Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Tuition rates can be fixed with one simple bill.  In ~2003 Republicans passed a bill that was nothing more than a windfall to the financial industry when they made student loans nearly impossible to discharge in bankruptcy.   You can run up massive debt buying cigarettes, cable television, gambilng, and fritos with bean dip and make it all go away if things get bad enough, but get in over your head with student loans and you're fucked forever.   Overnight, student loans became the most valuable product lenders can offer, and this is what caused the insane spikes in tuition.   Money was made freely available to people too young and too ignorant to handle it, all backed by the federal government.  The schools took advantage of the lenders taking advantage of the kids.   If this administration is serious about tuition (it's not), that is the only thing that will fix it. Tighten up the money supply, and the rest will follow.  Those assholes fucked an entire generation with the bankruptcy reform bill.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
6 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

Those assholes fucked an entire generation with the bankruptcy reform bill.

QF emphasis.

And if you want to know the biggest thing I criticize Biden about, it's that -- he was a chief architect and proponent of it (Senator from Delaware, bitch-boy for the financial services folks).  The bankruptcy reform bill was and remains utter fuckery.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

So how do states or anyone fight back? And keep in mind the old order and rules are dead

Oh he's not here to address the issues. Just wants to make sure to point out perceived hypocrisy. Obviously there's no defense to what the Trump admin is doing, so they wait to find a surly poster's reaction to criticize. It's literally the only kind of "conservative" perspective we see on this site anymore.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)

By Erwin Chemerinsky

Mr. Chemerinsky is the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley.

edit to add: op-ed from nyt

Quote

 

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.

A Supreme Court decision in 2012 about the Affordable Care Act explains why Mr. Trump’s proposal is unduly coercive and thus unconstitutional. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the A.C.A., also known as Obamacare, was substantially constitutional. But it declared unconstitutional a provision of the law that required states to expand their Medicaid programs or lose all federal Medicaid funds.

No state is required to take federal Medicaid money (just as no university has to take federal funds for its research and its programs). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court said that forcing states to make that choice was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts described this as a “gun to the head” and “dragooning” the states. The administration’s proposed compact is similarly impermissibly coercive.

Moreover, 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.

Requiring adherence to the administration’s definitions of gender is clearly another effort to further marginalize transgender students. It also very likely would be illegal, as the Supreme Court has held that the prohibition of sex discrimination in federal laws, such as employment discrimination statutes, forbids discrimination based on gender identity.

Beyond the unconstitutional aspects of the compact, there is its odious demand to intrude on the autonomy of these schools. Every aspect of it seeks to dictate decisions that have traditionally been left to each university — a degree of control over higher education that is characteristic of authoritarian countries. As someone who has spent his career as a professor and as a dean, it is chilling to contemplate universities relinquishing their freedom in this way. Indeed, if any of these universities cave, it’s hard to imagine any limit to what the administration might try to demand next.

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.

 

Chemerinsky literally wrote the text book for Constitutional Law back when he was a prof at USC.

Edited by Chopper
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, bschoolprof said:

The fact this has so many likes tells you all you need to know about team vs principles.  

There were 61 posts in a thread about leaders tying funding to ideological litmus tests before you chose to chime in.  Remarkable which one jumped out at you as worthy of commentary.

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

There were 61 posts in a thread about leaders tying funding to ideological litmus tests before you chose to chime in.  Remarkable which one jumped out at you as worthy of commentary.

I thought it was self evident the Trump admin's extortion was a terrible idea.  The hypocrisy was worth pointing out, IMO.  Still is.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

There were 61 posts in a thread about leaders tying funding to ideological litmus tests before you chose to chime in.  Remarkable which one jumped out at you as worthy of commentary.

It also reveals a stunningly incomprehensible set of "principles"

As long as your the first to take an illegal/unethical action, you're fine. Its the tit-for-tat that they are upset with.

To wit: Texas moves forward with Trump's redistricting request to gain five new GOP House seats. A-ok with us!                                                                       California responds with the same to cancel the advantage. Wait a minute! What hypocrites! They said they were mad about the Texas thing!

Trump extorts universities. A-ok with us!   California responds that they will withhold grants to those who capitulate. Wait a minute! That's hypocrisy from the Dems! And that's the real issue here!

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Chopper said:

By Erwin Chemerinsky

Mr. Chemerinsky is the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley.

Chemerinsky literally wrote the text book for Constitutional Law back when he was a prof at USC.

My former law professor.  Brilliant man who I had the chutzpah to argue with way more than I should have.  He was a bit younger in those days, as was I.  Still get together once every couple of years. I've been arguing with him over a couple of points in his con law text book since he first published it back in the 90s, but despite seven or so revisions to it he has held strong against making any changes based on my arguments.  :)

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

I thought it was self evident the Trump admin's extortion was a terrible idea.  The hypocrisy was worth pointing out, IMO.  Still is.  

Sorry but pointing out hypocrisy over the last decade is pure folly as evidenced by those in charge right now.

Posted
54 minutes ago, Chopper said:

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.

Holy shit. HOLY SHIT.

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
43 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

I thought it was self evident the Trump admin's extortion was a terrible idea.  The hypocrisy was worth pointing out, IMO.  Still is.  

As pointed out earlier, Newsom's post doesn't require adherence to any particular policies of his or any other administration.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
It also reveals a stunningly incomprehensible set of "principles"
As long as your the first to take an illegal/unethical action, you're fine. Its the tit-for-tat that they are upset with.
To wit: Texas moves forward with Trump's redistricting request to gain five new GOP House seats. A-ok with us!                                                                       California responds with the same to cancel the advantage. Wait a minute! What hypocrites! They said they were mad about the Texas thing!
Trump extorts universities. A-ok with us!   California responds that they will withhold grants to those who capitulate. Wait a minute! That's hypocrisy from the Dems! And that's the real issue here!

This is the conservative way.
“Sure, maybe what Trump did is bad. But you know what’s WAY worse? Anyone fighting back.”
It’s a time-honored approach to delegitimizing all opposition to the authoritarian. And that’s exactly why it’s being advanced in this thread.
Posted
On 10/2/2025 at 10:52 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Arizona State is the far less serious of the two schools.

 

On 10/2/2025 at 11:01 AM, royiv said:

ASU’s undergrad programs are a mess, but Crow hasn’t yet managed to fuck up the law school. Of the two law schools in Arizona, ASU’s is held in higher regard.

I know it's deeply unpopular and a bad word these days, but ASU is our premiere climate science, sustainability, ESG-science and accounting type program in the U.S. 

If we ever see a world where a new administration takes over and we care about the planet and the intersectionality of the planet and business, ASU will be the place pumping out those leaders. In fact, saw this from the UN conference last week:

Quote

 

Arizona State University will use a $115 million donation, the largest in the university's history, to launch a new school focused on conservation and training the next generation of leaders to protect biodiversity and promote global sustainability.

The news was announced by ASU President Michael Crow on Sept. 22 at a "Climate Week" event in New York.

The Rob Walton School of Conservation Futures, named after the 80-year-old philanthropist donor and former chairman of Walmart Inc., will be part of ASU's Changing Futures campaign. The university's College of Global Futures, which hosted an opening for its $192 million nature-inspired research facility on University Drive during Earth Week 2022, will be renamed the Rob Walton College of Global Futures in recognition of the sustaining funding.

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2025/09/22/asu-launches-rob-walton-school-conservation-futures-115m-donation/86087367007/

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...