Attorneys general from Massachusetts, New York and 16 other states filed suit against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her department Thursday, accusing DeVos of breaking federal law and giving free rein to for-profit colleges by rescinding the Borrower Defense Rule.
The filing by 18 states and Washington, D.C., asks a U.S. District Court to declare the Education Department’s delay of the rule unlawful and to order the agency to implement it. The states say they have pursued “numerous costly and time-intensive investigations and enforcement actions against proprietary and for-profit schools” that violated consumer protection laws.
The Borrower Defense Rule was adopted by the Obama administration last November and had been set to take effect this month. It was created to make it “simpler for students at colleges found to be fraudulent to get their loans forgiven,” as NPR’s Ed team has reported.
According to this, the professor in this clip:
Has been suspended indefinitely from Essex County College.
If you don’t want to rage through that clip, she was arguing – obnoxiously – that the all black Memorial Day celebration was their right and was the best option for black people who wanted to attend.
That’s fine. You can do whatever you want to here in the USA. If you want to exclude everyone else from your party, fine. But, two things.
- Don’t bitch when other races have parties for only their race. Can’t go to the Mexican party? Boo hoo, lady. Can’t go to the white party? Boo hoo, again. If you can, everyone else can, too. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
- You should be ashamed. No, I’m not kidding. Your ancestors – your mother and father, your grandparents, etc. – fought damn hard to be included in society. I mean, damn hard. They lived through segregation. They fought like mad and a lot of folks were beaten, arrested, killed, etc. trying to win that fight. They won. By the grace of God, they won! And now here you are fighting for black only parties, black only housing on college campuses, black only college graduations… you are fighting damn hard to reverse everything your ancestors bled for! How dare you! Have some respect for those who came before you and created the life you have. Yes, there is still work to be done. There always will be. But winning the next fight should never include destroying the previous victories.
The new law makes it illegal to shut down conservative speakers or cancel them because administrators don’t agree with them. They also cannot punish professors who speak of conservative topics as long as it is in line with the class subject. Free Speech Zones are no longer allowed, making the entire campus a free speech zone. It disallows viewpoint based discrimination for funds for student groups. And the legal definition of student-on-student harassment must be used instead of the one set up by liberal administrators.
The law also demands campuses use the actual legal definition of student-on-student “harassment” handed down by the Supreme Court, behavior “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.”
One down, 49 to go! Let’s make freedom legal again!
Read the text of the Campus Free Speech Protection Act.
“On the second page the professor circled the word ‘hence’ and wrote in between the typed lines ‘This is not your word,’” Martínez wrote. “The word ‘not’ was underlined. Twice. My professor assumed someone like me would never use language like that.”
A few days later, Kelly publicly addressed the incident and said it indicated the university’s initiatives toward inclusion hadn’t gone far enough.
“There is more we can do. The most immediate action we are working to organize is a microaggression training session for each academic department in the University,” she said.
The university’s sociology department also launched an investigation into the incident Martínez alleged in her viral blog post.
I had a teacher in college file paperwork against me for plagiarism once. It took weeks to prove that I had, in fact, written the paper she decided I hadn’t written, and her opinion was based off of something similar. Only she claimed I wasn’t capable of writing the way the paper was written.
She’d never seen a sample of my writing before, outside of the college newspaper. And newspapers are written in a style to cater to the dumbest 1% who might pick it up. So yes, my paper was written a lot differently than my news articles for the newspaper (I wasn’t writing editorials, I was a reporter back then).
Before I got angry and began demanding retraining or the teacher’s job, I took this into account. She based her idea on this completely on what she knew of me – my writing for the newspaper. I didn’t assume she took her opinion from my gender. I didn’t assume a micro-aggression – it wasn’t a word when I was in college. What she knew of my writing was vastly different from what I had handed her. My proof that the paper was mine included my notes, my sources (which she already had), and two professors who had had me in their classes more than twice (one professor had had me in his class 14 times) and could vouch for my non-reporter writing style.
Had this student ever used a word like “hence” in a paper or in speech before? Because if you usually use words that are a third grade level and suddenly hand in a paper with words like “hence,” the teacher is going to ask questions. And at the end of the day, it is on you to prove you deserve your grade.
Ya know, I went to a high school graduation today. As I sat there listening to student after student come up and tell everyone how great they were in a ceremony that lasted about 2 hours more than it should have considering the minuscule size of the class, I realized this was yet another generation of snowflakes heading into the world of academia, where they would continue to be coddled and told they are special. This class was even snowflakeyer than we are used to. The next few years are going to look like the above article. And worse.
God help us all.
1. Taxpayers will shoulder the increasingly heavy burden. The program is expected to cost $163 million in the first year alone; Tyler Durden noted at Zero Hedge that “like all other entitlements, [it] will only grow over time.” New York already has the highest tax burden in the country, meaning that as the program expands, every taxpayer in the state will get whacked by onerous taxes.
2. Colleges will ultimately be forced to raise the cost of tuition even higher. It’s a matter of basic economics: as demand increases, prices increase; eliminating college tuition for numerous people at the $125,000 income bracket and below increases demand; therefore, tuition costs will increase. There is already evidence to suggest that expanding the availability of federal subsidies increased the cost of tuition; back in July a New York Times article examining Hillary Clinton’s free college plan – which was similar to New York’s new program – pointed to a New York Federal Reserve study that “looked at three different increases in federal subsidies in recent years and found that each had produced a significant increase in college tuition.”
The Times article also noted:
Under Mrs. Clinton’s plan, most students would not feel the pain of tuition increases. The government would pay their bills regardless. But that could make it easier for colleges to raise prices, as they would not need to fear a loss of customers.
The same logic would apply to New York’s new program.
3. Class sizes will be adversely affected by the program. The surge in demand that stems from making college free would overwhelm college class sizes, meaning that some form of rationing would have to occur. Various European countries that offer free college require high school students to pass exhaustive tests in order to enter college; for instance, according to the Cato Institute, “Germany is infamous for tracking students into or out of higher education by a test called the Abitur. In France, high school principals, essentially, decide whether a student gets to be on a college track, and the weeklong baccalaureate exam determines if they can go to a university.”
The classes themselves in countries like Germany tend to consist of “large lectures at which attendance is strictly optional” that are “based on rigorous exams rather than modular coursework,” according to assistant professor at George Washington University Samuel Goldman.
Also, I believe that in the state, a lot of the higher paying companies may start requiring a minimum of a masters degree. If anyone can get a bachelor’s degree, then that education is no longer special. You’ll need a minimum of a masters degree to compete for the better jobs. And if you don’t go to college at all, you are screwed.
We’re really already there to a point. A lot of the good jobs out there are starting to require masters degrees because not everyone has them.
Besides, free grade school, middle school, and high school is working out so well for us. The kids don’t value the education they receive because it must not be worth anything, and the parents treat it like free day care instead of their child’s education. So please, let’s make college free, too. Let’s devalue the meaning of higher education so the snowflakes don’t have to start adulting too soon.
When a mob at Vermont’s Middlebury College shut down a speech by social scientist Charles Murray a few weeks ago, most of us saw it as another instance of campus illiberalism. Jonathan Haidt saw something more—a ritual carried out by adherents of what he calls a “new religion,” an auto-da-fé against a heretic for a violation of orthodoxy.
“The great majority of college students want to learn. They’re perfectly reasonable, and they’re uncomfortable with a lot of what’s going on,” Mr. Haidt, a psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, tells me during a recent visit to his office. “But on each campus there are some true believers who have reoriented their lives around the fight against evil.”
These believers are transforming the campus from a citadel of intellectual freedom into a holy space—where white privilege has replaced original sin, the transgressions of class and race and gender are confessed not to priests but to “the community,” victim groups are worshiped like gods, and the sinned-against are supplicated with “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings.”
The fundamentalists may be few, Mr. Haidt says, but they are “very intimidating” since they wield the threat of public shame. On some campuses, “they’ve been given the heckler’s veto, and are often granted it by an administration who won’t stand up to them either.”