Comment by southernplaces7 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by southernplaces7 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

southernplaces7

Way I see it based on admittedly limited information, these two are either kowtowing cynical liars who financed this entire chain of social causes for the sake of scoring a certain type of PR value with a certain kind of social demographic and now no longer give a shit because another kind of social posturing is de jure.

Or, they're cowards who can't in the least minimum stand up for the causes they claim to strongly, morally support and are willing to discard them at a moment's hint of sacrifice or trouble.

If the latter, then how cowardly indeed. If you're already a fucking centibillionaire, then what a truly absurd, spineless shit of a human being with zero internal firmness you'd have to be to screw over thousands of people who had really come depend on these programs...

All because you might, possibly, have to stand up to one screaming orangutan and maybe lose a few billion out of a wholly gargantuan fortune that you will never ever be able to spend in a lifetime.

Either way, the saddest part is the people who'd come to depend on these things, now affected by their loss.

or option 3) the social programs didnt work.

> But former leaders of the school who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private information said Chan had grown distant in recent years as the school’s academic performance faltered

>The East Palo Alto project was the billionaire couple’s second major intervention in a city’s education system, after a controversial 2011 gift of $100 million to the Newark public schools. Some experts and community members claimed that the money was largely squandered.

>said Chan had grown distant in recent years as the school’s academic performance faltered

If you've invested the amounts we're talking about here, and made the statements they made about their investments at the get-go, and have the vast resources they have for tweaking and improving these programs, then you can, you know, put a bit more into making them work, instead of shutting them down in one very conveniently timed political climate. It's their money and they can do whatever they want with it, but the whole thing reeks of political expediency either out of spinelessness or shallow original motives.

>>The East Palo Alto project was the billionaire couple’s second major intervention in a city’s education system, after a controversial 2011 gift of $100 million to the Newark public schools. Some experts and community members claimed that the money was largely squandered.

Yeah, the dangers of investing anything in Jersey. Tony Soprano laughs in his grave.. Joke aside, that much earlier project seemed like one very inexperienced attempt that was mishandled right from the start. Giving that much money to a bunch of ambiguously honest bureaucrats is just asking for disaster. Especially when you as the donor have zero internal presence in or real experience with the system you're donating to.

>then you can, you know, put a bit more into making them work

Assuming it's a problem that can be solved by more money. The US has the fifth-highest amount of education spending in the world, behind countries like Luxembourg and Norway, but ahead of Germany, France, UK, Sweden, and Belgium. Some problems can't be fixed with money alone, and throwing good money after bad is foolish.

> to screw over thousands of people who had really come depend on these programs

So? Should they have been obliged to fund this indefinitely forever and ever? Would you not say the "CZI has promised a parting gift totaling $50 million to the community" part is a little redeeming?

Would you have preferred Zuck to have bought moar yachts instead of supporting education, however briefly?

It's their money and I agree that they have a right to use it however they want, or change its use for their own reasons.

That said, I think you're grossly underestimating how hard it can be for some of the families that were using this school to find an alternative that doesn't cause their kids problems.

With that in mind I'd say there is a sort of moral imperative to preserving a context you created when it's designed for helping vulnerable kids and families. Not a legal rule I'd agree with, but an ethical imperative that shouldn't cut things off without more sustained effort and only a modest cash payoff as compensation.

Given the absolutely colossal fortune of the Zuckerbergs, they could have funded and worked to improve this program for as long as they wanted to, with nary a visible dent in their assets, but (in my opinion during one very convenient space of time) they just decide "nope, fuck it. Here's some cash kids"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com