the actual policies themselves are the outcomes of conflicts and compromises. Also, all policy is mediated by conceptions (a.k.a. "ideology" ), so even policies motivated by self-interest can have the unintended consequences of acting against those interests. Moreover, one cannot see the future with any certainty. So the idea that the framers of the 1862 Morrill Act somehow foresaw the rise of corporate capitalism and therefore would approve of the 2011 NYC land grant strikes me as ludicrous.

As for neo-Marxism, the idea that people pursuing their self-interest can undermine their class interest is standard Marxist fare. So too is the idea that each individual seeking his/her own interest can lead to the thwarting of the interests of others, thereby undermining the collective self-interest. One can also find books on both the left and right claiming that Lincoln was influenced by Marxism. (Go to Amazon and enter "Marx Lincoln." He almost certainly read Marx. Between 1850 and 1862 Marx and Engels wrote for the New York Tribune, which was called the most influential newspaper in its day. For $2/yr. people across the country subscribes to the weekly and get their national and international news. Horace Greeley was both the Tribue's editor and a follower of Charles Fourier's socialism. Greeley also co-founded New York State's first land-grant college (with the unlikely name of "The People's College of Havana"!) and served on Cornell's first Board of Trustees. Yet Greeley was perhaps the most influential Republican of his time. He served on the Republican platform committee for the 1860 election and came away saying, "I got everything I wanted" (from the committee).

But I'm not really concerned about honoring sacred texts or being logically consistent with all the parts body of thought that have no necessary logical connections. At a time when both socialism and capitalism have failed (except perhaps in Scandinavia, where things seem relatively benign for the time being), it strikes me that big questions need to be debated, free of the name-calling and religious fervor associated with names like Marx, Smith, Keynes, or Hayek.

It is here where I take exception to yesterday's proceedings -- not only for reducing the complex history of the land grant colleges to an impossible, historically slanted -- if not outright mendacious -- sound bite, but also (1) for betraying Cornell's tradition of being "broad and balanced" in the service of seeking truth independently and without commercial or political influences and (2) for materially contributing to the common, taken-for-granted assumption (ideology) that more technology is the thing we most need to solve our socioeconomic problems.

It will be interesting to see where, in the large network that is Cornell University, an alternative narrative appears, besides the unlikely space of an electronic forum devoted to hockey!

I agree with many of your insights. I think that dogmatic adherence to any philosophy in public policy is dangerous because each distinct field has the situations to which it best applies and for which it can best account. Hayek and Smith have their place as well as do Keynes and Marx. It is a balance that creates meaningful and successful public policy that helps others. I made that comment merely because most of your questions appeared to be from a unified, Neo-Marxist perspective.

Swampy
That's why I think his 1887 speech is so important. He says a liberal education was the real goal, and the only institution he mentions by name is "Cornell."

I think it is dangerous to designate retroactively legislative intent and purpose based upon a speech that the key sponsor of the bill made 25 years after the passage of the act.

Thanks for the Amazon suggestion. I am well read on Lincoln, his politics, his policies, and the history of the Republican Party, but I had not delved into the considerable academic work that exists apparently on the connection between Lincoln and Marxist ideology. Once again, thanks for opening my eyes to that. We disagree about assigning motives through interpretation of facts. It is a common occurrence. That is why the study of history is subjective and not objective, despite what many will try to argue.

I agree with your conclusion about the portrayal of Cornell in the specific case, but not the Morrill Land-Grant Act in the general case during Bloomberg's speech. The Morrill Land-Grant Act served advancement of economic, Cornell chose to expand that narrow grant to all academic fields and a palpable sense of public service. The vehicle of the Morrill Land-Grant Act, I maintain still was possible because it appealed to the economic interests of the nation and the industrial base of the nation, but it was the brilliance and compassion of Ezra Cornell and Andrew Dickson White that took something that was less profound and created one of the nation's greatest testaments to American principles. That is why Cornell is "the first American university," as Frederick Rudolph dubbed it. Its appeal for equality and opportunity. Its dedication to both liberal and practical education immortalized in "any person...any study." A university whose founder delivered these words as the University opened, "I hope we have laid the foundation of an institution which shall combine practical with liberal education...I believe we have made the beginning of an institution which will prove highly beneficial to the poor young men and the poor young women of our country." Cornell and White seized the opportunity of the Morrill Land-Grant Act and used it to great effect. They fulfilled both the economic motives and the more lofty goals of liberal education of the Morrill Land-Grant Act. Bloomberg did not pay proper homage to a university that has such a rich history of diversity and equal opportunity through excellence in all academic studies. I think his choice was one more of limited time than one of intentional neglect of recognizing what makes Cornell sch a great university.

Back on the topic of this post:

I interacted with a blogger who follows closely Michigan hockey and has inside connections with the administration at Michigan hockey. He responded and stated:

Michigan Hockey Net
I hadn't heard anything about this so I checked with a knowledgeable Michigan hockey writer I know and he said he remembered hearing something about this and thinks it's a done deal. He thought Red Berenson may have mentioned something about it at a NYC alumni gathering (but don't quote him on that). We're checking with another person in the know, but right now signs are pointing to it happening. Hope so... sounds like a great event!

He has not responded yet. I will post if/when he does. The post seems to lend credence to the fact that the event will happen and corroborates the statements that others have made on here that Berenson mentioned it to an alumni gathering in New York City.

If this happens, my head a-splode.

Aaron M. Griffin

Swampy

Aaron M. Griffin

Swampy

Beeeej

Swampy
But Bloomberg's speech today tells an entirely different story. George Orwell called it.

Call me crazy, but I heard a sum total of about a dozen words about the federal land grant program in Bloomberg's speech, and none of what I remember hearing contradicts any historical facts. If you've got a copy of the text of his speech that shows me otherwise, I'm happy to take a look.

All I'm saying is he made it sound as if the land grant was primarily about developing the economy, which the tech campus clearly is, when in fact is was about giving a liberal education to the children of the industrial classes. The land grant was also a program developed primarily by the Republican Party, which at the time had a very low opinion of life-long wage labor, while the tech campus is all about creating jobs.

As far as the rest of the speech goes, Bloomberg said things that are very typical of what the country's elite is saying these days, whether Democrat or Republican. The whole narrative begs a slew of questions. Is further economic growth sustainable? Will the entrepreneurial ethic, which he takes for granted as being desirable, lead to more or less inequality? Is the global economic system, which the elites finally had to admit is open to systemic risk, subject to systemic dysfunction? The left wing of the national elite thinks tougher regulation can control the banking system, but when banks innovate they usually try to discover ways to get around regulation. So going forward, how can the system start moving again without returning to the high-risk economy?

I don't object to Cornell becoming even more active in technology, but I do object to it becoming lopsided. I also object to sweeping questions such as these under the rug and uncritically joining in the narrative, thereby strengthening and perpetuating it.

The Morrill Land-Grant Act might have been presented in terms of egalitarian rhetoric and notions of educating the young progeny of the less fortunate industrial classes, but the primary motive of the act was not divorced from economic calculus as you imply.

7 U.S.C. § 304
...each State which may take and claim the benefit of this subchapter, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life. (emphasis added)

Your argument is only tenable if you assert that advancement of professions is a goal aimed at assisting individuals without any larger macroeconomic goal. Advancement of professions goes far beyond a bald investment of governmental funds in the liberal education of the industrial classes. Governments do not act without motives. They do not act without advancing hard interests. Those in academia might muse about how great it is to obtain an education, but the fact is that the government will not invest in financing such endeavors unless they pay dividends to the government or society as a whole. Education is worth nothing until it is put into action. Your argument forces one to make the assumption that the government chose purposely to invest in the development of agricultural and technological studies, narrow fields, without considering how such investments or resultant accomplishments would buoy the economy of the United States. I think that such is a poor assumption. I am not saying that Morrill, Lincoln, White, or Cornell neither cared nor acted in accord with the laudable principle of the advancement of education for the "sons of toil," as Morrill called those who were the children of the industrial class, but the United States Congress passed the act because of the benefits it would have in developing the technological and scientific foundations of the industrial United States.

The Morrill Land-Grant Act did not pass until the Confederate states had seceded from the Union. Northern supporters of the Act could not muster sufficient support to gain passage of the Act while the Southern states were present in the United States Congress to object and obstruct the progress of the Land-Grant Act. Why would the South have opposed it? Do you purport it is because the representatives of the South would prefer that their people remained lacking in liberal education? Were the representatives of Southern states less compassionate toward the poorer classes than their Northern counterparts? You present the success of the Morill Land-Grant Act as if it was decided upon principles of access to education. You must then agree with one of those interpretations regarding Southern opposition. Why else would they oppose it?

The actual answers lies in the fact that the Morrill Land-Grant Act was structured in such a manner that it subsidized the economic development of Northern industries. The Republican Party was built upon the economic tendencies and philosophies of its predecessors in the Northeast, the Federalist and Whig parties. This preference toward policies that protected Northern industries from external competition and subsidized the development of Northern technological industries continued through the Republican Party. The Republican Party supported the Morrill Land-Grant Act to advance the industrial engine of the Northeast through an influx of capital and perpetual resources in the form of technical universities that were directed toward the industries and practices of the Northeast. The North supported it for economic reasons. The South opposed it for economic reasons.

Swampy
The land grant was also a program developed primarily by the Republican Party, which at the time had a very low opinion of life-long wage labor, while the tech campus is all about creating jobs.

What are you implying there? One can support creation of jobs without supporting the creation of wage slavery in an industrial underclass. You make it seem like disgust at the latter necessitates opposition to the former. That is far from the truth. The Republican Party supported that Morrill Land-Grant Act as it is written to enable people to pursue "professions." I would consider "jobs" and "professions" in this context to be synonymous, and the distinction you try to make between the Morill Land-Grant Act and Bloomberg's land-grant is illusory. I would argue that the Morrill Land-Grant Act with its advancement of industrial technology foresaw that it would increase wage laborers while Cornell NYC Tech Campus will create employment opportunities largely in the service sector.

Did the Republican Party really oppose lifelong wage labor? That is how the industries of the Northeast rose and thrived. They were successful on the cheap labor of immigrants. Republicans were fine with lifelong laborers because they were the lifeblood of their constituent industries. Admittedly, the administration of T. Roosevelt indicates that Republicans knew that laborers were vulnerable, could be abused far too easily by their employers, and needed protection, but Republicans did not oppose wage labor. The Republican Party acted to protect the vulnerable but did not act to erode the foundations upon which the economy of its home region was built. It was the Democratic Party that was still enamored with Jefferson's yeoman farmer and the emerging American Federation of Labor, that admitted only skilled laborers, that supported the Democratic Party and inculcated opposition to wage labor within the Party.

It is interesting that you verge upon embracing Neo-Marxist critiques of the global financial system when you mention important questions that should be asked, but yet in your opinion of what motivated the Morrill Land-Grant Act violate the fundamental tenet of Marxism: economic interests govern the path of all decisions and history.

The Morrill Land-Grant Act was neither principled nor economic solely. It was both. That is why it passed and why it was successful in creating some of the greatest universities in the United States. The Act merged hard interests and the lofty rhetoric of egalitarianism, giving rise to universities such as MIT, Berkeley, and Cornell. You are right in so far as you claim it was for the liberal education of the youth of the industrial class of this nation. Bloomberg was right in stating that economic motives guided its structure, ensured its passage, and motivated initial Southern opposition.

I agree with much of what you say but think you misunderstand my main point and my critique. Whether or not the Morrill Act was motivated by economic interests, these were the economic interests of small farmers and artisans. Northern Democrats were strong in the cities, and Republicans were strong in rural areas (which comprised the majority of the country). Republicans won the 1860 election because the Democrats split between North and South. So even if for the sake of argument we take as axiomatic that economic interests motivates policy (which I don't), the Act was not necessarily intended to serve the interests of urban employers on the East Coast. It is also true that corporations were very rare and mainly confined to large-scale public works, like bridges and railroads, before the Civil War. Markets were also primarily local. Only after the merger movement in 1896 does one see national corporations and a corporate economy resembling what we know today. Additionally, in 1862 developed labor markets did not exist in much of the country, and certainly not labor markets for college graduates. Substantial labor markets for college graduates came into being in the 20th century.

The North and South were on a collision course. From the Missouri Compromise to the Compromise of 1850 to the Dred Scott decision,legal slavery was spreading. Small-scale capitalists and independent tradesmen feared they could not compete with slave labor, so they wanted to impede its spread. This in turn became the political conflict of its time, and the Republican cry of "Free Land, Free Labor" can be seen as a containment strategy.

The Morrill Act was part of this strategy. It would make farmers and artisans more productive. (Ezra Cornell called himself a "farmer-mechanic." ) But these were independent, self- or family-employed individuals, not "hirelings" (as Lincoln called life-long wage laborers). It is true that the Republicans thought anyone who did not save to start their own business was lazy, imprudent, or unlucky, but this was at a time when 70% or more of the free adult population was self-employed. It's very doubtful that they would have this view today, when about 5% are self-employed.

Southern slaveowners objected to the Act because it (a) embodied knowledge in non-slave students who could not be easily appropriated, and (b) because the Act expanded the power of the federal government.

Still, the productivity gains of "scientist-farmers" were limited, and their knowledge could also be used by slaveowners. Liberal education was important, however, for the republican society the Republicans envisioned (and, yes, from which they would benefit economically). "Liberal education" was a term used in Roman times to mean the education of free men and women, so there's a direct connection to "Free Land, Free Labor."

A previous version of the Morrill Act had been passed and vetoed in 1859. Therefore, the southern states only prevented the veto from being overridden, not from being passed. Morrill himself said the Act was deliberately vague because the states were best suited to determine their own needs. But I think he also think he left it vague in order to get more votes and because he (and the other land-granters) did not know exactly what a university that did what they wanted would look like. That's why I think his 1887 speech is so important. He says a liberal education was the real goal, and the only institution he mentions by name is "Cornell."

While I think self-interest always plays a part in the politics of national economic policy, I also think the actual policies themselves are the outcomes of conflicts and compromises. Also, all policy is mediated by conceptions (a.k.a. "ideology" ), so even policies motivated by self-interest can have the unintended consequences of acting against those interests. Moreover, one cannot see the future with any certainty. So the idea that the framers of the 1862 Morrill Act somehow foresaw the rise of corporate capitalism and therefore would approve of the 2011 NYC land grant strikes me as ludicrous.

As for neo-Marxism, the idea that people pursuing their self-interest can undermine their class interest is standard Marxist fare. So too is the idea that each individual seeking his/her own interest can lead to the thwarting of the interests of others, thereby undermining the collective self-interest. One can also find books on both the left and right claiming that Lincoln was influenced by Marxism. (Go to Amazon and enter "Marx Lincoln." He almost certainly read Marx. Between 1850 and 1862 Marx and Engels wrote for the New York Tribune, which was called the most influential newspaper in its day. For $2/yr. people across the country subscribes to the weekly and get their national and international news. Horace Greeley was both the Tribue's editor and a follower of Charles Fourier's socialism. Greeley also co-founded New York State's first land-grant college (with the unlikely name of "The People's College of Havana"!) and served on Cornell's first Board of Trustees. Yet Greeley was perhaps the most influential Republican of his time. He served on the Republican platform committee for the 1860 election and came away saying, "I got everything I wanted" (from the committee).

But I'm not really concerned about honoring sacred texts or being logically consistent with all the parts body of thought that have no necessary logical connections. At a time when both socialism and capitalism have failed (except perhaps in Scandinavia, where things seem relatively benign for the time being), it strikes me that big questions need to be debated, free of the name-calling and religious fervor associated with names like Marx, Smith, Keynes, or Hayek.

It is here where I take exception to yesterday's proceedings -- not only for reducing the complex history of the land grant colleges to an impossible, historically slanted -- if not outright mendacious -- sound bite, but also (1) for betraying Cornell's tradition of being "broad and balanced" in the service of seeking truth independently and without commercial or political influences and (2) for materially contributing to the common, taken-for-granted assumption (ideology) that more technology is the thing we most need to solve our socioeconomic problems.

It will be interesting to see where, in the large network that is Cornell University, an alternative narrative appears, besides the unlikely space of an electronic forum devoted to hockey!

I agree with many of your insights. I think that dogmatic adherence to any philosophy in public policy is dangerous because each distinct field has the situations to which it best applies and for which it can best account. Hayek and Smith have their place as well as do Keynes and Marx. It is a balance that creates meaningful and successful public policy that helps others. I made that comment merely because most of your questions appeared to be from a unified, Neo-Marxist perspective.

Swampy
That's why I think his 1887 speech is so important. He says a liberal education was the real goal, and the only institution he mentions by name is "Cornell."

I think it is dangerous to designate retroactively legislative intent and purpose based upon a speech that the key sponsor of the bill made 25 years after the passage of the act.

Thanks for the Amazon suggestion. I am well read on Lincoln, his politics, his policies, and the history of the Republican Party, but I had not delved into the considerable academic work that exists apparently on the connection between Lincoln and Marxist ideology. Once again, thanks for opening my eyes to that. We disagree about assigning motives through interpretation of facts. It is a common occurrence. That is why the study of history is subjective and not objective, despite what many will try to argue.

I agree with your conclusion about the portrayal of Cornell in the specific case, but not the Morrill Land-Grant Act in the general case during Bloomberg's speech. The Morrill Land-Grant Act served advancement of economic, Cornell chose to expand that narrow grant to all academic fields and a palpable sense of public service. The vehicle of the Morrill Land-Grant Act, I maintain still was possible because it appealed to the economic interests of the nation and the industrial base of the nation, but it was the brilliance and compassion of Ezra Cornell and Andrew Dickson White that took something that was less profound and created one of the nation's greatest testaments to American principles. That is why Cornell is "the first American university," as Frederick Rudolph dubbed it. Its appeal for equality and opportunity. Its dedication to both liberal and practical education immortalized in "any person...any study." A university whose founder delivered these words as the University opened, "I hope we have laid the foundation of an institution which shall combine practical with liberal education...I believe we have made the beginning of an institution which will prove highly beneficial to the poor young men and the poor young women of our country." Cornell and White seized the opportunity of the Morrill Land-Grant Act and used it to great effect. They fulfilled both the economic motives and the more lofty goals of liberal education of the Morrill Land-Grant Act. Bloomberg did not pay proper homage to a university that has such a rich history of diversity and equal opportunity through excellence in all academic studies. I think his choice was one more of limited time than one of intentional neglect of recognizing what makes Cornell sch a great university.

We might just agree to disagree. I think our difference on the MLGA is that you're focusing on the wording of the Act itself, but I'm trying to infer its intent from the context in which it was created, as well as from Morrill's personal account. Of course, even the text of the act itself is subject to interpretation. Morrill pointed out that the Act doesn't say people had to study agriculture or mechanic arts, but that it does say a land-grant education must not exclude liberal education. In other words, the latter is mandatory, the former is not. Still, exactly what counts as "liberal education" the Act doesn't say.

I totally agree with what you say about Ezra and Andy. There are not many schools where students and alumni (or faculty and staff, for that matter) take the tag line seriously, much less chant it at sporting events with great, deserved pride.

I still think Bloomberg used a common misunderstanding of the MLGA to lend legitimacy to his project. As far as I can tell, White's vision of a university free from "religious, commercial, and political influences" has been completely sold out. However, I was glad to learn that the tech campus is planned to be a graduate campus. There's still hope.

Cheers.

I can't even make sense of this thread. Can we all just stop this crap now? Particularly all you commies?

Redscore
I can't even make sense of this thread. Can we all just stop this crap now? Particularly all you commies?

Or continue it on JSID, please.

Redscore
I can't even make sense of this thread. Can we all just stop this crap now? Particularly all you commies?

Red scare from Redscore?

Wow. I started this thread based on an actual conversation with an actual cornell administrator. It is amazing how it has morphed.

Anywho, there is some financial risk to the schools with a low turnout, but i doubt they need to sell out to cover their nut. For cornell, there are all kinds of reasons to have a big NYC event, particularly now, with the tech center, cornell's profile in the city has certainly been raised.

Presumably a big hunk of those buying tickets to the game open their wallets for more than the price of the tix.

As for sandy weill, he just sold his nyc apt for $88 million, and he said it is all going to charity. One would expect some of that would go to cornell.

The poll shows a 2-1 margin favors annual games at MSG over every other year. The eLynah family can't fill Madison Square Garden alone and Cornell U already uses Cornell-at-Columbia football in even years (in early November) as a springboard for a weeeknd if activities. So I think Cornell would more cautiously approach MSG hockey as an annual event. Too bad the Cornell-Colgate game at the Prudential wasn't against BC or a similarly highly regarded team with a big NYC area fan base. That would have been a better indicator of how Cornell might draw playing hockey every year in NYC.

Maybe BU in odd years, Michigan-Wisconson-Ohio State-Notre Dame in even years and pull the plug on Michigan etc. series if it doesn't draw, what, 10,000?

billhoward
Cornell U already uses Cornell-at-Columbia football in even years (in early November) as a springboard for a weeeknd if activities.

Hadn't thought of that. Has the MSG game always been on a year when the Columbia game is in Ithaca?

Very exciting indeed - heard the same thing tonight for next year... i sure hope it is true

Trotsky

billhoward
Cornell U already uses Cornell-at-Columbia football in even years (in early November) as a springboard for a weeeknd if activities.

Hadn't thought of that. Has the MSG game always been on a year when the Columbia game is in Ithaca?

The three Cornell-BU games have been odd years. Cornell at Columbia falls in even years and usually (always?) in early November. There's a postgame parade down Fifth Avenue from St. Patrick's Cathedral to the Cornell Club afterwards. Our class held a rooftop bar reception the night before the game (same balmy weather as we had for the RHH game this year) and had a small event at the Architucture Art & Planning just before the game. It's one night when alumni can wander in and use the Cornell Club, or eat in parts of the club. The all-Cornell parade is pretty impressive even if it's only a half-dozen blocks, not all the way down from Baker Field. Cornell encourages other classes to do events around the Columbia football weekend.

Sports fanatics and Cornell partisans will do both but to get 5,000 (?) Cornellians and families to do it twice within 2-3 weeks, that's tough. It also may be a strain on Alumni House's ability to organize two NYC events in close proximity. Even if we can do Cornell-BU hockey every year, can BU muster the level of fan support?