'Where The Heck's All The Money Going?': Jim Jordan Takes Square Aim At Brown University

Forbes Breaking News

At today's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) questioned witnesses about Brown University.

Transcript

00:00The chairman of the full committee, Mr. Jordan, for five minutes.

00:02Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:03Mr. Shea, what did you say tuition was again at Brown, annual tuition?

00:07It's $93,064 in direct costs.

00:10$93,000.

00:10That doesn't count room and board and books and everything.

00:12That's just tuition, right?

00:13No, that's including room and board.

00:14That's everything?

00:15Okay, $93,000.

00:16How many students, you say, again, was that Brown?

00:18Over $7,000, I think you said?

00:19$7,000.

00:20Yeah, so that's a lot of money coming in.

00:21It could be some grants.

00:23It could be some loans or whatever.

00:25But $93,000 times, it's like $700 million coming into Brown every year.

00:30And you asked a fundamental question, sort of simple question.

00:32You asked the question, where the heck's all the money going, right?

00:35And you said, maybe I'll check the administrators.

00:37How many administrators are having?

00:38You said, I think the number you said was 3,805.

00:42Is that right?

00:43Yep.

00:44And then you sent a letter to these guys asking another fundamental question.

00:48What do you do all day?

00:50What was the response you said?

00:52Most of them didn't get back with you?

00:53Most of them didn't respond, and we were hit with disciplinary charges.

00:57So the administrators couldn't respond to a simple question.

01:00You're taking in $700 million a year.

01:02What the heck are you 3,800 administrators doing?

01:05The administrators didn't respond, but the administration came after you.

01:09Is that right?

01:09That's right.

01:10When you investigate the administration, it turns out they investigate you back.

01:13Yeah, and it was interesting to me because the ranking member of the full committee

01:18and the ranking member of the subcommittee talked about academic freedom

01:21and the First Amendment, you were asking these questions on behalf of a student news publication, right?

01:28Right.

01:29What was the name of your paper?

01:31Brown Spectator?

01:31Yep.

01:32And they come after you.

01:33Why do you think they did that?

01:34Why did they come after you?

01:35Well, first of all, what did they come after you about?

01:37What did you allegedly do wrong?

01:39Well, first it was emotional and psychological harm, invasion of privacy and misrepresentation,

01:45and then they decided to charge me with violating the technology policy.

01:48So asking someone how they spend your money is emotional harm?

01:52That's what they alleged?

01:53Apparently.

01:55And then what happened in the investigation?

01:57Well, then they escalated and they charged the entire board of directors of the Brown Spectator

02:01for violating Brown's trademark because our publication is named the Brown Spectator,

02:06which is just a completely bogus claim.

02:08Are there other newspapers that Brown would use Brown in the name of the paper?

02:12Yes.

02:12Are there other newspapers that Brown didn't know?

02:13Probably in the entire history of the university, there's been some kind of Brown publication, right?

02:18Certainly.

02:18Yeah.

02:18I mean, that's just ridiculous.

02:20Why do you really think they did it?

02:21Why did they really come after you?

02:23I think that they were upset that we unveiled the rot that was going on,

02:26all these administrators with pretty useless jobs.

02:30That's certainly one reason.

02:31They were mad at you.

02:31But I think they were trying to make sure no one else would do it in the future.

02:35That's always the way it works.

02:38The left comes after people.

02:39They want to chill speed so it doesn't happen again.

02:41Do you think that was part of their motivation?

02:43I think that certainly was true, but it backfired terribly.

02:46Sure did.

02:46Sure did because you're brave enough to keep talking.

02:49You can come here and testify.

02:50So God bless you for doing that.

02:52Now, you can have, I'll direct this to you, Mr. Martin.

02:54You can have a bloated bureaucracy when you're colluding on price

02:59and making sure you're not competing on price with other similarly situated institutions.

03:04Is that right, Mr. Martin?

03:05Yes.

03:05And you're not supposed to do that, are you, according to the law?

03:08Is that right, Mr. Martin?

03:09To collude on price, it's per se unlawful.

03:11It's per se unlawful.

03:12Among horizontal competitors, it's per se unlawful.

03:13And you can also have bloated bureaucracy when you collude on price and you limit output.

03:19You limit class size.

03:20Is that right, Mr. Martin?

03:21That's correct.

03:21And do you think that's going on at these, oh, there's a third one.

03:25You can also do all this if you engage in perfect price discrimination

03:29where you get all this information on the student and their families,

03:34what they make, where it goes, what they owe, what their retirement is,

03:37all this information you can say, that student can pay this amount.

03:39And you'll take it right to the edge where they can pay and get perfect price discrimination.

03:43So when you do those three things, you can afford to have 3,805 administrators for 7,000 students.

03:51Is that right, Mr. Martin?

03:52You make an excellent point.

03:53The more perfect the information, the more perfect the collusion can be, algorithmically or otherwise.

03:57Of course.

03:57And that's exactly what's going on.

03:59Is that right, Dr. Cooper?

04:01The evidence is certainly consistent with that, yes.

04:03That's what the evidence shows.

04:05And yet the other side says, oh, how dare Mr. Fitzgerald have this hearing?

04:09You've got to be kidding me.

04:10They tried to chill the speech of a news publication at the university for a student they're supposed to be serving,

04:17asking a simple and fundamental question, and they want to chill that because they don't want anyone to look under the covers

04:22and see that they're colluding on price, they're limiting output, and they're doing perfect price discrimination.

04:27Imagine that.

04:29Imagine that.

04:29And we're not supposed to have a hearing?

04:31Holy cow.

04:32I want to thank the chairman for doing the hearing.

04:34I want to thank all of you for testifying.

04:36And, Mr. Shea, thank you for stepping forward and letting the country know what's going on at these elite universities.

04:42What would the gentleman yield for a quick question?

04:44I yield back to the chairman.

04:45I'll yield, dude.

04:45You got—

04:46Well, I just wonder if your feelings are the same about the attacks on a private student publication called the Harvard Law Review

04:54taking place by the Trump administration right now.

04:57Well, I think the chairman or the ranking member knows that you and I have been strong defenders of the press.

05:05We have co-sponsored together the Press Act, defending the press.

05:10I will continue to do that.

05:12But I'm focused on the situation in front of us today, Mr. Shea, at Brown University.

05:15I'm with you.

05:16Hold the thought.

05:17And more power to the free press at Brown and at Harvard.

05:20God bless America.

05:21Gentlemen, time has expired.

05:23That concludes today's hearing.

05:24I want to thank our witnesses.

05:25I have unanimous consent requests.

05:26Oh, Mr. Nadler has a—

Category

Transcript

Recommended