I've been arguing for some time now that Harvard is in the midst of an identity crisis it refuses to acknowledge: It has become so rich that it is now better known for its vast wealth than it is for its educational product, and it is arguably better at raising money than it is at teaching students. (The cart before the horse and all that.)

And because of Harvard's being defined by great wealth, people are going to start asking questions of it that would typically apply to a business rather than a school.

For example: In today's Los Angeles Times, the economist Robert Reich wonders why giving to Harvard is considered giving to charity.

I'm all in favor of supporting the arts and our universities, but let's face it: These aren't really charitable contributions. They're often investments in the lifestyles the wealthy already enjoy and want their children to have too. They're also investments in prestige -- especially if they result in the family name being engraved on the new wing of an art museum or symphony hall.

..I see why a contribution to, say, the Salvation Army should be eligible for a charitable deduction. It helps the poor. But why, exactly, should a contribution to the already extraordinarily wealthy Guggenheim Museum or to Harvard University (which already has an endowment of more than $30 billion)?

Reich proposes a solution: Revise the tax code so that only gifts to charities explicitly designed to help the poor get a full deduction.

This surely won't happen. Nonetheless, it's another example of how Harvard's fortune is making people reconsider the way they look at the university. And that's not even mentioning how it changes the way the university looks at itself....