To the Editor:
One might have thought that the 181 signatures of faculty members on a petition requesting that Wake Forest separate itself from the Koch Foundation would have been enough.
One might have thought that the careful, thorough analysis of the Wake Forest Senate subcommittee studying our relationship to the Koch Foundation — urging us to sever all ties to it, giving them back their funds — would have been enough.
One might have assumed that the subcommittee’s report — even if it was driven by “neo-Marxists” whose main goal is to undermine the quality of education at Wake Forest — demonstrated the ways in which Koch money compromises our ideals and does little more than allow the Koch Foundation to add Wake Forest to the list of institutions that will sell their souls for a mess of pottage.
One might have thought that the onslaught of heavily biased attacks on the attempt to separate Wake Forest from the Koch Foundation (in an editorial by John Hood in the Winston-Salem Journal, in the Chronicle of Higher Education, in the Wall Street Journal and in various other journals and papers whose comments were invariably written by individuals whose funding came from extreme-right sources) would have demonstrated the pitfalls of being in hock to an organization whose main goal is to seed the world with its “open markets” viewpoint.
One might have thought that the various false narratives that have been provided in an attempt to demonstrate the ways in which the Eudaimonia Institute existed well before any connections to the Koch Foundation would have alerted the administration to the ruses to which it was exposing the university.
One might have thought that the year-long inclination on the part of the administration to provide irrelevant assurances about the integrity of the Eudaimonia Institute — when the question concerns the funding of the Institute rather than its stated purpose — might have led it to realize that its evasion of the main problem — that the Koch money pollutes the university and degrades our mission — would have led it to realize the mistake that has been made. But no.
-Jim Hans, English Department