It’s no secret that college tuition has increased by leaps and bounds over the last few decades. There are a lot of bills to be paid, and there’s no question that if you want an education, someone has to pay those bills. The new question, however, is who? Is it the students’ responsibility? Or their parents? New Jersey judges and legislators are starting to weigh in on that pivotal question.

Several cases have sparked the need to look into this question, but the most recent–and probably most talked–about is that of a young woman named Caitlyn Ricci. Ricci is from New Jersey, but chose to attend school at Temple University in Philadelphia. She’s pretty much estranged from both of her parents, who have long been divorced. After she was kicked out of an internship program for underage drinking, she moved into her grandparents’ house and eventually began attending Temple. But a judge just ruled that her parents have to pay $16,000 toward her education, even though they didn’t want her to go to Temple in the first place. She is apparently now doing well–she works 30 hours a week in addition to attending classes.

Part of the issue appears to be that there’s a legal loophole–the fact that Ricci’s parents, Michael Ricci and Maura McGarvey, are divorced. They may not have to had to pay if they were married. After all, in a similar case regarding a young woman named Rachel Canning, also in New Jersey, she sued her parents to pay her last year of private high school, and she didn’t end up winning.

Michael Ricci explains that’s he pretty upset about the whole ordeal. He told Yahoo News that he would have been fine paying his daughter’s bills if she had remained at a state school. He explained his frustrations, saying:

We offered in-state tuition and she wants to go out of state. Common sense would say she should pay for it. The law is ridiculous. My ex and I have met with legislators who are writing a new bill that protects parents from this happening again. Do you realize that if you are married in the state of New Jersey, you are not under any legal obligation to pay for college? But, if you get divorced, you must contribute? Please, someone tell me how that makes sense. Not only do you have to pay, but apparently you have to pay for any college they want to go to, anywhere in the country. My ex and I have five kids between us, a mortgage, and other expenses. Why don’t they take any of that into account?

He has also said that he’s not going to pay–he’d rather be held in contempt of court.

Now a couple of New Jersey legislators have teamed up with Ricci’s parents to make sure this won’t happen again. They don’t want any other divorced parents put in the position that Ricci and McGarvey were. Two assembleymen–Paul Moriarty and Christopher Brown–are working to make sure that the law always treats divorced and married parents fairly and equitably.

It’s definitely a tough debate, and I think it’s more linked to the rising college costs than anything else.

Courtesy of Live Science.

The numbers in this infographic are even a little old–they are from a couple of years ago, but they still illustrate a point I’d like to make. Someone having a child in the early-to-mid 90s could expect to pay about $5,000 to a public university, but now they’d pay $12,804. Similarly, they could expect to pay around $10,000 to a private university, but now it’s over $30,000. There was no good way for most average parents to predict how exponentially the cost of college was going to increase, so it would be hard for them to predict whether or not they could pay for a child’s schooling all the way through graduation. That being said, it’s also very hard to imagine a student being able to pay for everything him or herself, and while loans are of course a very viable option, they do lead to a lot of debt. It puts families in a tricky position. Ricci will get the money she needs, presumably, but at what cost?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Jersey Girl Sues Parents for College Tuition…and Wins appeared first on Law Street.

As of March 2012, there were roughly 11.7 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, many of whom had brought their children with them when they crossed the border. America has been left to figure out how to deal with this massive immigration influx and to determine the best course of action for possible immigration reform. Special attention is paid to undocumented youth who were brought to America illegally as children and have been residing in the country for some time. One big question that the country is struggling to answer is should these young people receive in-state college tuition? Read on to learn about the debate.

What action has been taken?

The Obama administration started the program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which permits undocumented youth who were brought to the US under the age of 16 and have been in the US for more than five years to work, get a driver’s license, get a loan, and go to college without the fear of being deported. These youths have also attended their local school systems through programs designed to provide undocumented youths with a K-12 education. Now, as these individuals prepare to graduate high school, they are met with an insurmountable financial wall that prevents them from attending college and pursuing high-paying careers. While DACA permits these students to attend college, they are required to pay out-of-state tuition costs based on their immigration status, which can be considerably more expensive than in-state tuition. Out-of-state tuition is often unaffordable for undocumented families. Paying in-state tuition would greatly reduce this financial burden and make college a real possibility for many undocumented students.

Several states have begun passing “tuition equity” legislation that allows undocumented youths who have graduated from state high schools to pay in-state tuition costs at state schools. Advocates see this as a model of immigration and education reform. Seventeen  states currently provide tuition equity. However, this legislation has been met with strong opposition by those who feel that offering undocumented citizens in-state tuition cheapens American citizenship and rewards illegal behavior.

What’s the argument for providing tuition equity?

Advocates argue that tuition equity could benefit undocumented students and US citizens alike by providing a clear and navigable path toward achieving the American dream. Advocates argue that these students should not be blamed for the actions of their parents, and while they are not US citizens they have grown up and received their education in this country, and cannot call any other place home.

US public school districts currently spend roughly $243,000 per student to educate undocumented youths in K-12. Many feel that this effort and taxpayer money is wasted if these students, who have worked hard throughout their K-12 education, are not given a chance at an affordable college education. While many middle-class families currently struggle to afford hefty out-of-state tuition costs for their children, those tuitions are nearly impossible for undocumented citizens to afford. Upon this realization, many undocumented youths are motivated to drop out of high school and fail to live up to their academic potential. Advocates argue that making tuition feasible would inspire more undocumented students to graduate high school, attend college, and pursue a high-paying career, which could potentially benefit US citizens and the American economy.

Having a college education would encourage more of these students to enter the job market as tax-paying American citizens. The influx of more college-trained individuals into the job market could encourage job growth through entrepreneurial enterprises and increase tax revenue from the higher salaries these individual could make by having a college degree. In the long run, advocates say, tuition equity benefits undocumented and documented citizens alike.

What’s the argument against providing in-state tuition?

Opponents of offering in-state tuition to undocumented students argue that tuition equity validates illegal immigration and is inequitable to tax-paying US citizens. The parents of undocumented students often do not pay taxes that contribute to the funding and maintenance of state colleges and universities, and opponents argue that therefore their children should be charged out-of-state tuition costs. The cost of running these educational institutions would instead be deferred to state citizens who are legal residents. Following California’s DREAM Act, a tuition equity bill signed into law in 2011, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s office estimated that it would require an additional $65 million per year by 2016/2017 in order to provide higher education benefits to undocumented citizens.

Opponents also feel that tuition equity is inherently inequitable toward out-of-state students who are legal residents of the United States. These students would be required to pay a higher tuition merely because they happen to live in a different state than the college they are interested in attending, albeit legally. Some argue that if in-state tuition costs are offered to undocumented residents, then these same lower tuition rates should be offered to out-of-state legal citizens as well, at which point the concept of in and out of state tuition becomes moot.

Because tuition equity is largely backed by Democrats, some opponents feel that it is used merely as a political tool to attract the Latino vote and to secure a growing population for the Democratic Party. Opponents argue that tuition equity and DACA do not actually provide any real immigration reform, but rather pander to Hispanic voters. Momentum for tuition equity has been gaining steadily, however, and this debate will continue to unfold as more states struggle with questions of immigration and education.

Conclusion

The status of children who are brought into the United States illegally by their parents is a tough topic from all angles. Whether or not they should receive in-state tuition for college education continues to be a divisive fight at all levels of government. Some states have moved forward to allow it, while others continue the argument.

 Resources

Primary

Oregon State Legislature: Tuition Equity Bill HB 2787

State of New Jersey: Tuition Equality Act

Additional

USA Today: Why Christie Should Endorse Tuition Equity

Voxxi: Oregon Is One Step Away From Allowing Dreamers to Pay In-State Tuition

American Immigration Council: Tuition Equity Could Be Coming Soon to a State Near You

Students for a Democratic Society: SDS Launches National Push For Tuition Equity

Gazette Times: Tuition Equity Has A Political Agenda

Oregon Catalyst: Tuition Equity Bill: Worst Example of Agency Advocacy

Daily Californian: Children of Illegal Immigrants Should Not Go to College and Gain Legal Status

NJ Policy Perspective: To Put the “Equity” In Tuition Equity, Access to State Aid is Essential

Oregon Public Broadcasting: Tuition Equity Bill Has Backers, Doubters

Washington Post: Seven Immigrants Brought to U.S. as Children Sue For In-State Virginia College Tuition Rates

The New York Times: The Uncertain Cost of Helping Illegal Immigrants Go to College

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just a DREAM? In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants appeared first on Law Street.

It is no secret that higher education comes at a cost, one that many find overwhelming and in some cases impossible to cover. There has been no shortage of news coverage on the current state of the education crisis seen here and here. With increasing publicized coverage of the rising student debt, perspective students are reconsidering their future plans at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Some schools have recently recognized the problem of funding higher education and are attempting to make some reforms. Here are some highlights of what is happening in education reform today.

Free Tuition.

That is not a typo. Tennessee Governor, Bill Haslam is proposing a program, called “Tennessee Promise” that covers a two year full ride to any high school graduate. The goal is to improve the current graduation rate of 32 percent to a desired 55 percent by the year 2025. Overall, this campaign is an effort to improve job qualifications and attract employers to the state. Students graduating from this two year program can choose to continue onto a four year track and enter another university as a rising junior. This program is projected to pass through the voting process, with some adjustments and a set plan to cover the costs of this education reform. Higher education experts list Florida, Oregon and Mississippi as other states considering similar reforms. College may not have to burn a hole in your pocket, with future reforms such as this one, higher education may not cost anything at all.

A One Year Law Degree That Means Something. 

Law school, many have tried it, some have prevailed and others would prefer not to continue to the bar exam. What about the individuals that decide after year one that law school is not for them? Cleveland Marshall College of Law now offers alternative option for these students and is removing some of the financial risk from attending three years of law school with a convertible new, one year masters degree in legal studies. This degree was implemented in spring 2014, making CML one of the first colleges to offer an advanced legal degree to professionals wanting to work in close proximity with the law, but not necessarily be admitted to the bar. Students who complete one year of J.D. curriculum, now have the option to accept this degree in legal studies without taking additional courses. This education reform makes law school less risky and offers a faster and less expensive alternative.

Cutting Tuition Costs and Forgetting About National Rankings.

Recently covered by my colleague, Brooklyn Law School is becoming a trailblazer in reinventing legal education. In order to increase demand and remain open, Brooklyn Law School is abandoning their attempts to rise in national rankings and cutting their tuition costs by fifteen percent. Other law schools are quickly following this trend such as the University of Iowa College of Law and University of La Verne College of Law. These law schools are taking the hint that not everyone can afford ridiculously expensive tuition and with a loss of students comes the closure of a school.

An International Effort. 

The obstacles that are preventing students from reaching their educational goals and receiving a college degree are becoming recognized not only in the United States but around the globe. Countries including Ireland, China, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, France and the United States are coming together on April 9th and 10th to discuss higher education reform at the Galileo Summit. This international summit is occurring in Essex, New York to spark a discussion how to expand college access. It is taking some of the most powerful countries to discuss the policy, funding, and proposed graduation rates of the future.

Graduating college is a hard enough task on its own and the financial burden is an unnecessary restriction. The United States as well as countries around the world are finally realizing that education is not affordable to everyone, when it really needs to be to maintain the global economy. An educated society is beneficial to all countries and if education is a prerequisite for the workforce, it has to be more easily attainable.

[The Huffington Post] [DNJ] [The New York Times] [Cleveland State]

—

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Education Reform Relieves Students’ Debts and Doubts appeared first on Law Street.

The story of Belle Knox, the “Duke Porn Star,” broke a few weeks ago, and for a little while I tried to avoid writing about it, because there were a lot of voices already getting in on the debate. But then I saw that this bright young woman was receiving death threats, and that her classmates were trying to get her kicked out of Duke — and that was enough to push me over the edge.

Before I get into the specifics about why I wholeheartedly support Knox, I want to catch up any of you who have been living under a rock for the last few weeks. Belle Knox is a pornstar. She’s also an 19-year-old freshman at Duke University, majoring in sociology and gender studies. She got into porn because it was something that interested her, and as a way to pay for Duke’s extremely expensive tuition. She was outed by a classmate who recognized her, and quickly became the best worst-kept secret on campus. Then, The Chronicle, Duke’s student newspaper, did a profile on her using the pseudonym “Lauren.” As national news outlets got wind of the story, she wrote a few of her own pieces on xojane.com, including one where she published her porn alter-ego name, “Belle Knox.”

Since then, her face and real name, which I will not publish out of respect for her privacy, have been released. She’s gone on a few shows to defend her decision, despite the death threats and ire she and her family have both received. Knox has shared some of the more brutal ones, including:

• You should slit your wrists and die, you stupid bitch
• We are going to throw garbage at her every fucking day!!! let’s do it GREEK FRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• The school should either expel her, or we will take matters into our own hands and make this fuck up suffer. cheers!
• FUCK YOU!!!! IF I SEE U WALKING ON CAMPUS I WILL KICK YOU IN THE FACE!

I, on the other hand, respect Knox deeply. And here are four reasons why the people who are making death threats to her need to go to hell themselves.

4. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

This is actually a point that Knox made herself in one of her XoJane pieces, “I’m Finally Revealing my Name and Face as the Duke Pornstar.” But I think it’s such an excellent point that I feel the need to expand on it. Knox pointed out that porn is a $13.3 billion industry each year in the United States. That’s more than the revenue of ABC, NBC, and CBS combined. While estimates vary due to a lack of desire to self-report, a $13.3 billion industry doesn’t become that way because only a few people are partaking. I’d bet you 50 bucks that at least a few of those people sending death threats to Belle Knox have watched porn at some point in their lives.

There is a huge double standard here, because how in the world do the people who are sending Knox these death threats think that porn is made? They want to watch it, but they don’t want to have a porn star next door. They want to enjoy the industry without actually acknowledging how it’s made. They want to pretend that the women they drool over don’t exist, because that’s easier than acknowledging that they’re someone’s daughter or sister or friend. It’s easier than acknowledging that they’re, god forbid, intelligent, autonomous, real human beings.

3. This was Knox’s private decision.

You might argue with me on this one. You might say that because she made the choice to partake in such a public industry, that it was no longer a private decision. But she made an alter ego for a reason. She made an alter ego because she, like anyone else, is still entitled to a private life. And when her real birth name was outed, she lost that ability.

But most importantly, her family also lost their privacy. Her family, at the very least, deserves the ability to live out their lives privately.

Why a woman turns to porn is her own decision. Now Belle Knox has been forthcoming about her reasons because she’s been asked. She explained that she does it because she likes it, because she feels empowered by her work, and because she wanted to pay for her education. She has already shared her reasoning with the public, and that was her choice. But some commenters are telling her that that reasoning isn’t good enough, like the ladies of The View:

It’s one thing to out her and demand that she explain why she wants to a be a porn star, even though that is her private decision. But to tell her that her reasoning isn’t good enough, and demand that she further justify her private decision is ridiculous.

2. There’s a bigger conversation here and that’s the exorbitant price of college tuition. 

Belle Knox is right — $60,000 is ridiculous. Most families cannot afford to send their daughter to school for $60,000. Now critics say that if she couldn’t afford it, then she shouldn’t have gone to Duke. She should have gone to a cheaper state school. But even state schools are getting up there. Average student loan debt is $29,000. About 12 million students each year take out money to finance their college education.

And Duke is an excellent school. She deserves to be there if she got in. We as a society cannot accept the fact that the only people who deserve to go to good schools are the ones who can pay for it.

Belle Knox could have chosen a different way to pay for her education, sure. She could have taken out loans or done other work. And I don’t think she made the right choice, but it was hers to make. And mostly I think the fact that a woman would even turn to porn because her tuition is so high is much more interesting than the porn itself. That should never be a choice that a young woman who wants to get an education has to make.

1. People are saying that Belle Knox is anti-Feminist. 

What’s pissing me off the most is the way that so-called feminists are treating Belle Knox. Now there are a lot of arguments out there about exactly what being a feminist means, and who is a feminist. Now is neither the time nor the place for any of that, but I think we can all agree on the fact that feminism is not and has never been one size fits all.

So to all the people out there who are saying Belle Knox isn’t a feminist…who gave you that right? Who gave you the right to define what feminism means to her. She feels empowered by what she is doing. She is a strong, well-spoken, incredibly intelligent young woman. She can tell you what makes her feel empowered. She can make that judgment call for herself. No one gave you the right to decide what empowers her. 

So carry on, Belle Knox. And be careful. Because there are a lot of people who want to take you out. But I can assure you, they’re all dead wrong.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Image courtesy of [Alan via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 Reasons I Support Belle Knox, the “Duke Porn Star” appeared first on Law Street.