MSG Hockey v. Michigan

[Scersk '97]

If this happens, my head a-splode.

[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.

...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.

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.

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.

[Redscore]

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

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

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.

[marty]

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?::burnout::

[hypotenuse]

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.

[billhoward]

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?

[Trotsky]

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?

[redbear_71]

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

[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?

[jkahn]

Was told by a reliable source that Mike is still working on making Michigan happen for next year - but at this point it's uncertain whether it'll be Yost or MSG.  Michigan must be pretty tough to negotiate with.

[css228]

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?

Maybe, but given the choice between a Cornell-Columbia football game, or a Cornell Hockey game, what do you think your average Cornellian would choose?

[Aaron M. Griffin]

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?

Maybe, but given the choice between a Cornell-Columbia football game, or a Cornell Hockey game, what do you think your average Cornellian would choose?

I agree. Cornell, if associated with any sport, is associated with hockey, not football. Hockey is the sport that Cornellians worldwide follow with zeal, especially when our beloved alma mater is a competitor. Cornell hockey is a far bigger draw for Cornell alumni than is football I am a Western New Yorker and I made the trip to MSG fo the BU game. I will do it for any subsequent contests against BU or other non-ECAC opponents. I am sure that I am far from alone when stating that I would not travel to Manhattan to watch Cornell-Columbia. Now, were Columbia to get a DI hockey program and a Cornell-Columbia outdoor ice hockey game were played at Columbia, I would make the trip. Cornell hockey has drawing power while Cornell-Columbia football will attract those Cornellians who are already proximate. Lest we forget that Cornell is "a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team." With Skorton's banter about Cornell being the land-grant university to the world and the emphasis that Cornell is the land-grant institution to New York State, it seems that the events that have the greatest breadth of appeal advance both Cornell's financial and philosophical objectives.

[Jim Hyla]

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?

Maybe, but given the choice between a Cornell-Columbia football game, or a Cornell Hockey game, what do you think your average Cornellian would choose?

I agree. Cornell, if associated with any sport, is associated with hockey, not football. Hockey is the sport that Cornellians worldwide follow with zeal, especially when our beloved alma mater is a competitor. Cornell hockey is a far bigger draw for Cornell alumni than is football I am a Western New Yorker and I made the trip to MSG fo the BU game. I will do it for any subsequent contests against BU or other non-ECAC opponents. I am sure that I am far from alone when stating that I would not travel to Manhattan to watch Cornell-Columbia. Now, were Columbia to get a DI hockey program and a Cornell-Columbia outdoor ice hockey game were played at Columbia, I would make the trip. Cornell hockey has drawing power while Cornell-Columbia football will attract those Cornellians who are already proximate. Lest we forget that Cornell is "a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team." With Skorton's banter about Cornell being the land-grant university to the world and the emphasis that Cornell is the land-grant institution to New York State, it seems that the events that have the greatest breadth of appeal advance both Cornell's financial and philosophical objectives.

Unfortunately I don't think that is true. As bad as they have been football draws more than hockey. Sure MSG with CU & BU draws, but consider how unusual that game is. In MSG, with two top teams, and look at what they can get for CU & CU football, with two meaningless teams. Care to guess how many might go to Penn, if the game was for the Ivy championship? No, hockey fans will always have more passion, but, sad as it is, football will still outdraw us.:`-(

[Jim Hyla]

I was just looking at North Dakota's campus map. That might be one of the places where football is outdrawn by hockey. That is, considering that Engelstad Arena has a bigger footprint than does their football stadium.