Quick Takes: U. of Chicago’s Darfur Investments Criticized, ‘Donations’ for Fla. Chancellor Questioned, Nudity Cover-Up at Malone, Donor’s Name Will Disappear, Aid Officers’ Group Urges Help for Lenders, Study Finds Gender Bias in UK

Chicago and Darfur

As an alumnus, this is a pretty embarrassing way for Chicago to pop up in Inside Higher Ed. I can imagine making (if not personally endorsing) an argument along the lines that vetting university investments to make sure none of them are involved in ethically dubious businesses is not practical. However, the two defenses offered here are poppycock. That a university’s investments are shielded from moral scrutiny because they are made by a university conflates the academic institution and the academic. A university might refuse to disclose crime statistics under the same rationale. And the “we didn’t divest from South Africa during apartheid” argument conflates precedent and righteousness. It’s disappointing to see the public face of the University of Chicago display the kind of sloppy thinking that is inimical to its heritage.

Jonathan Beecher Field, Assistant Professor at Clemson University, at 9:45 am EDT on March 21, 2008

What evidence?

From the article:"But between a quarter and a third [of the promotion gap] is unexplained, which leads us to conclude that there is strong evidence that women do experience different treatment and disadvantage in terms of career progression.”

This seems to be a big jump in logic to me — from “unexplained” to “it is due to gender.” What evidence do the authors have to support this jump in logic?

I would be interested in seeing what percentage of male and female post-docs are interested and actively pursue professor positions and promotions. Then, if these numbers are similar, an investigation into hiring and promotion practices and the role of gender in these events would be helpful in understanding the role of gender.

Just because there are “falling levels of female employment as seniority rises” does not mean that it is due to systematic gender discrimination.

In any case, I think it is the men in the U.S. who are most at-risk and in need of the most help — just take a look at the prison population (1,309 inmates per 100,000 for men and only 113 per 100,000 for women, http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aaprisonpop.htm)!

T-bone, at 9:50 am EDT on March 21, 2008

NASFAA Letter

Re: Injecting liquidity into the student loan system. One thing the Secretary of Education could do right now is buy soon-to-be-consolidated FFEL loans at a negotiated price from non-profit lenders and service them through the Direct Loan system. This would pump liquidity into the FFEL system and save taxpayer money at the same time.

Many FFEL loans issued prior to July, 2006, have variable rates. Borrowers will be consolidating them to take advantage of the upcoming July reset, in order to lock in lower rates over the life of the loan. These loans also carry the pre-CCRAA, higher Special Allowance Payment (SAP) to lenders, but lenders will lose it once the loans are consolidated. That means lenders holding such loans are going to be in for another hit soon, just as loan demand for 2008-09 starts to peak.

OMB and CBO will score such purchases by the Secretary as savings. The Secretary could negotiate the price of the loans up to revenue-neutrality without having to incur new budget authority. The Secretary has broad powers under Sec. 432 of the Higher Education Act to take actions to assure that the purposes of the FFEL program will be achieved, and such an action would be consistent with previous broad interpretations of this section. A lot of these loans are going to move into the Direct Loan system anyway in a few short months through consolidation, at a greater loss to lenders than they would be able to negotiate now.

Some — including the followers of Milton Friedman, who advocated the Direct Loan system — might advise letting the non-profit state agencies fail, especially those that got themselves into trouble by injudiciously putting too much of their debt into auction rate securities, or by flying too high and beyond oversight in the days of anything-goes. If only FFEL were at stake, that is one thing. But many of these entities also offer non-predatory and reasonably priced private loans, and their disappearance from this market could be calamitous for gullible borrowers, as there is no assurance that Congress is going to pass legislation that effectively cleans up the sleazier corners of the private loan industry.

This action by the Secretary would give state and non-profit loan entities a better chance to restructure their capital needs and remain a positive influence in student loans.

Public Administration Prof, at 11:55 am EDT on March 21, 2008

NASFAA walking in lockstep with the lenders

Again, NASFAA, who are supposed to be looking out for the interests of the students, are carrying the lender’s water.

Forget about the astonishing lack of consumer protections for student loans. Forget about the students whose lives are ruined by high interest, bankruptcy-free debt.

As long as the money train keeps rolling (making its final so at the colleges, of course), that’s all that matters. Nice work, NASFAA. Glad to see that you are in the same collusive position with the lenders as always, and are pulling all the same strings as before.

Ridiculous organization, NASFAA. Congress should be ashamed that they even listen to these jokers.

Alan Collinge, Founder at StudentLoanJustice.Org, at 7:20 am EDT on March 24, 2008