Colleges/Universities Must Unite And Stand Up To Trump

The following is just part of an excellent article by Erwin Chemerinsky (dean of the law school at the University of California - Berkeley) in The New York Times:

On Wednesday, the Trump administration sent letters to nine major universities proposing a “compact.” As The Times reports, the agreement would, among other things, require these universities to freeze tuition rates for five years, limit the enrollment of foreign students and be bound to specific definitions of gender. It would also require them to prohibit anything that would “punish, belittle and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”

In exchange, these universities would receive “multiple positive benefits,” including “substantial and meaningful federal grants.” The schools were warned that they were free to go a different route if any of them “elects to forgo federal benefits.” A senior White House adviser indicated that the administration wants to extend this compact to all institutions of higher education.

This is extortion, plain and simple.

It is not hyperbole to say that the future of higher education in America requires that every university reject it. If any schools capitulate, the pressure will be enormous on all to fold. The only solution is solidarity and collective action against this effort at federal control over higher education.

President Trump is trying to circumvent the legislative and judicial branches of our government by presenting this as a deal with schools. Nothing in the Constitution or federal law authorizes the president to do this unilaterally. The Supreme Court has been clearthat Congress can set conditions on federal funds so long as the requirements are constitutional, clearly stated, related to the purpose of the program and not unduly coercive. Mr. Trump’s compact fails every part of that test.

There is a basic principle of constitutional law — the unconstitutional conditions doctrine — that the government cannot condition a benefit on a recipient having to give up a constitutional right. But that is exactly what the compact would do. When it calls for universities to effectively ban anything deemed to punish or belittle conservative ideas, it tramples the right to freedom of speech.

The core of the First Amendment is that the government cannot use its power to discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint expressed. But this provision would do just that in treating conservative ideas differently from liberal ones. And any restriction on belittling an idea is obviously unconstitutional; there always is a right to disagree with an idea, even in strong language. (As with “belittle,” the meaning of “conservative” is vague, leaving the definition up to the whims of members of the administration.)

I’ve seen a copy of the compact and note that it would violate the First Amendment in another way: requiring universities to have policies prohibiting “all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives,” to abstain from “actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.” It would be hard to come up with a more explicit attempt to restrict freedom of speech. . . .

We all learned long ago on the playground that trying to appease a bully only makes things worse. It’s equally hard to imagine how higher education will recover if colleges and universities begin conceding to Mr. Trump’s illegal compact.

Voters Disagree With Trump's War On Universities

 

The charts above reflect the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between May 2nd and 5th of a nationwide sample of 1,693 registered voters, with a 3.2 point margin of error.

Most Americans Don't Support Trump's War On Higher Education

 

The charts above are from the AP / NORC Poll -- done between May 1st and 5th of a nationwide sample of 1,175 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

POLL: College Students Respect The Murderer More Than The Insurance Executive

 

The charts above are from the Generation Lab Poll -- done between December 19th and 23rd of a nationwide sample of 1,026 college students, and has a 3.4 point margin of error.

Maybe We Should Listen To The Protesters This Time

In the late 1960's and early 1970's, protests broke out in colleges across the nation. The students were protesting the Vietnam War.

There was an immediate backlash from many in the country. The protesters were label as "communists", "radicals", and "Anti-American". While the protests were mostly peaceful, the backlash was not. College administrations invited police on campus to attack and remove the students, and they were also attacked by anti-protest demonstrators.

But history have proven the student protesters were right. The Vietnam War is now viewed as a bad mistake which took the lives of far too many U.S. soldiers and Vietnamese civilians. 

Now student protests are again happening in colleges across the nation. This time they are protesting the way the Israeli government is waging war in Gaza (and U.S. government support for it). They are protesting the tens of thousands of civilians killed, and the lack of food, shelter, and medicine allowed to reach those civilians.

And again, there is a backlash to the protests. This time the accusation is that the protesters are being "antisemitic". They aren't. It is not antisemitic to oppose the actions of the Israeli government (anymore than it is wrong to oppose the Russian government for invading Ukraine).

And once again, college administrations are inviting the police onto their campuses - and the violence is mainly done by the police and anti-protest demonstrators. 

We should react differently this time. Instead of demonizing the protesters, maybe we should listen to them. Maybe they are right. There is a good chance that will be the judgement of history.

Colleges Should Protect Free Speech And Academic Freedom

Colleges and universities should be bastions of free speech and academic freedom. Unfortunately, too many administrators are attacking them. They fear the right-wingers in Congress (who believe higher education should be nothing more than propaganda for their own beliefs). 

Here is Robert Reich's take on the situation (which I wholeheartedly agree with):

The most important thing I teach my students is to seek out people who disagree with them. 

That’s because the essence of learning is testing one’s ideas, assumptions, and values. And what better place to test ideas, assumptions, and values than at a university?

Apparently, Columbia University’s president, Nemat Shafik, does not share my view. Last week she prostrated herself before House Republicans, promising that she would discipline professors and students for protesting the ongoing slaughter in Gaza in which some 34,000 people have died, most of them women and children. 

The following day she summoned the New York City Police Department to arrest more than 100 students who were engaging in a peaceful protest against it. 

Can we be clear about a few things? Protesting this slaughter is not expressing antisemitism. It is not engaging in hate speech. It is not endangering Jewish students. It is doing what should be done on a college campus — taking a stand against a perceived wrong, at least provoking discussion and debate.

 

Education is all about provocation. Without being provoked — stirred, unsettled, goaded — even young minds can remain stuck in old tracks. 

Israel’s war on Hamas is horrifying. The atrocities committed by both sides illustrate the capacities of human beings for inhumanity and show the vile consequences of hate. For these reasons, it presents an opportunity for students to reexamine their preconceptions and learn from one another. 

If Columbia, Yale, or any other university now roiled by student protests were doing what it should be doing, it would be a hotbed of discussion and debate about the war. Disagreement would be welcome; demonstrations, accepted; argument, invited; differences, examined and probed.

 

The mission of a university is to coach students how to learn, not tell them what to think. It is to invite debate, not suppress it. Truth is a process and method — more verb than noun. 

I love it when my students take issue with something that I or another student has said, starting with “I disagree!” and then explaining why. Disagreeing is not being disagreeable. Disagreement engenders thought and discussion. It challenges students to reconsider their positions and probe more deeply.

Which is why universities should encourage it. Why they should protect unpopular views. Why they should invite and welcome speakers with views that rile many students. To be riled up is to be attentive, open to new ideas. 

And why peaceful demonstrations should be encouraged, not shut down. It is never appropriate to call in armed police to arrest peaceful student demonstrators.

Finally, it’s why universities should go out of their way to tolerate expression that may make some people uncomfortable. To tar all offensive speech “hate speech” and ban it removes a central pillar of education. Of course it’s offensive. It is designed to offend.

 

There is a limit, of course. Expression that targets specific students, “doxes” them, or otherwise aims to hurt them as individuals doesn’t invite learning. It is a form of intimidation. It should not be allowed.

 

I’m old enough, and have been a professor long enough, to have seen campuses explode in rage — at bigots like George Wallace when he ran for president, at the horrors of the Vietnam War, at university investments in South Africa, and at efforts to prevent free speech. 

Some of these protests were loud. Some caused inconvenience. Some protesters took over university buildings. But most were not violent. Nor did they seek to harm or intimidate individual students.

 

Whenever university presidents have brought in the police, and students have been arrested and suspended, all learning has stopped. 

Which brings me to the central role of university faculties in protecting free expression on campus.

 

This role is especially critical now, when the jobs of university presidents and trustees have degenerated mainly into fundraising — often from wealthy alumni who have their own myopic views about what sorts of speech should be allowed and what should be barred. 

The faculty of Columbia University has every right — and, in my view a duty — to protect peaceful free expression at Columbia with a vote of no confidence in Shafik’s leadership, and seek to end her presidency. 

The Columbia faculty along with those of Yale, NYU, and other campuses now engulfed in protests against what is occurring in Gaza should do everything in their power to use the resulting provocations, inconveniences, and discomforts as occasions for learning rather than repression. 

Abortion Access Now A Factor In Choosing A College

Results for the Lumina-Gallup study are based on web surveys conducted from Oct. 9-Nov.16, 2023, with samples of 6,015 students who are currently enrolled in a postsecondary education program (certificate, associate or bachelor's degree), 5,012 adults who were previously enrolled in a postsecondary education program but had not completed an associate or bachelor's degree, and 2,943 adults who had never enrolled in a postsecondary education program.

All respondents were between the ages of 18 and 59 and had a high school diploma or equivalent but not an associate or bachelor's degree.

For analysis conducted in the report, the population of respondents was limited to the 6,934 who are currently enrolled in an associate or bachelor's degree program or who have considered pursuing either an associate or bachelor's degree within the past two years. Of these respondents, 2,532 are enrolled in a bachelor's degree program, 1,636 are enrolled in an associate degree program, 1,456 have considered a bachelor's degree program, and 1,968 have considered an associate degree program; respondents may be included in multiple categories.

The College Presidents Were Right About Free Speech

This week three college presidents were called before Congress to defend their universities over charges that they were allowing antisemitism on their campuses. They tried to defend free speech, but their defense of it has caused serious blowbacks from politicians and others (who seem to believe antisemitic speech should not be allowed). The college presidents were right, and their detractors were wrong. Free speech doesn't just mean speech you like, but also speech that you consider offensive (like antisemitism or other forms of bigotry). Offensive speech can (and should) be opposed, but not suppressed.

Jason Willick explains in this post in The Washington Post. Here is a small part of what he wrote:

Elite college presidents are under fire for their platitudinous responses this week to high-dudgeon questioning by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) over whether calls for “genocide of Jews” violate the schools’ policies. Stefanik demanded yes-or-no answers, but the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania and MIT gave conditional ones, with Penn’s president calling it a “context-dependent decision.”

The episode has the makings of a turning point in the culture wars over higher education.

Justified concern about American campus radicalism cannot obscure the fact that the presidents were objectively right on the free-speech merits. Universities that claim to be forums for free inquiry should not promise Congress that they will punish students or faculty for constitutionally protected speech. Private universities are not bound legally by the First Amendment, but most have committed themselves to abiding by its spirit and meaning.

Like racist, sexist, homophobic or anti-Muslim speech, antisemitic speech is generally constitutionally protected. To legally constitute harassment, speech must be so pervasive that it interferes with someone’s ability to access education — think of a mob that follows someone around campus or blocks a building. An isolated outburst, social media post or protest chant doesn’t meet that threshold.

Even speech endorsing violence in the abstract is protected. This might seem surprising, but it’s well-established law. Speech crosses into incitement only if it is both intended to cause violence and likely to cause violence in the imminent future. As the Supreme Court affirmed in 1969’s Brandenburg v. Ohio, advocating “the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.”

Stefanik’s questioning was effective because calling for the genocide of Jews shocks the conscience. But even the most committed antisemites are rarely so blunt. As Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) explained in a speech last week, they hide behind other terms and tropes. Stefanik suggested in her questioning that the term “intifada,” referring to violent Palestinian uprisings, calls for genocide. Others suggest that the Hamas-favored slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” is genocidal in its intent. Still others might consider “anti-Zionism” writ large to be in that category, because Israel is the only majority-Jewish nation and its enemies have shown their willingness to use genocidal means to destroy it.

But these terms, in isolation, clearly enjoy First Amendment protection. If universities announced policies of punishing expression deemed genocidal — in the absence of harassment or incitement of imminent violence — they would be committing themselves to refereeing the meaning of various anti-Israel slogans associated with the Palestinian movement.

And not only anti-Israel slogans. Speech supportive of Israel’s war in Gaza could also be deemed genocidal by activists; see how the University of Southern California briefly barred a professor from campus for saying Hamas members should be killed. Creating a new “genocide” category of punishable speech would suppress and distort debate on the Israel-Gaza war. Debates about China and Russia, also accused by some of genocide, would also be chilled.

21% Of Black Students Experience Discrimination

The charts above are from the Gallup Poll -- done between October 26th and November 7th of 2022 among 1,106 Black college students. No margin of error given. 

Republicans Attended Elite Schools & Learned Nothing

Republicans like to call Democrats "elite", knowing it will be taken as an insult for their base voters. But the truth is that as many Republicans in Congress (if not more) attended elite colleges. They just didn't seem to have learned anything from that.

Following is part of an op-ed by Robert Reich: 

The original justification for elite higher education in the United States was to train the future leaders of American democracy. As Charles W. Eliot, who became president of Harvard in 1869, noted, Harvard existed to inculcate the ideals of “service and stewardship.”

Since then, Harvard has produced eight US presidents; Yale, five. (Stanford can boast Herbert Hoover, if it feels compelled to do so.)

Elite universities have also produced a disproportionate number of senators and representatives from both parties. In fact, Republicans elected to the Senate over the last decade are more likely than their Democratic counterparts to have attended Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford.

So how to explain Elise Stefanik, Harvard class of 2006, now the third-ranking House Republican, who recently called the January 6 hearings a “partisan witch hunt,” voted to invalidate the 2020 election, and has repeated Trump’s Big Lie of election fraud?

Or Josh Hawley, Stanford class of 2002 and Yale Law class of 2006, now senator from Missouri, who in December 2020 became the first US senator to announce plans to object to the certification of Joe Biden’s victory, then led Senate efforts to overturn the Electoral College vote count, and fist-bumped the rioters on January 6?

Or Ted Cruz, Princeton class of 1992 and Harvard Law class of 1995, now senator from Texas, who in late 2020 joined in John Eastman’s and Trump’s plot to object to the election results in six swing states and delay accepting the Electoral College results on January 6, potentially enabling Republican state legislatures to overturn them?

And how to explain a new crop of Republican senate candidates?

JD Vance, Yale Law class of 2013, now Republican candidate for the Senate from Ohio, has claimed that there “were certainly people voting illegally on a large-scale basis” in the 2020 election. When asked earlier this year if the 2020 election was “stolen,” he said, “Yeah, I do.”

Blake Masters, Stanford class of 2008 and Stanford Law class of 2012, now the Republican candidate for the Senate from Arizona, has declared in campaign ads that “Trump won.” He promotes rightwing “replacement theory” – that Democrats favor illegal immigration “so that someday they can ‘amnesty’ these people and make them voters who they expect to vote Democrat.”

These alumni of America’s finest institutions of higher education haven’t adhered to their alma maters’ ideals of service and stewardship of American democracy. In fact, they’re actively wrecking American democracy.

Nor can these elite graduates claim they don’t know any better. Most third-graders can distinguish a lie from the truth.

No, these scions of the most prestigious halls of American academe are knowingly and intentionally abetting the most dangerous attack on American democracy since the Civil War.

Whatever did they learn from their rarified education? Obviously, zilch.

Will Biden Reduce Or Eliminate Student Loan Debt?

The exorbitant rise in the cost of a college education, combined with stagnant wage growth for most Americans, has created a crisis of debt for many students. There is currently about $1.7 trillion of loan debt for students. This is keeping them from buying the things their parents were able to buy at the same point in their lives, and that is a drag on the country's economy.

Many want President Biden to eliminate, or significantly reduce this loan debt. And currently he is considering doing that. Here, from Vox.com, are his three options:

Public Says College Is Important But Not Affordable

The charts above are from the Gallup Poll -- done between October 19th and November 22nd of a national sample of 11,227 adults, with a sampling error of 2 points or less for all groups. 

It shows that 44% think a college education is more important today than in the past, but only 30% have access to a quality and affordable college.

College Alone Will Not Solve The Racial Wealth Gap

There is a huge gap between the wealth of White families and Black families. One fairly simple solution offered was to just admit more Blacks to colleges. But like with most simple solutions, it turns out the problem is more complicated. 

Dorothy A. Brown explains those complications in an excellent article in The Washington Post. I urge you to read the whole article, but here is a part of it:

Higher education is supposedly the ticket to a better future, and it usually translates to a larger salary regardless of race, according to a 2011 study from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. But college does not pay off for Black students the way it does for White students. At virtually every step — from taking out loans to facing a racist job market to dealing with repayment plans — Black students and their families have disadvantages. As a result, the Black-White wealth gap widens.

Black college graduates have higher debt loads, on average, than White college graduates. Black debt rises over time, White debt diminishes. Upon graduation, the average Black graduate owes $23,400 vs. the White graduate’s $16,000, according to the Brookings Institution. Four years later, the gap triples. Even at the top end of the income spec­trum, Black students have higher student loans ($4,643, on average) than White students ($3,835), and Black parents take out larger loans to help pay for college ($3,303 vs. $1,903).

What accounts for that difference? First, it’s the schools students attend. Wealthier colleges, which can afford to award financial aid and scholarships, disproportionately admit White students: White students are almost five timesas likely to go to a selective university than Black students, even when controlling for income. Meanwhile, a higher share (12 percent) of Black students attend for-profit colleges than very selective universities (9 percent), because online and part-time features allow them to work while getting their degrees. These schools usually do not award any financial aid and are in effect extremely expensive, given their low graduation rates.

Another factor is the wealth disparity between Black and White families. Black college students are less likely than their White peers to receive tax-free gifts from their parents and grandparents. A study examining financial transfers of at least $10,000 in Black and White families between 1989 and 2013 found that only 9 percent of Black households received such a gift, compared with 32 percent of White ones. And the scale of the gifts was remarkably modest: “White college-educated families received $55,419 at the median and $235,353 at the mean, while their Black counterparts received $36,260 and $65,755, respectively.”

But even parental wealth cannot fully protect Black students from higher debt loads. Black parents hold their assets differently than White parents: They are tied more heavily to homeownership than to the stock market, which makes them illiquid. Research that compared Black and White parents in the highest wealth quintile showed that White parents had $81,827 in financial assets such as stock, but Black parents had just $46,579. White parents had $154,627 in home equity, but Black ones had just $92,555. As a result, even Black students whose families are well-off on paper usually do not have resources readily available to support them. . . .

When a Black student, through herculean efforts, actually obtains a college degree, he or she faces a racist labor market that makes it harder to pay down debt and build wealth. A 2014 study showed that a Black Harvard graduate had to send out eight résumés before getting an interview offer, while a White one had to send out only six. As the selectivity decreased, the disparity increased: For example, with a University of Massachusetts at Amherst degree, White graduates submitted nine résumés before getting an interview offer, while Black graduates had to send out 15. This suggests that, while the credential makes a huge difference for a Black applicant, White students can afford to go to less-prestigious (and generally less-expensive) institutions and receive roughly similar rewards from the labor market. Worse, that same study showed that Black applicants — but not the White ones — were asked to interview for lower-paying jobs than those they applied to. . . .

Layered on top of all of these inequities is our tax code. Within four years of graduation, average Black debt is $53,000 and White debt is $28,000. The tax implications help White graduates and harm Black ones. The deduction for student loan interest, capped at only $2,500 a year, does little to help the average Black borrower, who has higher debt and more interest; the average White borrower, meanwhile, can deduct all of their student loan interest in their first year. (God forbid two Black college graduates get married, since their maximum deduction, combined, remains $2,500.) Meanwhile, when (mostly White) families help pay for children and grandchildren’s educations, those gifts are tax-free.

All of this student debt widens the overall Black-White wealth gap. In 1989, college-educated White households had roughly five times greater wealth than their Black peers. By 2013, that gap had tri­pled. Student debt represents roughly 10 percent of the racial wealth gap when a college graduate is 25 years old, according to professors Fenaba R. Addo and Jason Houle. By age 30-35, it explains about 25 percent of the gap.