Quick Takes: EEOC Sues Adelphi for Bias, Suit Challenges Exclusion of Scholar From U.S., Deal on Fisk Art, Student Debt Outpaces Salaries, Settlement on Abortion Signs, HEROES Bill, Faster Than Speeding Text Message, First For-Profit Degrees in UK
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class action Tuesday accusing Adelphi University of violating federal law by paying its female professors less than its male professors, Newsday reported. The newspaper said that the federal agency had sued the Long Island university in federal court in Brooklyn on behalf of Judith Cohen, who filed a sex discrimination complaint against Adelphi with the agency in 2005. A lawyer for the EEOC told Newsday that the case wasn't just about Cohen, though. Louis Graziano said a review of the pay of full-time professors at Adelphi showed "a number of instances that suggested to us there was a pay disparity between men and women within the same departments and within the same rank." A statement that Adelphi officials released Tuesday in response to the lawsuit insisted that the university's "compensation practices are lawful, fair and equitable" and that Adelphi "intends to vigorously defend them." The statement added that salary decisions "are based on considerations such as seniority, market demand, experience, areas of expertise, and other legitimate factors apparently disregarded by the EEOC."
Fisk University's board has approved a deal in which the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art will pay $30 million for a half interest in the modern art collection Fisk received from Georgia O'Keeffe, The Tennessean reported. The deal would split access to the art for the two institutions. Fisk has been seeking to sell parts of the collection, saying that it needs money for its educational mission and to care for art. The deal still requires court approval.
Average student loan debt for graduating seniors in 2006 grew at twice the rate of their average starting salaries, according to a report released Tuesday by the Project on Student Debt. The report, "Student Debt and the Class of 2006," found that students graduating from four-year colleges in 2006 had 8 percent more debt than their predecessors the year before, while their starting salaries increased by about 4 percent over those in the 2005 class. The report includes breakdowns on average debt by state (students in Washington, D.C., and New Hampshire face the highest, and Hawaii the lowest) as well as a list of colleges with particularly high and particularly low levels of average debt per student. High debt is often connected with higher tuition and other expected factors, but there are many exceptions, and low tuition doesn’t guarantee proportionally low debt. The report also reiterates the group's recommendations for easing students' debt burden, including increasing federal spending on Pell Grants for needy students and giving borrowers more "fair and reasonable" repayment options.
Rhode Island College and the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island have settled a lawsuit brought by a women's group over the college's censorship of signs supporting abortion rights, the ACLU announced Tuesday. The campus Women's Studies Organization, a student group, sued the college after a December 2005 incident in which its president ordered campus police officers to take down signs that the group had posted near the college's entrance that said “Our bodies, our choice” and “Keep your rosaries off our ovaries.” Rhode Island officials argued at the time that the students hadn't gone through the necessary campus procedures to post signs on campus property. Under the settlement, the college did not admit wrongdoing, but it agreed to cover the student group's legal costs and to give it $5,000, the ACLU said.
The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed legislation that would permanently extend a federal law that waives certain federal financial aid laws and rules to ensure that active-duty military officers are not penalized when they are on active duty. The Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, known as HEROES, was sponsored by Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) and a bipartisan group of lawmakers and is due to expire September 30, unless it is extended by both houses. The Senate is expected to take up the legislation this week.
Like many colleges and universities, Purdue University is experimenting with the best ways of communicating with its students and staff in the event of an emergency like the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech. On Monday, university officials put two modes of communication head to head, and found that they were able to send 57,000 e-mail messages in the same time -- about seven minutes -- that it took them to send text messages to about 10,000 students and employees who agreed to receive them, the Indianapolis Star reported. "The general feeling was that text messaging was instant. It's not instant," Scott Ksander, executive director of information technology networks and security at Purdue, told the newspaper. Ksander said that the university would continue to explore texting and other technologies in addition to e-mail, though, as Purdue seeks the best possible notification system. "There's no one answer here," he said.
For the first time, a for-profit education company has received permission to offer degrees in Britain, The Guardian reported.
Comments on
Quick Takes: EEOC Sues Adelphi for Bias, Suit Challenges Exclusion of Scholar From U.S., Deal on Fisk Art, Student Debt Outpaces Salaries, Settlement on Abortion Signs, HEROES Bill, Faster Than Speeding Text Message, First For-Profit Degrees in UK
“Keep your rosaries off our ovaries.”
Posted
by kgotthardt
on September 26, 2007 at 7:15am EDT
Okay, that made me laugh. But did anyone claim their religion was being bashed with those particular signs? Curious.
Habib
Posted
by Larry
on September 26, 2007 at 8:25am EDT
It would be nice if the press release included a link to the complaint. In today's world of blogs and almost instant information on legal developments, people count on source materials.
Rising Student Debt
Posted
by Richard G. DiFeliciantonio
on September 26, 2007 at 10:25am EDT
With reference to the rising student debt article, the dollar amount used by the Project on Student Debt comes from a Common Data Set question that includes only “institutional, state, Federal Perkins, Federal Stafford Subsidized and Unsubsidized, private loans” borrowed by students and certified by Ursinus. This question specifically excludes all other family borrowing capacities and resources outside the institutional certification process.
The problem with only using that number, put simply, is the fact that the less wealthy the family, the more likely it is that the student, and not the parent, will take on the debt through institutionally certified loans. In fact, for these families these types of loans usually offer the best terms. On the other hand, wealthier families with broader options pay more in cash or use other debt products outside the institutional certification process.
The Common Data Set number is incomplete and reductive and does not in any meaningful way measure the real level of student or family debt to attend college--a much more complex calculation.
Rick
Is it better to be clever or mature?
Posted
by Janet
on September 26, 2007 at 11:00am EDT
kgotthardt,
I find the sign you refer to objectionable even though I am not Catholic. It is the only sign in the group that I would have considered asking (not forcing) the demonstrators to take down.
A group with a strong message should be able to get that message across without directing hostile messages at specific racial, gender, ethnic or religious groups. You might think it amusing and innocent to poke fun at a person's religious practice but then again Imus thought it was fun to poke fun at NHH. Its best to draw a strict line early in the game.
Don't you think the demonstrators could have gotten their message across with a sign (if they insisted on public demonstrations) saying, oh, "RC Church, stay out of politics"? Its not as clever an approach but it is a whole lot more mature.
response to Janet
Posted
by Larry
on September 26, 2007 at 11:40am EDT
Janet, If people are going to get a message across they need to use various literary devices. Sure, some of them might not sound “mature” but in limiting the available devices, in the name of maturity you hurt your cause.
Very few people have any desire to discuss abortion in a mature manner. Most of the political debate has nothing to do with the legal debate. In fact, most of the vocal abortion crowd (on either side) has no idea what legal arguments are actually being made. Instead, at best, they see the legal issues as a proxy for some kind of political battle. These people are useless.
In my world, any kind of protest is considered immature. The ultimate in maturity is simply making the “law” conform to your position. Anything else is just immature babble from the masses. It is considered childish to march being for or against anything.
But, so long as you think that public statements are acceptable, lets take a look at them.
1) “RC Church, stay out of politics”
This leaves me confused, and doesn’t tell me much of anything. Sure it is mature, but I am wondering “why” should a “church” “stay out of politics” and what business is it of the speaker to tell a church what to do. In fact, it pretty much falls flat. (This might call to mind an argument about tax law, but I seriously doubt that the protesters care about taxes.)
2) “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries.”
Okay, this doesn’t actually insult a church, but rather says, “You can go about your church business, provided you don’t pretend to tell people not in the church what they can do with their privates.” And, whether you like it or not, abortion is an issue of what is private. At the very minimum, the juxtaposition of the religious symbol and a private part calls to mind at least part of the legal debate regarding abortion. The first slogan didn’t even attempt a superficial legal analysis. It also is catchy.
Is it that wrong to be civil?
Posted
by Janet
on September 26, 2007 at 1:50pm EDT
Larry, Let's get one thing striaght. I am not arguing for or against demonstrations. I am also not arguing against organized religions being in politics.
I'm certainly not arguing the law. Note please that I specfically used the word ask.
While you may be right regarding maturity of abortion debaters (and I won't argue that either) I do think that a third party such as a University President, can attempt to impose a certain level of civility to the discourse he or she is able to influence.
I disagree with your intreptation of the two signs. The first one (RC Church and politics) addresses what is the real issue: beliefs being manefested as law. The Church and politics.
The second deals with beliefs and faith. The whole mantra of pro-choice is that there is choice. So I would venture that the demonstrators aren't interested in what someone actually believes.
You may find the rosary statement catchy. Good for you. Since the rosary is a aid to praying to Mary I don't quite see how that fits with the american abortion debate but I guess you see some relationship. In any case I suspect many people take their forms of worship seriously. Many people take their ethnicity or race seriously also. So why bring them into a debate when they serve no purpose. Or do the demonstrators perhaps think that bringing religious practice, race or ethnicity into the debate will make it more likely that they will get converts?
Posted
by kgotthardt
on September 26, 2007 at 2:15pm EDT
Janet, I understand why you would recommend the "ovary" sign be removed. My amusement was not at a group of people being mocked or persecuted, but at the word play. Word play amuses me even if the exact message does not always do so. Additionally, my question was whether or not anyone protested that particular sign, finding it offensive to their religion. You obviously found it offensive, so you have answered my question.
Larry, I agree that abortion should remain a private issue between the medical community and the mother. I do also think there should be limitations, however. This isn't the place to discuss my views, so I won't expound. But I also agree that people get into political brawling about this issue, and that is usually a useless endeavor.
As to protesting, one of the problems with it is anyone who participates in a march or rally is subject to the whims and identity of the crowd. Therefore, if someone wants to bring an "immature" banner, the entire crowd is often perceived as "immature." The same thing happens when even limited violence breaks out. A few idiots can stink up the entire event and intent.
I'm not sure I would categorize all marches as "immature." Sometimes marches serve as a last resort, as we saw with the Civil Rights movement. I doubt you are calling Martin Luther King "immature."
deconstructing Mary
Posted
by Larry
on September 26, 2007 at 3:15pm EDT
kgotthardt, I actually make an exception for MLK et al. because African-Americans were effectively locked out of the “real” mechanism by which we change laws, so they didn’t really have a choice. Today, life is a lot different. In the case of abortion, women can vote and run for office and some of them have been known to become “law-smiths.”
I think the Rosary reference is faily obviously. The Rosary is a symbol of the Catholic church. Catholics are quite vocal in the abortion debate and often invoke religion as a grounding for their positions. Therefore, it becomes fair game.
Response to Larry
Posted
by math prof
on September 26, 2007 at 3:15pm EDT
Larry, you're our resident lawyer. You stated:
In my world, any kind of protest is considered immature. The ultimate in
maturity is simply making the “law”
conform to your position. Anything else
is just immature babble from the masses.
It is considered childish to march being for or against anything.
"Making the law conform to your position"
is changing the law. Changing the law is a political act. Consequently, in order to
change the law one must become involved in
politics, somehow. This involvement
perforce includes objecting to the current
state of affiars, otherwise known as
engaging in "protest" in one form or
another. So your position is self-contradictory.
Of course, you may have had a narrow view
of what protesting means. Maybe people in
the legal profession look down on people
whose protests include "marching".
(From your posting, certainly you do.
Perhaps you can authoritatively speak for
the legal community on this, and perhaps not.) But to take that view is simply to
ignore reality, or perhaps to maintain a silly and offensive elitism (what the
"masses" do is beneath what we attorneys do).
Larry: Can you really deny that the manifold
civil rights marches and other protests (e.g., sit-ins) were an important factor in
getting civil rights legislation passed, or that the many marches, rallies, etc., held during the time of the Vietnam war were an important factor in the US eventually ending its involvement there?
answer for Math Prof
Posted
by Larry
on September 26, 2007 at 4:25pm EDT
Math, Here goes.
As to civil rights, I agree with you and Kro. African-Americans were almost completely disenfranchised. They had no other choice.
Vietnam ended (long after many Americans started protesting it) because policy decisions were made by enfranchised people, who were the same "best and brightest" that got us into that mess.
Locked Out
Posted
by kgotthardt
on September 26, 2007 at 5:00pm EDT
Larry, many of us are "locked out" of the real mechanism for changing law. We can't defend ourselves from predatory companies and/or institutions that break the law if we cannot afford lawyers. For example, the student loan industry has been able to ruin many a good student because students generally cannot afford attorney fees. However, the ACLU would prefer to fight for people carrying pro-choice signs and ignore students trying to dig themselves out of holes dug not by students but by lenders with big shovels. In this case, marching may or may not be construed as immature, but sometimes that's the only way to get anyone with authority to listen.
immaturity and student loans
Posted
by Larry
on September 27, 2007 at 11:40am EDT
Kro, You are not locked out of anything. You can vote. There is ongoing litigation regarding student loans (and from what I read, the plaintiffs are not fronting the cost). You can also lobby. Unfortunately, too many people think that they can actively engage the political process by complaining. In order to be listened to you need to be an expert and actually contribute to the dialogue. If you are not that, you are just ignored.
Oh, and nobody held a gun to your head and made you get a student loan.