Universities are supposed to be morally upright. Even if they can't be prosecuted for this, it's still news that they're cheating.
Additionally, I think there's a really important difference between following the law and being a moral person (or a moral university, or a moral corporation). The law might approximate our conception of morality, but it doesn't cover it completely. There is an enormous grey area of activity that is legal, immoral, and newsworthy.
As an aside, perhaps one reason why there are so many "young people disenchanted with democracy" is your attitude: that a never-ending war between lawyers (looking for loopholes) and lawmakers (who should, in theory, be closing loopholes) is a feature. If that's a feature of democracy then maybe we should take another look at our options.
(I don't really feel that way. Well, sometimes I do, but on average I think democracy is the best we're going to get).
Which moral argument are you subscribed to here again?
Did you read the article? The ICIJ notices that these are registered as charities in the states which means they are tax exempt except when the come across things that trigger UBIT. UBIT is an automatic 40% tax. University endowments are able to invest everywhere tax free, except when some debt financed transactions trigger UBIT for all tax exempt shareholders.
UBIT wasn't created to ensnare university endowments in scenarios where founders and board members of independent companies happened to get an exit through debt financing.
This is a circumstance where you adapt. Avoid that misapplication of tax by registering a business in another country and investing in the same thing through it.
If it is so moral what they are doing, why don't they make the whole thing public by themselves. Its not like Universities need to hide anything (sorry for that paraphrase), they are public figures.
The thing is that we as a society have decided that we impose taxes in order to fund common things like protection, infrastructure etc. If now certain members of this society decide they do not want to pay their share anymore, they can say that publicly and we can all decide whether it is for the public good or not (and in the latter case, they can decide whether they want to leave the society in consequence). But what they are currently doing now is hiding that they do not contribute their share to our common good anymore and yes, that is amoral. Its acceptable (and anyones right) to have an opinion (about taxes) but I can expect you to be honest about it.
Additionally, I think there's a really important difference between following the law and being a moral person (or a moral university, or a moral corporation). The law might approximate our conception of morality, but it doesn't cover it completely. There is an enormous grey area of activity that is legal, immoral, and newsworthy.
As an aside, perhaps one reason why there are so many "young people disenchanted with democracy" is your attitude: that a never-ending war between lawyers (looking for loopholes) and lawmakers (who should, in theory, be closing loopholes) is a feature. If that's a feature of democracy then maybe we should take another look at our options.
(I don't really feel that way. Well, sometimes I do, but on average I think democracy is the best we're going to get).