Comments on Quick Takes: No Strike in Pennsylvania, Faust's First Day, Locked Out at MIT, Michigan Alters Domestic Partners Plan, Diploma Mill Protection Law Expires, American Presidents on Anti-Boycott Trip

• Unfortunate generalization
• Posted by Russell Kitchner , Higher Education Consultant on July 3, 2007 at 7:55am EDT

• Mr. Jaschik’s report on the sunsetting of the California statute associated with overseeing consumer protection regulations includes the following: “The Los Angeles Times reported that debate continues over whether a new law should be tougher (as consumer groups advocate) or not (as supporters of for-profit colleges advocate).” This last parenthetical comment represents a regrettable over-generalization, and it carries with it the implication that those who support for-profit higher education are charlatans without concern for academic integrity.

  The fact is that there is no inherent correlation between profit status and the quality of education, and I would further suggest that there are many non-profit institutions that have more to fear from close regulatory scrutiny than do their for-profit counterparts. By way of but one example, Kennedy’s and Cuomo’s much-publicized campaign against preferred lending lists by financial aid offices uncovered questionable practices to be far more common among non-profit and state-supported institutions than among for-profits. The distinction between them is a straw man, and the debate in California has more to do with effective than selective accountability. The relevant issue is whether for-profit institutions are being held to a higher standard than those established for the non-profit and state-supported cohorts. Linking profit status to weak consumer protection is an unfortunate and inaccurate representation of the regulatory landscape, and Mr. Jaschik should know better.

• Public protection racket
• Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on July 3, 2007 at 9:10am EDT

• Public institutions in California have avoided the regulatory meltdown only because they are protected by a powerful regional accrediting guild, and largely unregulated when viewed in comparison with the for-profits.

  Alan Contreras's reference to "diploma-mills and similar low-end operations" is, at best, a half-truth, since these kinds of regulationa exempt public colleges and universities from the standards that the for-profits must meet. The unequal playing fields for publically funded institutions versus the for-profits is also apparent in Florida, where the latter must jump through more hoops to survive year-to-year.

  The obvious solution is to end this protection racket for the "non-profits," and extend regulation to all instititions. Only by wresting control from the accrediting guilds can a equitable and fair regulatory environment be assured -- one which treats all institutions equally.

• James Sherley
• Posted by Arthur Ide on July 3, 2007 at 9:55am EDT

• I congratulate and applaud the courage of MIT in standing up against the terrorist threats of James Sherley. No one is entitled to a job unless he or she meets the qualifications of the employing institution. James Sherley did not meet the criteria of MIT. Lifetime tenure is a reward for excellence, not something that is to be demanded by making terrorist threats. James Sherley must step down and grow up.

• US Chancellors agaisnt boycott
• Posted by Not Surprised on July 3, 2007 at 10:10am EDT

• In the original article about the British academic boycott against Israel, which appeared in the Israeli publication, News, One of the US Chancellors who visited Israel describes the boycott as a "genuinely stupid move." Isn't it a bit unprofessional for a Chancellor to describe the view and action of a group of academics as "stupid?" Is that the kind of language he would like his professors to use in a professional setting to describe differing perspectives?

  One might want to notice who funded this trip of the US Chancellors. It is funded by Project Exchange, which is an "institute of the American Jewish Committee." Is it any surprise that those people whose trip was funded by this organization would say anything critical of Israel's policy toward the Palestinians, which has seriously damaged the Palestinian educational institutions? Would they also visit Palestinian territories and support their grievances against Israel, if funding were provided for such a trip? One also notices that this group of presidents and chancellors seem to speak for all "American academis." Who authorized them to do that?

• Posted by Timothy3 on July 3, 2007 at 10:55am EDT

• Not Surprised: You are not doing much to advance the argument that anti-zionist is not anti-jewish.

  1)He probably used the word 'stupid' because it is stupid. I'd say it was silly but that would imply it was harmless. So stupid is the right word.

  2) I'm not sure they say they are speaking for everyone but if they implied that somehow, that is pretty normal for ANY group like this.

  3) And of course there is that evil Jewish money being funnelled into the group by all those hook nosed jewish bankers I am sure. That would qualify as either a silly argument or a ignorant one. Where some of the funding comes from has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. When I review papers of candidates, I don't ask where their scholarships or grants come from. I look at the argument. And shouldn't this site be about the argument?

  And just for the record. I am not a fan of either bank of the Jordan. And while I may be an unwitting dupe of the global zionist conspiracy I admit I may be controlled secretly through flouridation and such...

• Follow the money
• Posted by Surprised again on July 3, 2007 at 12:00pm EDT

• Timothy,

  My argument is not personal. I am neither prosemetic nor anti-semitic, but insist that the statements of a group of people lobbied and financed by an interest group are more than likely to be influenced by that group's view. This is part of a propaganda effort on the part of Israel, which may be necessary for their political ends, but the statements of a small group of American presidents who were willing to make this trip must be viewed with a degree of healthy skepticism. Academic integrity requires it.

• CA Agency Sunsets, Consumer Protection Remains
• Posted by HS Thompson on July 3, 2007 at 12:55pm EDT

• While the sunset of the regulatory agency in California may be lamented or lauded, it was not surprising nor is it the end of the world. Those who decried in the press the demise of the student protections in the law misinform readers, as the law remains in force, if only for a few more months. The CA statute was criticized by all sides for being unintelligible and therefore impossible to comply with or to enforce. Yet extreme intransigence among the interest groups in CA has stymied reform several times, most notably last session when a genuine reform bill based on a special monitor's report was derailed at the last minute by self-styled student advocates. The actual situation in CA is that the regulatory bureau is defunct, but the underlying statute remains in force until the end of the calendar year. Thus the student rights and remedies in current law remain in force, albeit awkwardly, while the legislature considers both a temporary fix (AB 1525) and a new comprehensive regulatory structure (SB 823). The latter measure is subject to the same paralyzing and uncompromising conflicts that doomed previous reform efforts.

• The Truth in Ca
• Posted by Robert Johnson , ED at CAPPS on July 3, 2007 at 2:30pm EDT

• I must applaud the comments of Thompson, Kitchner and McGee. So much of what is published in the media concernig our "situation" in California has been carefully orchestrated and timed to inflict maximum negative impact against private postseondary schools and colleges in our State. There are only a relative few who are willing to look beneath the Headlines and "quotes" to understand what is really going on. Thank you for your comments.

• Posted by JBM on July 3, 2007 at 2:55pm EDT

• "Lifetime tenure is a reward for excellence"

  And for many other things as well.

• LA Times Quoted Bogus Information
• Posted by HS Thompson on July 6, 2007 at 5:30pm EDT

• Readers may want to follow up on the story in the LA Times in which a self-styled student advocate and Congresswoman Maxine Waters attacked the private for-profit sector and presented a student who made strong allegations to buffer their attack. However, a representative of one of the schools maligned in the press conference, which was staged to affect a hearing on a major legislative measure that has been covered in this forum, offered firm evidence at the legislative hearing that the student's story was bogus. Does the end justify the means?