On Wednesday it was announced that Whittier College’s law school–located in Costa Mesa in Southern California–will be discontinuing its program. As the school’s board of trustees announced on Wednesday, Whittier would not be accepting a law class for Fall 2017.

As the Los Angeles Times reported, the school’s spokeswoman Ana Lilia Barraza said that the school will develop a plan to ensure that students who already enrolled will finish their degrees. According to the National Jurist, most schools in Whittier’s situation file for something called a “teach out” with the Department of Education, which would allow for a school that is closing to help enrolled students finish their programs while not losing certain federal loan options. However, Whittier has not yet begun the  process for filing for a teach out.

The reason for Whittier Law’s closing looks like it may be due to a mix of factors including its discouraging post-grad employment numbers amongst its students, its shockingly low percentage of students who pass California’s bar exam, and its rapidly decreasing admittance rates. According to the Orange County Register, Whittier law school graduates who found full-time employment in 2015 was less than half the national average, the percentage of first-time takers of the California bar exam was almost 40 percent less than the average among other law school campuses in the state, and over the past couple of years, the small school has seen its number of admitted students drop from 1,579 students admitted in 2013 to 934 in 2016.

The closing will make Whittier Law the first American Bar Association accredited law school to shut down in three decades, according to the Los Angeles Times. “We believe we have looked at every realistic option to continue a successful law program” reads an official message from the chairman of the Whittier Board of Trustees. “I appreciate the gravity of this decision and its impact on the lives of all those who belong to the Law School community.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Whittier College’s Law School Set to Close appeared first on Law Street.

When most people think about rape and sexual violence they imagine a situation where a woman is attacked by a man she does not know. We usually do not think of college campuses, particularly dating on college campuses, as a place where rape is likely to occur. Yet college campuses are a dangerous place for both female and male students and the rate of rape and sexual violence is startling. During their college years, one in five women are sexually assaulted or raped. And it is not just female students who are victimized, as 17 percent of student victims are male.

Rapes on college campuses do not fit our mental model for how rape occurs, which makes it difficult to combat and makes victims reticent to report crimes. Among college women, nine out of 10 knew their rapist. Rape is particularly likely for freshmen and sophomores, especially cases of incapacitated rape, which happens to 15 percent of female freshmen.

Reporting Problems

Despite high rates of violence, only 20 percent of victims report the crime to the police. There are multiple reasons why victims may not choose to go to the police. Oftentimes the victim and the rapist are in the same social circle and victims fear social reprisal for reporting. They may also fear that their claims will not be taken seriously by the police or school officials and that they may be subject to disciplinary action or criminal prosecution themselves. Remember, many of these victims have been drinking underage and/or using drugs prior to their rape.

Victims may also have been conditioned to think that their rape was not a “real” rape. Their rapist is someone that they know, not a stranger grabbing them in a dark alley. Force may not have been used since often the victim was incapacitated at the time. Our culture also offers multiple excuses for rapists and puts blame on victims who were intoxicated or otherwise “irresponsible.” These feelings of guilt on the part of the victim are internalized and expressed by not reporting the crime because it isn’t worth dealing with.

In an effort to combat the problem of rape on campus, many colleges and universities have adopted affirmative consent practices. The use of affirmative consent to change cultural attitudes about rape and/or to change rules on how to prosecute sexual violence has caused a great deal of controversy and should be more thoroughly examined.

What Is Affirmative Consent?

For a full background on rape culture and affirmative consent, you can read this article. But the video below, featuring journalism icon Gwen Ifill, also provides an excellent overview of the concept of affirmative consent and some of the push-back on adopting it as a standard.

So let’s unpack some of the arguments surrounding affirmative consent. Jaclyn Friedman, the affirmative consent advocate, explains that the “no-means-no” standard (where consent is presumed unless it is expressly denied) doesn’t deal well with some kinds of sexual assault. In particular, it does not provide adequate protection from abuse for victims who may freeze up and feel too unsafe to deny consent. This is actually a common reaction, particularly for victims who are sexually inexperienced, incapacitated, or conditioned to not resist. When the burden is placed on all participants to make sure that everyone is consenting, it eliminates some of these dangers. It also would eliminate a situation where one party feels they were victimized and the other party honestly does not feel they did anything wrong because they thought silence was consent.

In a culture where silence indicates a lack of consent, not evidence of it, it becomes much more difficult for this to happen. This could be especially helpful for younger college students, or the sexually inexperienced, who are in fact more likely to be assaulted than their older student peers.

Shikha Dalmia takes a different view on the issue because of how affirmative consent changes the burden of proof and, in her view, the presumption of innocence. Her main objection is not that we may want to adopt this as a cultural model for how consent works but that we might use affirmative consent as a legal framework. As she states, consent is already required, under the “no-means-no” standard. But we presume that there was consent until the non-initiator indicates otherwise. This presumption is necessary, in Dalmia’s view, to maintain a presumption of innocence for those accused of rape.

We have to take that concern seriously because the presumption that everyone is innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our judicial system. But changing the presumption of consent does not necessarily lead to a change in the burden of proof/presumption of innocence.

In a formal rape trial, the prosecution currently needs to show that the victim did not give consent, but that is not the same as saying we assume they are lying. In some instances where the defendant is asserting impotence or intoxication as a defense against rape they are already required to prove that element of the case, yet it does not change the underlying presumption of their innocence. Requiring one party to prove an element of the charge does not mean that we assume that party is being deceptive.

We are placing the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove a lack of consent. And they offer evidence for this such as the actions of the victim and defendant, including but not limited to what was said. But if consent was not presumed that wouldn’t change the fact that we are still asking the prosecution to prove its case. Prosecutors would still have to contend with any evidence the defense offers to show that there was in fact consent, and they would still be offering their own evidence to show that nothing the victim did amounted to consent. It would change the understanding of what all parties should have understood at the time of the incident–that they should have obtained consent–not be a commentary on what the defendant did or did not do.

A Practical Solution?

The second problem is how affirmative consent actually works in practice. Is it really something that will “work” on campuses, or in the general population, given our cultural scripts for how men and women behave sexually?

There are impracticalities to the use of affirmative consent but not for the reasons that detractors might suggest. The impracticality is not in asking for consent during a sexual encounter. The main obstacle is changing the cultural norm so that not getting that consent is a problem.

But hasn’t that been the case in all movements for increased social justice? Sharing a water fountain between blacks and whites was never impractical on its face, in fact, it is even more practical to have one water fountain. Just as affirmative consent as a model has the potential to reduce confusion and assault. The impracticality is from an unwillingness to implement a new system that changes social norms, gender norms in this case, not with the new norms themselves. There may not be enough evidence of how effective affirmative consent is on college campuses to draw a conclusion about its implementation. But there is some anecdotal evidence, suggested here, that even skeptics can incorporate affirmative consent into their sexual behavior.

The video below highlights both the concern about the practicality of the system and the appropriateness of how affirmative consent policies have been added to most college campuses. Many of these institutions adopted an affirmative consent model because the Obama administration, as part of the “It’s On Us” program, made continued federal funding contingent upon colleges dealing meaningfully with sexual assault. In the video, the panel discusses the issue in the state of California.

Some of these objections are based on a misunderstanding, sometimes a deliberately created misunderstanding, of affirmative consent. It certainly does not require written consent, and in fact, does not require even verbal consent. Obviously, a written document would be your strongest piece of evidence in a case trying to show you had obtained consent. But that doesn’t mean that it is the only way to do so, and this line of reasoning conflates the idea of how affirmative consent would work in practice in most sexual encounters with how affirmative consent might affect a legal proceeding.

What Affirmative Consent Would Change

Either at the school or the state level, a legal proceeding is only changed by explicit amendments to the burden of proof or the presumption of innocence. Affirmative consent does not do that. Our current prosecutorial system functions perfectly well, even when consent is at issue, without a document signed by the victim saying they didn’t consent. There is no reason to think that a written contract would be required simply by asking an initiator to make sure their sexual activity was welcome.

In fact, if you look at one example definition of affirmative consent used by a university, specifically the State University of New York, it explicitly includes actions as one method to show consent. The key is that the words or actions create a “clear permission” regarding willingness.

But there is still discomfort with the idea that the federal government can influence policy at colleges around the country by threatening to withhold funding. Some people think it is inappropriate to try to strong arm a college in this way.

And yet the government already engages in this behavior all the time, in other contexts, to promote fair treatment. One example is the area of special education. While I was at William and Mary I worked in our clinic for children with special needs, ensuring that they received FAPE–a free and appropriate public education. In exchange for federal funding, the state of Virginia agreed to follow certain guidelines for how they were required to handle children with special needs. Before the implementation of the law that allowed this, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, children with special needs were often shoved into a corner and ignored.

Most people would not object to this requirement because they realize that sometimes you need practical reasons to encourage socially just behavior. As much as we would like to think otherwise, people do not always behave morally on their own, state governments and colleges included. The federal government has consistently used the power of the purse to encourage behavior to support marginalized groups. The fact that they are doing so now, to protect students from sexual assault, should not matter. A prudish or squeamish reaction to the involvement of the government in sexual matters focuses on the sex and not on the violence. Rape that occurs when someone is incapacitated, knows the attacker, was drinking, etc. is just as much an act of violence as a stranger jumping a victim on the street. And there is no more quintessentially appropriate role for government than the prevention of violence against its citizens.

Conclusion

We need to deal with rape as it actually happens in reality, rather than dealing with rape as it is portrayed in our culture. A rapist is not always, or even usually, a stranger. It does not always happen with physical violence; often sexual assault happens in a wider social context. And because sexual assault is inextricably linked with sexual conduct in general, we have to address our sexual culture if we want to address sexual assault.

Affirmative consent may not be a panacea for the issue of sexual assault, even just on college campuses. The use of alcohol and drugs, the tight-knit social communities where these assaults occur, and the relative sexual immaturity of the age group all make sexual assault more complicated on a college campus. But the discussion of whether we want to adopt this model, either in a social or in a judicial context, has opened the door for people to grapple with what consent really means. That discussion is a valuable one for us to be having.

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post College Campuses and the Role of Affirmative Consent appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

The next Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) is scheduled for September 24, 2016. Studying for the LSAT can be challenging, and there’s a lot of misinformation out there. So, Law Street has teamed up with TestMax, the creator of leading test prep apps LSATMax and BarMax to debunk some common LSAT myths. Check them out in the slideshow below:

You Can’t Study for the LSAT: True or False?

The LSAT is a test that measures things like logic, analytical reasoning, and reading comprehension. So, you might be wondering: is it even possible to study for the LSAT?

Yes! The idea that there’s nothing you can do to study for the LSAT is a total myth.

via GIPHY

It’s definitely a difficult test, but all of the material is learnable through practice and repetition. LSATMax’s founder, for example, started in the 140s but ended up with a 174 and a Harvard Law degree.

The problem isn’t the LSAT, but rather the myriad of subpar prep tools and strategies. So make sure you use something with a proven track record of success–like LSATMax, the app that gives you lifetime access to a comprehensive LSAT course on your phone, tablet and/or computer, so you can prep anywhere.

TestMax

LSATMax by TestMax is the top-rated comprehensive LSAT prep course available in the App Store, Google Play Store, and Amazon App Store, with online options also available. TestMax is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post Studying for the LSAT: Myths vs. Facts appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #5 Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University appeared first on Law Street.

In the context of campus sexual assault becoming more of an epidemic sweeping colleges across the country, one first-year student asked presidential candidate John Kasich how he as president will help women “feel safer and more secure regarding sexual violence, harassment and rape.”

Kasich turned away, making jokes to the audience about how he needs to leave, almost trivializing the St. Lawrence University student’s question.

He responded by explaining the efforts that Ohio has taken to provide support to victims on college campuses, like access to confidential reporting, rape kits, and the opportunity for victims to “pursue justice after you have had some time to reflect on it all.”

He then hit her with a kicker: don’t go to parties with alcohol.

Let’s unpack this statement. First of all, no woman should feel afraid just by simply going to a party with alcohol. If women do, and if telling women not to go to parties is even in the realm of something someone thinks, shouldn’t that warrant some sort of drastic preventative change?

However, Kasich did not address the root issue of how universities and colleges can solve the issue of sexual assault, rather he perpetuated the idea that it can only be prevented if women do not put themselves in situations where they could be sexually assaulted (which really is a wide variety of situations…so should women stop going to school, too?).

Rather than direct this conversation toward precautionary measures, Kasich tried to fix the issue by naming reactionary measures. The suggestions he stated at the beginning are great, but do not actually fix the issue of women (and men) being sexually assaulted in the first place.

A woman should be able to attend college parties totally naked, dance on tables & drink lots of alcohol w/o being raped or assaulted #Kasich

— James McHale (@JamesMcHaleUK) April 15, 2016

A 2007 study for the National Institute of Justice showed “… the vast majority of incapacitated sexual assault victims (89 percent) reported drinking alcohol, and being drunk (82 percent), prior to their victimization.”

Obviously alcohol does play a role in a lot of sexual assaults, especially on college campuses, but does that mean that one necessarily causes the other? Not quite, according to a report from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Although alcohol consumption and sexual assault frequently co-occur, this phenomenon does not prove that alcohol use causes sexual assault. Thus, in some cases, the desire to commit a sexual assault may actually cause alcohol consumption (e.g., when a man drinks alcohol before committing a sexual assault in order to justify his behavior).

Women should not be afraid to be around people drinking, period. In addition, alcohol doesn’t rape, people rape. And while it may play a factor, it is not an excuse for Kasich’s comments.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Kasich to College Women: “Don’t Go To Parties With Alcohol” appeared first on Law Street.

April is sexual assault awareness month. And on Friday, one of the four former Vanderbilt football players involved in the infamous Vanderbilt rape case from June 2013 was retried alone. After nearly three hours of deliberations, the jury came to their conclusion and justice was timely served this awareness month. The jury found Corey Batey, a 22-year-old former Vanderbilt football player, guilty of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery.

According to a Washington Post poll conducted last year, 25 percent of women and 7 percent of men are victims of “unwanted sexual incidents” while in university. The Washington Post conducted the poll last year by telephone, which surveyed 1,053 women and men undergraduate students at a four-year college, between the ages of 17 to 26, living on campus or nearby. Sexual assault was defined as five different types of “unwanted contact: forced touching of a sexual nature, oral sex, vaginal sexual intercourse, anal sex and sexual penetration with a finger or object.” Using that definition specifically, “5 percent of men and 20 percent of women said they had been sexually assaulted in college.”

With sexual assaults on college campuses increasing and becoming an issue that needs to be addressed more urgently than ever, more colleges are joining the effort to put an end to sexual assault each year and are implementing “mandatory sexual assault awareness programs.” In addition to these mandatory awareness programs, “many universities have joined President Obama’s “It’s On Us” campaign, which is a nation-wide promotion aimed at putting an end to sexual assault on college campuses.” Though universities are showing a commitment to effectively address the issue of sexual assault on campuses, there are been results that indicate that these programs are not yet working. This last fall, Indiana University invited more than 7,000 undergraduate and graduate students to take a survey about their perceptions and experiences with sexual assault. It found:

Twenty-nine percent of the undergraduate women reported experiencing some form of nonconsensual sexual touching while at IU […] 35 percent of the undergraduate women and 34 percent of the graduate women reported being the victims of some form of sexual harassment while at IU […] and, 86 percent of the undergraduate women and 85 percent of the graduate women participants who reported experiencing some form of nonconsensual sexual contact did not report the incident to anyone at IU.

As these findings are similar findings with studies conducted at other universities, an answer on how to solve the epidemic of sexual assault on campuses remains to be solved. Hopefully, this recent court ruling against Batey will influence sexual assault victims to speak up and encourage universities to continue to make efforts with protecting and creating a safe space for sexual assault survivors, and putting an end to this horrendous crime for good.

Ashlyn Marquez

Ashlyn Marquez received her law degree from the American University, Washington College of Law and her Bachelor’s degree from The New School. She works in immigration law and has a passion for worker’s rights, tacos, and avocados. Contact Ashlyn at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Deja Vu: Former Vanderbilt Football Player Found Guilty of Rape appeared first on Law Street.

Sit-in protests continue at Duke University, where students are enraged by the actions of some of their school administrators. The protests began last Friday afternoon when nine students occupied the second floor lobby of the Allen Building, home to the school’s administrative offices.

Why are Duke students protesting? Uniting under the hashtag #DismantleDukePlantation, this group of students is reacting to recent allegations of administrators using racial slurs. One instance of this, which is at the forefront of the movement, is the story of how Executive Vice President Tallman Trask hit a parking attendant, Shelvia Underwood, with his car and proceeded to shout a racial slur at her. Trask released an apology after the incident stating:

I want to say a word to the Duke community about my interaction with Shelvia Underwood in August 2014, which has been a subject of much recent discussion.  While the details of what happened are a matter of disagreement and subject of civil litigation, I recognize that my conduct fell short of the civility and respectful conduct each member of this community owes to every other. I express my apology to Ms. Underwood and to this community and re-commit myself to ensuring that these values are upheld for all.

His apology has received a lot of criticism, especially given the contention over whether or not Trask used racial slurs during the instance, which he denies ever doing.

If my students had an assignment to write an apology & they wrote what Trask did, I'd make them do it over #DismantleDukePlantation

— Erin Parish (@erindparish) April 4, 2016

We won't stop at the apology, we want Trask's termination! #DismantleDukePlantation #DSWS

— Sydney Roberts (@hegelsbagels) April 4, 2016

Once stories about Trask began to unfold, even more employees came forward, reporting to the Duke Chronicle about what they describe as a hostile and discriminatory work environment and leadership. According to one staff member, instances of the administration using sexist and racial slurs against employees are frequently covered up by the administration.

What are the protesters demanding? The main part of their demand is for Trask and two other administrators to be fired for their abhorrent behavior towards staff members. In addition, the protesters are pulling for an increase in the minimum wage for Duke employees from twelve to fifteen dollars an hour, double the North Carolina minimum wage of seven fifty an hour. Graduate student Bennett Carpenter was quoted saying that the biggest goal is that they “want accountability” especially because “Duke absolutely has a culture of racism, deep structural racism built into the institution.”

A couple of nights ago, the nine students protesting were given amnesty by the administration, meaning they will not be punished for their demonstration. Footage of the night shows students cheering as they learned this news:

Occupying students have been granted amnesty and will not face administrative retaliation #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/OEUGStm7jY

— Ultralima Bean (@ZoroastrianFunk) April 4, 2016

Although they aren’t facing administrative retaliation, there has been an attempt to cast this protest in a negative light by the university, as they closed the Allen Building, preventing classes from meeting and disrupting usual business hours. While the school claims this closure was to continue the open dialogue with the students and for safety purposes, the students protesting claim that there was no reason to shut down the school building, other than to cast the protest in a negative light.

Duke released a statement on Monday claiming the following:

The negotiations have continued today (Monday), and it has become clear that reaching agreement on all the remaining demands will require far more extensive conversation, likely to include other members of the Duke community. Closing the Allen Building while these negotiations go on has presented a significant disruption to students, faculty, staff and visitors, and cannot continue indefinitely.

Today, it was announced that the students rejected an offer of concessions from the administration that would improve some of the contested working conditions.

It is unclear how long this protest will go on, but, based on the continued uproar on Twitter, it looks like the protestors are serious about getting what they came for, and they are not alone in their goals on campus.

It's Day 6 on our way to #DismantleDukePlantation. We have been occupying Allen for over 100 hours. We shall not be moved. We will win.

— anastasia kārkliņa (@brdngresistance) April 6, 2016

#faculty forward shows support for #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/IDULTwK0Xq

— Ashley D. Farmer (@drashleyfarmer) April 3, 2016

standing in solidarity with Duke students and workers occupying the Allen building! #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/uhO5aSArWl

— Joe Stapleton (@joe_stapes) April 3, 2016

Here’s to hoping everything ends as peacefully as possible. Even if they don’t receive all of their specific demands, the students at Duke University have drawn national attention to an issue that likely affects universities all across America. They are bringing the country one step closer to #DismantlingtheDukePlantation and promoting equality for all.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post #DismantleDukePlantation: Duke Student Protests Continue appeared first on Law Street.

As primary season heats up, the candidates still remaining in the presidential race have begun fine-tuning their higher education plans. Candidates from both sides of the aisle have spoken about how they would change, revamp, and, in some cases, fix higher education. But aside from Marco Rubio, only those from the Democratic party had rolled out specific plans to address rising tuition costs and astronomical student debt prior to the first primary contest in Iowa.

While we evaluate who’s still left in the race, let’s begin to look at the remaining candidates’ positions on higher education. Keep reading to learn more.

Bernie Sanders

As previously noted, Bernie Sanders’ education plan aims to make postsecondary education free at both community colleges and public four-year universities.

Historically Black College and Universities

In an appeal to lure African American voters and young people, Sanders asserted that tuition-free education would not force private historically black college and universities (HBCUs) to close down.

Representing the 6^th District of South Carolina and an influential power broker in presidential primary races, Congressman James Clyburn expressed his concerns over the prospect of free public education and the impact on black colleges.

“You’ve got to think about the consequences of things. If you start handing out two years of free college at public institutions are you ready for all the black, private HBCUs to close down? That’s what’s going to happen,” Clyburn said.

In a recent interview with MSNBC’s Tamron Hall confirming his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, Clyburn also said of the Sanders tuition-free education plan and the America’s College Promise plan proposed by the current administration, “there are no free lunches so there will be no free education.”

Student Loans and Interest Rates

Part of the Sanders education plan also includes lowering the interest rates on student loans. Sanders hopes to reduce loan interest rates to what they were 10 years ago. In 2006, undergraduate student loans hovered around 2.37 percent, which would cut the current rate of 4.39 percent nearly in half.

Sanders believes students should be able to refinance their loans in a similar fashion as auto loans. According to Sanders, if a loan for a car can be obtained at a 2.5 percent interest rate, why are students forced to pay between 5-7 percent for multiple decades? From the beginning, Sanders has vowed to prevent the federal government from making money on student loans but it remains to be seen just how he’d stop the profiting.

Hillary Clinton

There are commonalites between Democratic candidates Sanders and Clinton surrounding student debt and tuition-free community college. While Sanders believes there is a way to make both two-year and four-year public colleges tuition-free, Clinton’s New College Compact plan stipulates that students should never need to borrow to pay for tuition, books, and fees to attend a public in-state university. The Clinton education plan also calls for the ability for Pell Grants to be used for living expenses.

Historically Black College and Universities

As part of her plan to attract minority voters and young people, part of Clinton’s education plan includes a $25 billion investment in HBCUs, hispanic serving institutions (HSI), and other minority serving institutions (MSI) serving a high percentage of Pell Grant recipients in an effort to lower cost and increase student outcomes. This fund would also help low to moderately endowed nonprofit private institutions within the HBCU system. Contrary to Sanders, Clinton plans to invest in private postsecondary education, acknowledging that private colleges also help under-served students graduate.

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio’s higher education plan, which emphasizes access and affordability, includes cheaper options for online education. Rubio also calls for students to treat themselves as commodities when applying to college, and asks students to embrace what he refers to as “human capital contracts” by selling themselves to private investors.

He asserts that students should know how much they could expect to earn before taking out a loan to pay for their education. Rubio maintains that the current higher education system in this country is outdated, broken, and “needs a disruption,” citing that college is too expensive, time consuming, and inflexible. Rubio uses partisan language to explain that the Democrats’ approach to fixing higher education is the same one attempted in Washington for decades by pouring money into an outdated system and raising taxes.

Income-Based Loan Repayment

There are some facets of Rubio’s education plan that are consistent with Clinton and Sanders. They are in agreement on investing in student success and wanting to simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). However, Rubio wants to implement an automatic income-based student loan repayment plan in order to ease student loan debt. The current administration has already enacted repayment plans that are income-based as an option, but Rubio believes this should be the sole universal method for federal student loans.

Ties to Corinthian Colleges

In an effort to move higher education into the 21^st century, Rubio wants to ease access to state colleges and online education opportunities, and reshape accrediting entities to accommodate non-traditional education. This may raise concern with voters based on his ties to the for-profit Corinthian Colleges, which have contributed to his Reclaim America Pac.

Last spring, Corinthian Colleges filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and shut their doors for good, which adversely impacted over 16,000 students. In December of 2015, the Obama administration began the process to forgive nearly $28 million in federal student loans for over 1,300 students that said the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges violated their rights on grounds that they used deceptive tactics to convince students to take out loans. Now up to 350,000 students could be forgiven for taking out loans to pay tuition.

John Kasich

GOP Candidate Governor John Kasich of Ohio plans to keep college affordable by focusing on the 100 percent performance-based funding formula that emphasizes completion and graduation rates. The formula that has kept Ohio a leader in the nation with regard to freezing tuition rates for the next couple of years, Kasich plans to expand what has worked in Ohio to a federal level. The remaining focuses of Kasich’s education plan are centered heavily on K-12 education.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz

Neither Donald Trump nor Texas Senator Ted Cruz have released their plans for higher education. However, in recent weeks Trump has been accused of scamming students with his for-profit Trump University, which began operating in 2005. Rubio attacked Trump, calling the university a “fake school,” and claiming the university has been defrauding students out of thousand of dollars after reports were revealed that students are currently suing Trump for restitution.

Conclusion

As the field narrows, voters are going to need to decide who their next president will be based on issues extending far beyond higher education. That said, the candidates left standing need to be clear about all of their plans. That includes laying out specifics on how to implement each education plan, including how they will be paid for, and who in the new president’s cabinet will oversee these implementations.

Some of these higher education plans are more radical than others, but hopefully as the election season gathers steam, voters will finally be privy to what higher education will look like for incoming students, new graduates paying back student loans, and mid-career professionals who may seeking relief from drowning in student loan debt.

Resources

Real Clear Politics: 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

Buzzfeed: Clyburn: Sanders’ Education Plan is a Disaster for Private Black Colleges

Center for Responsive Politics: Corinthian Colleges 2014

New York Times: Ben Carson Seeing No Path Forward, Signals End of Candidacy

New York Times: Super Tuesday Results

Washington Post: Students of Defunct For-Profit Colleges to Receive $28 Million in Loan Forgiveness

Think Progress: Rubio Attacked Trump for Running a ‘Fake School.’ But There’s Just One Problem

Jamal Evan Mazyck

Jamal Mazyck is currently pursuing an Ed.D. in educational leadership and is a graduate research assistant at San Diego State University. When he is not writing, researching or tweeting about the ins and outs of higher education, he can be found on the tennis court and running half-marathons. Contact Jamal at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What are the Candidates’ Higher Education Plans Post-Obama? appeared first on Law Street.

Now more than ever, families need to seriously weigh the financial pros and cons of universities. But there are some tools that can help–for example, the development of College Abacus, a website that makes it easier for students and their families to compare financial aid packages before applying to schools. College Abacus has been deemed the “Kayak” of college financial aid, but it’s always been controversial, and some schools have not allowed College Abacus to use their information. Schools such as Skidmore and Oberlin have lifted their original bans on the site, but others such as Harvard, Princeton, and California Institute of Technology Schools still block the site from using their information. While some of the concerns are warranted, schools are doing a disservice to their students by blocking the site.

When it comes down to it, college is an investment. While the profitable gains of the college experience remain immeasurable, the amount of debt students incur can easily be measured by families and graduates alike years after memories have faded. Since October 29, 2011 the Higher Education Act (HEA) has required colleges to provide a net price calculator on their websites. The price generated by these net price calculators gives an estimate of what families will pay for college minus grants and scholarships. The calculator bases its information off of similar data from students at that institution from the previous year. College Abacus helps students easily see these net prices together, and cuts down the time of entering the same information into multiple calculators on school websites.

Image courtesy of [SemperDoctus via Wikimedia]

Harvard, Princeton, and Cal Tech are not alone in their refusal to participate in College Abacus’s services. Schools have a right to worry about the site’s accuracy. The service sometimes takes similar questions from the different schools’ financial aid calculators and groups them together for comparison. At one point, College Abacus made a mistake when rephrasing a financial aid question for Hamilton College, which the co-founder of Abacus sorted out within 24 hours after the financial aid director of Hamilton reached out. The staff at Abacus welcomes concerns from financial aid officers, and relies on the schools for accuracy. But by opting out, schools block the site from accessing their net calculators.

Truly, students and their families are hurt when colleges and universities block Abacus. It has simply created a platform for families to compare the financial investment of college. Money may be the most objective differentiate between two schools for an individual family. The debate goes on for hours about the right environment, professors, dorms, location, etc between two schools, but comparing the potential net cost does not need to be an additional ordeal. In this new age of technology, universities should welcome tools creating more transparency for their future students.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post College Abacus: Hurdles in Financial Aid Transparency appeared first on Law Street.

As racial tensions become more visible in the United States, particularly at American universities, the Supreme Court finds itself hearing oral arguments on a major affirmative action case. While legal underpinning for affirmative action has been weakening in recent court decisions, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit seek to end the practice altogether.

The lawsuit, Fisher v. University of Texas, was brought by Abigail Fisher after she was denied acceptance to the University of Texas’ flagship school at Austin. Fisher alleges that while she was not accepted other, less-qualified students were admitted to the school because of their race. UT-Austin has a relatively unique admissions process because the school automatically accepts all students from Texas in the top 10 percent of their high school class. In practice, the actual percentage has been slightly lower since a law modified the rule in 2009, which said that UT-Austin must be able to fill 75 percent of the available residences with students from the top of their high school class. Importantly, though, Fisher was not granted automatic admission and was then forced to be considered using the university’s holistic evaluation process, in which race is considered alongside a wide range of factors.

Interestingly, the university’s 10 percent policy has actually helped increase diversity at UT-Austin. The policy leverages the fact that Texas high schools are often racially homogenous in order to promote diversity. Because many of the state’s high schools are primarily black or primarily white, the top 10 percent admissions policy ends up increasing the number of minority students accepted to the school.

What’s particularly interesting about this case is that there is little evidence to suggest Fisher would have been accepted even if race wasn’t a factor. Instead, the case is more accurately a challenge to the use of race in admissions itself and not a challenge of the school’s particular decision in Fisher’s case. Pro Publica’s candid analysis of the case states the subject of the case pretty clearly: it’s about the conservative view that the Constitution is colorblind and no one should be treated differently based on their race. On the other hand, proponents of affirmative action argue that it is necessary to combat the legacy of racism and inequality in the United States, and by many measures those resulting racial disparities still exist today.

That underlying debate is at the heart of the discussion around the case, and it becomes particularly clear you look at the facts. When Fisher applied to UT-Austin in 2008, the 10 percent rule accounted for about 92 percent of all incoming students from Texas. Although she had good grades Fisher did not meet that qualification. Instead, she was evaluated using the university’s holistic review process  using both an academic index (AI), which is based on test scores and grades, and a personal achievement index (PAI), which is based on two essays, the applicant’s life experiences, and, importantly, “special circumstances” that can range from economic background to race.

Based on the applicant pool, available evidence suggests that her rejection was not a result of her race. This fact is put clearly in the case’s court documents, in which UT-Austin notes,

Because petitioner [Fisher] was not in the top 10 percent of her high school class, her application was considered pursuant to the holistic review process described above… The summary judgment record is uncontradicted that—due to the stiff competition in 2008 and petitioner’s relatively low AI score—petitioner would not have been admitted to the Fall 2008 freshman class even if she had received ‘a “perfect” PAI score of 6.’

Put simply, regardless of Fisher’s score on the personal achievement index, her grades and test scores were too low to grant her admission–meaning that race had nothing to do with the school’s decision as the PAI wasn’t a factor. Fisher was also denied admission to the school’s summer program, but the evidence suggests that the same thing happened. For the summer program, there were better qualified black and white students who did not earn acceptance.

Rather than seeking to correct Fisher’s admissions decision, this case is, transparently, about eliminating affirmative action from the college admissions process. The group funding the lawsuit, the Project on Fair Representation, seeks to “support litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts.” This ranges from ending affirmative action in admissions and employment to eliminating voting protections for minorities. And so far, the group has had some notable success achieving that goal. In fact, it was the force behind the Shelby County court case that invalidated a major part of the civil rights act a couple years ago.

In the last landmark ruling on affirmative action, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion that allowed schools to use race as a factor for admissions in order to achieve diversity but gave a sort of expiration date on the practice. According to the decision, affirmative action could be used if it was narrowly tailored to promote greater diversity among the student body. In the opinion, she said, “the court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That was 2003, but 12 years later a renewed push to end affirmative action may move that deadline up considerably.

The Supreme Court is now tasked with determining whether affirmative action remains acceptable or if it should be further restricted and possibly eliminated altogether. Notably, Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case because the Justice Department filed a brief on it during her time as Solicitor General. There is a possibility that the Justices split the decision 4-4, in which case the lower court’s ruling in support of the admissions program will hold.

It’s pretty clear that the Justices are not eager to hand down a landmark decision on affirmative action. In fact, they have already heard this case once before but remanded it back to the lower court to evaluate UT-Austin’s use of affirmative action with stricter scrutiny. In oral arguments earlier this week, some of the Justices wanted to stall even further, questioning whether sending it back for a trial could be beneficial. Now that race is at the forefront of political discussion, the court is in a particularly tricky position. The fate of affirmative action programs now hangs in the balance.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Affirmative Action Makes its Way Back to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Consider a scenario: the restaurant where you work is short-staffed and even though you are billed as a “part-time” worker, you are asked to pick up 34 hours in one week. This is completely legal–the Bureau of Labor Statistics considers a job that requires 34 hours or less in a week to be “part-time” whereas 35 hours or more in a week is considered “full-time” employment. But, before you accept the 34 hour week, consider another dimension: you are a college student and this is the week of your final exams. What comes first: your paycheck or your education?

According to a 2013 survey, 71 percent of college undergraduates work a part-time job. Out of that number, one in five were working at least 35 hours a week year-round. Among undergrads who weren’t full-time workers, more than half of them clocked in more than 20 hours a week.

The American Association of University Professors states that college students should be working total of ten to fifteen hours a week, based on research assessing retention rates for students who work part-time during the academic year. The College Board agrees that working more than 15 hours a week can lead to decreased success, which may in turn lead to dropping out of school entirely. During a presidential debate this fall, Hillary Clinton proposed that under her new education plan, college students would be expected to work 10 hours per week. Most colleges have accepted this 10 to 15 hour rule and attempt to limit the number of hours per week a student can work on campus, but that does not prevent students from seeking off-campus employment. In addition to part-time employment, college students spend an average of 17 hours per week studying outside of class. Students also have lives outside of the library and workplace. They make time to participate in clubs, play sports, act, play music, work on political campaigns, and go out with friends. In my experience, the young person who comes to college just to drink, sleep until noon, and build an insane Instagram feed is a myth.

Every student should have the opportunity to work during their academic career, either to finance their studies or to earn a little spending money, but the work-life balance many are expected to maintain is setting them up for failure. Unfortunately, without holistic reform of college tuition, students will have to keep working twice the number of hours they should be. The majority of students spend responsibly, sticking to budgets and depositing their earnings into savings accounts.

Several candidates in the 2016 presidential race have promised sweeping reforms if they are elected but in the meantime, I would like to appeal to the professors and employers of America’s undergraduate population: cut them some slack this month. Don’t make them choose between their education and their employment. Professors can give extensions on final exams and papers, and employers can assign their student employees fewer shifts during their final exam period. Higher education comes at a steep financial cost and these students are doing the best they can to balance their aspirations in the classroom with the realities of their checking accounts.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Textbooks and Time-cards: Working “Part-Time” in College appeared first on Law Street.

First Lady Michelle Obama and Jay Pharoah, a current SNL cast member and comedian–just released a rap video in which they encourage young people to “go to college.” The College Humor original video is  part of Obama’s ongoing initiatives to promote higher education for young people. Check out the video below:

The video is part of the Michelle Obama-led Reach Higher initiative, which seeks to drive young people to engage in higher education–whether it be a four-year, two-year, or community college. Part of that initiative calls for public awareness, hence the new Better Make Room public awareness campaign. Announced in October, it’s aimed at Generation Z; the generation that follows millennials, Generation Z is currently comprised of 14-19 year olds. According to the White House Fact Sheet on the campaign:

This campaign will leverage traditional and new media platforms to celebrate student stories in the same way that we often celebrate celebrities and athletes. With partners in the business, philanthropic, media, and education realm, this campaign will stretch across the country to inspire students and give them the tools they need to reach higher for college.

The Better Make Room campaign has partnered with a whole bunch of organizations besides CollegeHumor. Some are relevant to the educational aspect of the campaign, like Pearson, The Teachers Guild, and a non-profit called Get Schooled. Others appeal to the new media aspect of the campaign, including Vine, Mashable, Funny or Die, and the CW.

The rap video is silly, goofy, and doesn’t have a ton of substance but it certainly serves its purpose–getting people’s attention. It was all over the internet today, and many were applauding Michelle Obama for her willingness to play along and rap part of the message.

As Soraya Nadia McDonald of the Washington Post put it, that’s a big part of exactly why the video is so compelling and fun:

And this is why goofy Michelle Obama rap videos always make the Internet go bonkers: She’s not pandering, but she is making fun of herself. And she’s savvy enough to know the difference.

The Better Make Room campaign, as well as the Reach Higher initiative, are taking on lofty goals. But they’re certainly having fun and making headlines along the way.

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 Michelle Obama and Jay Pharoah Want You to “Go to College” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s absolutely no secret that college is incredibly expensive. One of the biggest complaints about college costs is how exorbitant the prices of textbooks have become. But, if Senators Al Franken (D-Minnesota), Angus King (I-Maine) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) get their way, that will be changing soon. The three legislators just introduced a bill, the Affordable College Textbook Act, that will make some online textbooks free and ultimately help to cut textbook costs for college students.

An average student in 2013 spent roughly $1200 on books per year, or up to $1250 if just private universities are taken into account. The prices of textbooks have skyrocketed in recent years–increasing an average of 82 percent in the last 10 years. There was an 812 percent price jump between 1978-2013. Experts attribute the shocking jump in prices to a lack of competition in the market, but these high costs are certainly detrimental to students. Roughly 70 percent of students have foregone certain textbooks in an attempt to save money, even if they realize that doing so may affect their academic success. It makes a lot of sense–if you’re desperate to save money, it’s a lot easier to forgo textbooks than housing or food.

The bill was introduced last week and, if successful, will provide grants to institutions of higher education. Those institutions will then work on programs for “open” textbooks–essentially textbooks that are online and freely accessible to students. Franken explained why this program would make sense based on his experience in Minnesota, stating:

At The University of Minnesota they’ve started a program of open sourced textbooks and that is basically paying professors there to write textbooks and put them online and so that professors and teachers can use and students can use that material instead of a $150 textbook.

Durbin also explained his motivations, citing similar success in Illinois:

As I said, we did this at the University of Illinois. Now there are certain rules of the game. If you’re going to have an open text book, it really has to be open, available to everyone, for the public, and what were finding is there’s a lot of good response to it and I think its catching on.

This, overall, is a smart suggestion that alleviates a real problem for students. A corresponding bill has been introduced in the House by Representative Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas) and Jared Polis (D-Colorado). But, it has a very long way to go before it becomes anywhere near a viable piece of legislation, and given the current Congressional climate, probably doesn’t have a good shot of being enacted. That being said, as more pressure is exerted on our government to address the rising costs of college expenses, these kind of common sense and intelligent proposals will become key. While the bill may not make it through this time, be on the lookout for similar proposals at the state and federal level moving forward.

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 Will the Senate Take Action to Combat Rising Textbook Costs? appeared first on Law Street.

College students are big partiers–that’s no secret. But their vice of choice may be changing. Marijuana use is up among college students, surpassing cigarettes for the first time. Even more surprisingly, rates of alcohol abuse are also falling.

The study looked at 1,500 students at two and four year universities around the country in order to reach its conclusions. According to the study, habitual cigarette usage among students is down to about five percent, a sizable drop from years past. Just 16 years ago, in 1999, 19 percent of college students reported daily cigarette use. On the other hand, almost six percent of college students use marijuana daily. That’s the highest rate since 1980, when data reporting marijuana use among college students was first reported.

The rate of students using marijuana semi-regularly is also up. According to the Chicago Tribune: “Twenty-one percent of the college students surveyed said they had used marijuana at least once during the previous month, and 34 percent said they had used it in the past year.”

Incidences of dangerous drinking among college students are also decreasing. Binge drinking among college students, defined as having five or more drinks in a row in the past two weeks has dropped  from 44 percent in 1984 to 35 percent in 2014. Extreme binge drinking, which is defined as “having had 15 or more drinks in a row at least once in the previous two weeks,” is falling. Only five percent of students reported that behavior in this year’s study.

But this news isn’t unique to college students. This sort of shift is consistent with the general population’s views on cigarettes and marijuana. Now that multiple states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, and medical use is all but commonplace in many other states, the use of weed is becoming more and more acceptable. A majority of Americans–a slim majority, but a majority all the same–believe that recreational marijuana should be legalized for adults. Additionally, a majority of Americans believe that alcohol is more dangerous to an individual’s health than marijuana. And possibly most strikingly, almost exactly half of Americans have tried marijuana at some point in their lives.

Of course as weed becomes more acceptable generally nationwide, it’s important that the risks that are still associated with marijuana, particularly for young people, are not overly minimized. Some studies have raised concerns that for young people whose brains are still developing, marijuana can have some negative long term effects.

That being said, overall there’s a lot of good news in the study. Alcohol and cigarettes have long been consumed at worrisome levels by college students. College students will probably always partake in illegal substances, but changes to the ways in which they do so will probably continue to reflect the national zeitgeist when it comes to drug and alcohol acceptance.

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 College Students Are Smoking More Marijuana, Fewer Cigarettes appeared first on Law Street.

For a while, it seemed like for-profit colleges were the newest, hottest frontier in higher education. But with current student debt problems, and many revelations about some of the predatory practices of for-profit colleges, the trend appears to have officially passed. Arguably the most well-known for-profit institution of higher learning–The University of Phoenix–may be the latest to find itself in hot water.

Late last week the parent company of the University of Phoenix, Apollo Education Group, released information that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was investigating the company. The investigation is attempting to determine if the University of Phoenix ran deceptive or unfair business practices. The investigation is particularly focused on its recruitment of veterans. The accusations claim that the company has left veterans with high levels of debt after collecting hundreds of millions in GI Bill money. It’s not just the GI Bill money that the University of Phoenix has collected, however, according to financial records the company has collected over $488 million in fees and tuition from veterans’ own money for its online programs, and additional sums at various physical locations.

The University of Phoenix has been declining slowly for a little while now. Five years ago, the school reported almost half a million students. That number has been essentially halved since then. In 2012, the University of Phoenix was forced to close 115 of its campuses. In addition, revenue has been declining, and there have been many accusations levied against the company in regards to the way that it treats its students and potential recruits.

The controversy over the University of Phoenix is borne out of concerns that the school required participants to take out expensive loans, which could have been fine had those participants had the ability to pay back those loans after they graduated. However, the education provided at the University of Phoenix doesn’t necessarily lead to employment, the credits usually don’t transfer to other schools, and the degrees aren’t always recognized by employers.

In order to cooperate with the investigation, as Apollo Education Group promised in its statement, the company will have to provide the federal investigators with documents such as financial information, marketing, billing, debt collection, accreditation, and military recruitment practices.

This investigation into the University of Phoenix is consistent with a theme of increased scrutiny on for-profit schools, many of which are struggling in the now seemingly turbulent educational environment. Last month, the Obama Administration began cracking down on for-profit schools. A new rule that took effect in July from the Department of Education is the “gainful employment rule” which “requires colleges to track their graduates’ performance in the workforce and eventually will cut off funding for career training programs that fall short.”

Equal opportunities for education are essential, but not if they hurt students more than they help. There’s now significant suspicion that many for-profit institutions fall into the latter camp–University of Phoenix may just be the latest to get in trouble as a result.

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 University of Phoenix Under FTC Investigation appeared first on Law Street.

The United States is a patchwork of cultures so diverse that large groups can often go under the radar unnoticed or unidentified. That is, until a tragedy brings that group to the forefront. American Muslims in particular have repeatedly been branded as terrorists throughout history, most recently after a terrible shooting by a Muslim man at an army base in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This viewpoint is unfair and uninformed. Far from being a secret insurgency, Muslims in the United States are one of its oldest groups and most average populations. Read on to learn more about Muslims in the United States, starting with the group’s culture, moving to a profile of the modern American Muslim, and lastly how this group of people is portrayed by the culture.

History of Islam in the U.S.

Muslims have a long history in the United States, perhaps going back to a time before Europeans even settled the area. According to some legends, Muslim Moors who had been expelled from Spain as part of Christian Reconquista may have explored the Caribbean and what is now America. In fact it has even been speculated that Columbus on his travels to the New World cited a book written by Muslims who had made a similar voyage in the 12^th century. There are also reports of physical Muslim guides used by the Spanish in their conquests beginning in the 16^th century.

The first major migration of Muslims unquestionably came through the slave trade. In fact, as many as ten to 15 percent of the imported human cargo was believed to be Muslim. These slaves were often forced to convert to Christianity or at least hide their beliefs, however some populations were able to hold out into the 20^th century.

Following this wave was another from the Middle East from the late 1800s to early 1900s. This group settled in the modern day American Midwest, as jobs were readily available particularly in the automobile industry. A third wave came in the 1950s and 60s from throughout Asia, when the United States relaxed its strict immigration policies. Islam in the United States was also invigorated by Black Americans who sought to restore their original faith, beginning with the Great Migration and continuing to this day. The first mosque in the United States was built in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and as of today there are more than one thousand mosques nationwide. Additionally, some of the most notable Muslims of the time were and are major historical figures such as Malcolm X and Muhammed Ali.

The Modern American Muslim

Like the varied waves in which they immigrated to the United States, the current population of Muslims in the U.S., numbering anywhere from five to 12 million people, is also an ethnic hodgepodge of American Blacks, Africans, Asians, Hispanics, Europeans, and converts. Along with a diversity that mirrors the U.S. population as a whole, Muslims in America are quintessentially American in a number of other ways. The number of Muslims with college and graduate degrees for example is nearly exactly the national average. This correlation holds true for the number of Muslims making $100,000 down to those making less than $30,000 annually.

Muslims also are slightly different in some ways as well. First, unlike America as a whole, Muslims skew young, over 75 percent of the Muslim population in the United States is 49 or younger. It also skews slightly male with approximately 54 percent of the Muslim population in this country being male. As far as geography, most live near urban centers such as New York and other coastal areas. The population of Muslims is also greater near university towns as many are graduate students or faculty. Thus while Muslim populations may go unrecognized, that may in part be because of how similar they are to the general population of which they are a part.  The video below looks in-depth at Muslims in the U.S.

Popular Perception of Muslims in American Culture

Clearly then, American Muslims have a rich historical place in America and blend in quite well with the population, too. However, while by most any metric Muslims are the epitome of America, the perception of Muslims remains disproportionately hostile. According to a recent poll, only 27 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Muslims. Additionally, nearly half of the respondents thought that Muslims’ decisions would be overly impacted by their religion and that profiling people of the Islamic faith was justified.

These are not just views of anonymous individuals. Following in the wake of the recent shootings for example, prominent Reverend Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, called for the end of Muslim immigration to the United States. Graham is not alone in his vitriol. The FBI, it was revealed, also seems ill-disposed to American Muslims and unsurprisingly teaches its counter-terrorism agents that American Muslims are potential terrorist sympathizers, that the prophet Muhammad was a cult leader, and the act of giving is actually a covert effort to fund terrorist activities. The FBI was not the only policing agency in on the act; the NYPD also ran a notorious anti-terrorism program that targeted Muslims. Since 9/11, members of the NYPD infiltrated mosques, spied on attendees, and even enticed informants to trick other Muslims to make seditious statements on recordings.

In fact the American media in general is guilty of mischaracterizing Muslims. In a study done by a North Carolina professor of media from 2001 to 2008, he found overwhelming evidence of a media bias against Muslims, including a disproportionate focus on groups who denounced Islam.  The accompanying video details this bias through a triple murder of Muslims in North Carolina earlier this year.

Misplaced Hate

When one looks at the numbers, this anger and hate is clearly misplaced. For example, from 1980 to 2005, 94 percent of terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil were done by non-Muslims. In 2013 in fact, more people were killed inadvertently by guns fired by toddlers than by Muslims.

Conclusion

There is an old saying that people fear the unknown. When it comes to the Muslim population in the United States, unknown might not be an adequate description. Perhaps the best example is that most Americans equate Arabs and Islam, even when most Arabs in the U.S. are not Muslims. Yet this void of knowledge has not remained unfilled, on the contrary a concerted effort has been made to twist and often distort the popular opinion of Americans into believing all Muslims are terrorists or at the very least, sympathetic to the cause of terror groups.

The numbers show nothing could be further from the truth. Far from being a homogenous group of troublesome people, Muslims, like America itself, are a diverse collection of peoples. Furthermore, these people encapsulate the average American identity in virtually every way.

Muslims like so many groups before them are often not treated equally in American society for a number of factors ranging from media influence to that all important unknown. However, closer examination reveals that in the United States, Muslims are most representative of one thing, the patchwork nature of the country itself.

Resources

Embassy of the United States: Muslims in America

PBS: Islam in America

Reuters: American Opinion of Arabs, Muslims is Getting Worse

Wired: FBI Teaches Agents

Atlantic: Horrifying Effects of NYPD Ethnic Profiling on American Muslims

Think Progress: Study; Anti-Islam Messages Dominate Media Coverage

 Daily Beast: Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close

Viral Buzz: 30 Hollywood Muslims

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Muslims: A Vibrant History, Misplaced Hatred appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most important problems facing college students today is sexual assault, and a recent poll by the Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation further solidifies this fact. The poll found that one in five women are victims of sexual assault in college. The poll also indicates that very few cases of sexual assault are actually reported to police or campus authorities.

Conducted between January and March, the Post/Kaiser poll surveyed 1,053 college students who live on or near their school’s campus.

According to the Rape Assault Incest National Network (RAINN), 68 percent of sexual assault victims nationwide do not report the crime to the police, and the rate on college campuses is even strikingly lower. According to the Post/Kaiser poll, 72 percent of the respondents who experienced unwanted sexual contact or sexual assault said that they told someone about it. Of that, only 11 percent told the police or campus authorities.

How can a crime as traumatic and prevalent as sexual assault be reported at such a low rate?

A wide range of factors may prevent sexual assault survivors from reporting or even openly discussing the crime that has been perpetrated against them. Victims often remain silent because they fear that the police, school administrators, or their peers won’t believe them. A 2007 study by The U.S. Department of Justice found that 42 percent  of forcible sexual assault victims who did not report the attack said it was because they “did not want anyone to know.”

The fact that most victims know their assailant as well as the fear of being unfairly blamed and victim shamed, particularly when alcohol is involved, can make reporting very difficult. When a victim knows the person who assaulted them it can become very difficult to talk about what happened to friends or authority figures. According to the Post/Kaiser poll, 70 percent of victims said that they knew the person in some way, and nearly 50 percent said they knew the person well or very well. While those who are sexually assaulted are never to blame for what happened to them, victim blaming remains a reality for many on college campuses. This is particularly prevalent when alcohol is involved, which according to the Post/Kaiser poll happens in more than 60 percent of cases.

Finally, victims of sexual assault may not report the crime because it is simply unlikely that the perpetrator will actually receive punishment. According to RAINN, of the 32 percent of sexual assaults reported to the police nationally, only seven percent lead to an arrest, and an even lower two percent were convicted or spend a day in prison. Theories have posited that the reporting rate is so low because many victims believe that a two percent conviction rate is not sufficient enough to go through filing a police report, an invasive rape kit, and possibly testifying in a trial. Federal data also shows that punishment remains an issue on college campuses, as administrators often warn, suspend, or order counseling for offenders rather than expel them.

While the Post/Kaiser poll provides important insight into the issue of sexual assault on college campuses, and the one in five statistic is certainly striking, a lot remains unknown. The factors behind underreporting to the police may also affect the results of anonymous surveys. While these surveys provide a much better understanding of sexual assault compared to the number of cases reported to the police, polls still face their own challenges. Because the issue of sexual assault likely varies between campuses, national surveys cannot help us understand all of the problems that individual institutions face.

As sexual assault becomes an important national issue, colleges around the country are starting to take important steps to prevent assaults on campus. New programs and policies are starting to encourage victims to come forward, raise awareness,  and provide new resources to students. Programs like the Campus Grant Program and the Bystander Intervention Programs are just a few examples that can help reduce sexual assault cases. Last year, a dozen House members called on U.S. News and World Report to include efforts to prevent sexual assaults in its annual college rankings.

The White House launched the “It’s On Us” campaign to increase awareness and empower men and women to actively prevent sexual assault. The Obama Administration is also encouraging the Department of Education (DOE) to proactively deal with the issue using its Title IX authority. These efforts have led the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate more than 100 colleges and universities for potentially mishandling sexual violence cases.

It’s clear that sexual assault cases on college campuses are a huge problem that must continue to be addressed nationally. As a society, we must take action to deter these crimes instead of blaming victims. Colleges must create an environment where victims are encouraged to come forward and we can all work together to make sure these alarmingly high rates become a thing of the past.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sexual Assault: Still a Problem for Colleges appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, check out the best of the week, including human trafficking in Pennsylvania, the Top 10 small colleges with high crime rates, and ten reasons to #FeelTheBern this election season.

#1 Human Trafficking in the U.S.: Pennsylvania Man Sentenced For Horrifying Crime

Human trafficking is the second largest form of organized crime in the world behind the illegal drug trade. The industry affects 12.3 million people each year, and generates more than $32 billion worldwide, yet many Americans don’t necessarily expect it to take place close to home. Yet the two most common forms of human trafficking, sex trafficking and labor trafficking, are on the rise in many states such as Pennsylvania. Read full article here.

#2 Campus Crime 2015: Top 10 Highest Reported Crime Rates For Small Colleges

Student safety is a high priority for all colleges and universities. While colleges and universities are typically safer than the areas that surround them, many schools face important and unique challenges. Law Street’s Campus Crime Rankings were created to serve as a comprehensive look at the safety of our college campuses, and to act as a resource for students, families, and college communities. Read full article here.

#3 Ten Reasons to #FeelTheBern This Election Season

Bernard “Bernie” Sanders, self-described Democratic Socialist, is a 73-year-old senator from Vermont, the longest serving independent in Congressional history, and a Presidential candidate. He’s been described as “one of the few elected officials who is fundamentally devoted to dealing with the plight of poor and working people” and he’s gaining ground in the polls on the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Student safety is a high priority for all colleges and universities. While colleges and universities are typically safer than the areas that surround them, many schools face important and unique challenges. Law Street’s Campus Crime Rankings were created to serve as a comprehensive look at the safety of our college campuses, and to act as a resource for students, families, and college communities.

Federal law requires all postsecondary institutions that receive federal financial aid to report and monitor criminal offenses on their campuses. Each year this self-reported data is published by the Department of Education to help colleges and their communities understand the safety challenges that they face. Law Street Campus Crime Rankings utilize the most recent three years of this data to determine the average violent crime rate per 1,000 students for each school with available statistics.

Our rankings break up schools into different categories to ensure that the comparisons are as helpful and fair as possible. This list ranks small schools, which include four-year institutions with enrollments between 1,500 to 10,000 students.

Click here to see the data used to create these rankings. 

Check out the Top 10 Highest Crime Rates on Small Campuses below:

#1 Highest Crime Rate: Swarthmore College

Image courtesy of Fritz Ward via Flickr

Swarthmore College is a private liberal arts college located in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, which sits about 11 miles outside of Philadelphia. Swarthmore had an average violent crime rate of 22.60 violent crimes per 1,000 students between 2011 and 2013, giving it the highest violent crime rate among all small colleges. The vast majority of reported crimes at Swarthmore are forcible sex offenses, which make up more than 95 percent of the school’s violent crimes.

In 2013, concerns about the school’s sexual assault policies led the college to hire an independent investigator to review its procedures. Several Swarthmore students also filed a Title IX complaint with the Department of Education claiming that their school mishandled several sexual assault cases. The complaint eventually led to an investigation by the Department of Education. Later that year, President Rebecca Chopp announced sweeping changes to the way the school handles sexual assault cases. Swarthmore hired a full-time Title IX coordinator and took several steps to improve its policies, training, and prevention efforts. To correct past reporting errors, the school reported a total of 89 forcible sexual offenses in 2013* (more than four times as many as the previous two years). While sexual assault remains a significant issue at Swarthmore, the dramatic increase in 2013 most likely reflects changes in the school’s reporting practices rather than a spike in actual incidents of sexual assault.

Fall 2013 Enrollment: 1,534 (all undergraduate)
Average Violent Crime Rate: 22.60 per 1,000 students
Murder: 0
Forcible Sex Offense: 99
Robbery: 1
Aggravated Assault: 4
Campus Setting: Suburb (Large)
*Swarthmore reported a total of 89 forcible sexual assaults in 2013 to correct errors in previous years’ statistics. Eleven of these incidents occurred prior to 2010. As a result, only 78 were included in the average violent crime rate calculation, as the rankings are only based on incidents that happened between 2011 and 2013.

-Campus crime statistics are three year totals from 2011, 2012, and 2013
-The average violent crime rate is an average of the three-year data shown as a rate per 1,000 students

Click here to see the methodology used for the rankings.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Crime in America team:
Kevin Rizzo, Kwame Apea, Jennie Burger, Alissa Gutierrez, and Maurin Mwombela.

Editor’s Note: This slide has been updated to more clearly reflect the chronology of the 2013 Title IX complaint. 

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campus Crime 2015: Top 10 Highest Reported Crime Rates for Small Colleges appeared first on Law Street.

The NCAA’s amateurism rule is rubbish. On its website, the college athletics governing body claims it has “adopted amateurism rules to ensure the students’ priority remains on obtaining a quality educational experience and that all of student-athletes are competing equitably.” The page goes on to list all the things student athletes are not allowed to do under the principle of amateurism, including:

1. Salaries for participating in athletics;
2. Contracts with professional teams;
3. Benefits from an agent or a prospective agent;
4. Agreement to be represented by an agent; and
5. Tryouts, practice, or competition with a professional team.

In the meantime, the University of Texas basketball program collected more than $165 million in revenue for the 2013-2014 season, according to the Office of Postsecondary Education. Forbes values its football program at a cool $139 million, while the NCAA as a whole made nearly $913 million for the fiscal year 2013.

If the NCAA is starting to sound like a cartel, that’s because it is. By definition, a cartel is an agreement between competing firms to fix prices. A long time ago, colleges got together and decided not to pay players, fixing the salaries of their student-athlete employees at zero for the benefit of NCAA and participating universities’ leadership.

So then, it becomes evident that the NCAA needs to get rid of its amateurism rule. Fortunately, the rule is already under assault in the court room.

In a March 2014 National Labor Relations Board decision, Regional Director Peter Sung Ohr ruled that a group of Northwestern University football players are eligible to form a union on the basis that players devote as many as 50 hours a week to football, and that scholarships, which can be terminated yea to year and require student athletes to adhere to certain guidelines, are a contract for compensation.

In an August 2014 California District Court decision, Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that “NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools” in a case involving a former UCLA basketball star who claimed the NCAA and EA Sports violated his right to use his image for marketing purposes when his image was used in a video game without his consent and without compensation.

Nevertheless, there are numerous arguments against compensating student athletes.

Some argue that a vast majority of athletic programs at universities are losing money and need help from their basketball and football programs to stay afloat. Compensating student athletes, they contend, will force athletic departments across the country to cut programs.

Tough luck. We live in a capitalist society where businesses close every day because they fail to make a profit. If a university believes that maintaining these programs leads to more donations from alumni, fine, fund them through donations. But student athletes contributing to profitable programs should not be punished for the financial woes of their unprofitable counterparts.

Others argue that scholarships reasonably compensate student athletes.

No, they don’t. In a Drexel University and National College Players Association study, the average Division I college basketball player would earn $266,000 per year, and the average Division I football player would earn $114,000 per year, if players received 50 percent of the revenue earned by their respective programs, which is approximately the revenue sharing model of the NBA and NFL.

Still, others argue that high school athletes have the right to decide whether or not they want to accept a scholarship and be bound by NCAA regulations.

Well, the NBA enforces a 19-year age minimum for draftees, and the NFL requires its draftees to be three years removed from high school. With the emergence of European and Chinese leagues, some high school basketball stars have opted to spend their last years of ineligibility abroad. With no comparable foreign football leagues, football stars are out of luck.

There is yet another denomination of people who argue that the NFL’s three-year rule protects young athletes who are more susceptible to injuries such as concussions.

In most states, minors become legal adults at the age of 18, and the legal age of consent is 16. High school football players are well aware of the risks associated with playing the sport, and they should have the option to get paid millions of dollars to take on the higher risks of playing professionally with better athletes, or receive scholarships and develop their skills in a less physical college setting.

Consequently, the most sensible solution to the NCAA amateurism problem is for the NBA and NFL to eliminate their age requirements. Unfortunately, college athletics function as a phenomenal developmental league for professional leagues that professional franchises do not have to pay for.

So, as long as these age requirements are in place, amateurism in college athletics is dead. The NCAA needs to stop pretending that its student athletes are students first, athletes second, and open up its leagues to all the intricacies of the free market.

Doing so may involve sports agents that specialize in college athletes, or a free agency period where eligible players can transfer to other universities. The market will invariably take many twists and turns before it settles into a final model, but it will certainly be better than a system in which a cartel blatantly exploits the services of helpless college athletes.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Capitalism and College Sports: Time to Pay Student Athletes appeared first on Law Street.

The Texas legislature recently passed a bill that will allow licensed residents to carry concealed hand guns on public colleges and universities. With the bill currently on its way to Governor Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it, it will soon permit the presence of concealed weapons on college campuses. But this raises some serious questions about the levels of danger the schools could potentially face as a result of the new law.

The final version of this bill allows private institutions to opt out, while public universities would be able to create gun-free zones in areas of campus. This new bill allows licensed gun owners to carry their handguns in classrooms, libraries, and other campus buildings. The law would be in effect in September for four year colleges and universities and by fall 2017 for community colleges.

Some key components of the law include a requirement for university presidents to adopt rules and policies regarding carrying a concealed handgun on campus. The university may also create rules on policies regarding carrying guns into dorms and the storage of guns. The bill does not change who can obtain a concealed handgun license. Any locations that have their own rules off campus, such as bars and hospitals, can keep those rules. Open carry on campuses remains prohibited.

As a student, and someone looking at law schools in Texas, I am not sure how I would personally respond to a bill like this being passed on my college campus. In addition to attending classes, campus is a place where students eat, sleep, and live. It doesn’t really seem fair to invade one’s home with a weapon without really asking. That sentiment is consistent with some of the reactions coming out of Texas and the country right now in response to this legislation.

Julie Gavran, the western director of the Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus, said she worries accidents involving guns, gun thefts, and suicides will increase. She also fears that if the bill is passed, colleges will have to invest more money into hiring security officers and buying metal detectors, which will be taken away from education spending. Gavran stated:

The legislators were more concerned with (concealed handgun license) rights rather than the quality of research and education that the state provides. This total disregard of the voice and concerns of the campus community is an insult to the State of Texas.

Despite these fears, Bill McRaven, chancellor of the University of Texas System does not seem to agree, stating:

It is helpful that the bill was amended to allow our campus presidents to consult with students, faculty and staff to develop rules and regulations that will govern the carrying of concealed handguns on campuses. I pledge to our students, faculty, staff, patients and their families and to all those who may visit a UT institution that, as UT System leaders, we will do everything in our power to maintain safe and secure campuses.

The bill’s House sponsor, State Representative Allen Fletcher explained his motivation for filing it, stating:

Currently, a student, faculty member, or other adult with a concealed handgun license may carry their concealed handgun throughout a campus as long as they remain outside, but the moment they step foot into a building on campus they become criminals.

Despite that point, the safety factor is still a large issue. Fletcher believes that the media, parents, students, and higher education officials exaggerate the bill’s consequences. He argues that the measure will just broaden current laws that already allows concealed handguns on campus outside of buildings. Those in favor of passing the bill also believe permitting gun owners to carry weapons on college campuses can help students and faculty members defend themselves.

The arguments in favor of this bill are extremely valid, but I feel like there could be a different solution that accommodates the needs of all people. An increased presence of weapons on campus still makes me and many others very wary.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Bill Will Allow These Weapons on College Campuses appeared first on Law Street.

Yes, you read the title right. Incorporating elements of pop culture, like “Breaking Bad,” into the classroom has become a popular new trend for undergraduate and graduate schools looking to engage their students. Schools such as the University of New Mexico have begun using pop culture case studies as instructional tools, while others major universities including Rutgers, the University of South Carolina, UC Berkeley, and Georgetown have opted to design courses dedicated entirely to singers, movies, television shows, sports, and other celebrities.

Have you ever considered the legal ramifications that fictional meth producers Walter White and Jesse Pinkman would have faced in the real world, as well as the questionable legal practices of defense attorney, Saul Goodman? A class at the University of New Mexico Law School analyzed the legal issues surrounding this popular television show and published their findings in a student-run journal for the school.

From The New Mexico Law Review “Breaking Bad” edition. http://t.co/xSmSg84ONg pic.twitter.com/1gYrz12VQy

— Ed Bott (@edbott) May 20, 2015

The students of this criminal law class, as well as the other contributing professors who helped to create this journal, found a multitude of legal issues within “Breaking Bad.” They discovered the actions of the show’s DEA agents to be controversial in certain instances and obviously illegal at other times, and yet these fictional agents were never stopped or questioned.

Saul’s practices as a lawyer are very shady and illegal, as he is known for laundering money to drug lords and going beyond his legal reach. When examining how Walter would likely be prosecuted, the students concluded that he would most likely receive a harsh sentience but avoid the death penalty in real life since the practice is no longer used in the state of New Mexico. While this show was very entertaining for viewers, it was not always realistic due to the exaggerated and felonious actions of most of the characters.

Other universities have chosen to create classes entirely pop-culture themed. At the University of New Hampshire, a class was created to analyze Deflategate–the recent scandal where the New England Patriots football team was accused of deflating its footballs before a game–as well as other sporting events and how they relate to the legal system. UCLA Law School has also joined in on this trend with a course called Law and Pop Culture, where students are assigned the task of watching popular television shows or films relating to the legal system, including lawyers, the criminal justice system, and the jury, which they will later apply to their coursework.

There are also many options available for undergraduate students who are interested in learning about their favorite pop-culture subjects. Famous singers such as Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, and Beyonce now all have classes devoted to them and studying their fame, allowing students to draw connections to subjects like sociology and philosophy.

According to the Mother Nature Network (MNM), movies such as Harry Potter, Spiderman, and Star Trek are all subjects of classes analyzing the popular franchises. MNM also noted that many popular television shows have become the core focus of several college classes throughout the country, such as The Simpsons, Judge Judy, and Days of Our Lives.

Times are changing, and as a result universities are beginning to recognize that in order to better accommodate and attract students to their schools, they have to vary their course offerings. No matter what you are interested in, there is probably a course out there that would appeal to you. Comparing core principles of classes to new themes could actually be a very effective way of maintaining students’ attention, as well as give them new ways to better comprehend course material.

What topics would YOU like to see being incorporated into your classes?

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Uses AMC’s ‘Breaking Bad’ as Teaching Tool appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, check out the Best of the Week from Law Street, including banned beach drinking in Florida, vaginal probes at colleges, and a look at America’s public health spending.

#1 Beach Drinking Banned at This Popular Spring Break Destination

Spring break is a college rite of passage synonymous with beaches, bikini-clad babes, and binge drinking. However, it’s no secret that excessive alcohol consumption can lend itself to a dangerous environment for these vacationers, including reckless behavior, violence, and sexual assault. No one knows these kinds of dangers better than the residents of the spring break capital of the world, Panama City Beach, which is why their city council members have voted to make a change next year by banning beach drinking during spring break. Read full article here.

#2 Lawsuit Claims Valencia College Exams Included Vaginal Probes

Two female students from Valencia College studying medical diagnostics have recently filed a lawsuit claiming that their classwork at the school crossed a very serious line. The suit alleges that they were forced to endure invasive vaginal exams in front of all of their classmates. Read full article here.

#3 Are We Spending Enough on Public Health?

Treating people when they’re already sick is like beating back invaders who have already breached your defenses. In either scenario, prevention through good defense saves money, time, and lives. But when it comes to boosting our nation’s wellness defenses through public health spending, America falls short. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Spring break is a college rite of passage synonymous with beaches, bikini-clad babes, and binge drinking. However, it’s no secret that excessive alcohol consumption can lend itself to a dangerous environment for these vacationers, including reckless behavior, violence, and sexual assault. No one knows these kinds of dangers better than the residents of the spring break capital of the world, Panama City Beach, which is why their city council members have voted to make a change next year by banning beach drinking during spring break.

Panama City Beach bans #springbreak drinking. Should others follow? http://t.co/DLZCjfJ6BR pic.twitter.com/D9lHTh9ONn

— The News-Press (@TheNewsPress) May 14, 2015

According to the News Herald, the Panama City Beach City Council voted last week to ban drinking all together on the beach next March despite its expected negative effect on business owners. The measure has been deemed a much-needed crackdown on out of control spring break partying that has negatively impacted the city.

Case in point, this year seven people were shot and wounded at house party. Then in April, police released a censored video of girl passed out on the Florida beach getting gang raped in broad daylight while crowds of bystanders watched. Even though most of the girl’s body had been blurred, a young woman watching the video recognized her tattoos and contacted authorities. The girl in the video was believed to have been drugged before the assault occurred. What’s even more disturbing is this isn’t the first time something like that incident has happened there. Bay County Sheriff Frank McKeithen said they’ve recovered a number of videos similar in nature. Ruth Corley, spokeswoman for the sheriff’s office, commented on the incident via social media saying,

We have been able to find video of girls, incoherent and passed out, and almost like they are drugged, being assaulted on the beaches of Panama City in front of a bunch of people standing around.

This move is in addition to 17 other measures approved last year to tone down the city’s Spring Break celebrations. These changes are expected to cause a dramatic drop in revenue for the $200 million-plus economy that the tourism provides, but owners see it as worth the risk while hoping for an increase in more family-friendly tourists.

As someone who’s personally made the 800-something mile pilgrimage there from my college town of Athens, Ohio, with a group of my best friends, I can tell you that I’m not at all surprised by how out of control it has gotten there. Much of what I thought were spring break myths were proved realities during my short stay there. Even though this initiative will likely anger prospective spring breakers, working to prevent occurrences of violence and sexual assault is much more important.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beach Drinking Banned at This Popular Spring Break Destination appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday night, 20-year-old University of Virginia student Martese Johnson was brutally arrested. His treatment has sparked outrage around the country, and has led to protests at the university. Moreover, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has called for an investigation into the police officers’ use of force.

Read More: Militarization: Arming the Police Against Against American Citizens

Like many Americans, students at the University of Virginia went out to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day Tuesday night. Martese Johnson, a junior double majoring in Media Studies and Italian, was one of them. Johnson was with friends trying to get into the Trinity Irish Pub, when he was stopped by a bouncer guarding the door. At this point, an agent from the Virginia Department of Adult Beverage Control, or ABC, grabbed Johnson and brought him over to a group of other ABC agents. According to eyewitness Bryan Beaubrun, when Johnson asked the agent to let go and backed away, he was grabbed from behind and then wrestled to the ground by multiple agents. In the process, he hit his head on the ground, and sustained injuries that required ten stitches.

I stand with Martese Johnson. There is no excuse for this. @VirginiaABC you should be ashamed. pic.twitter.com/4j3bnfDlBI

— UVAProblems (@UVAProbs) March 18, 2015

After being arrested, Johnson was charged with resisting arrest, obstructing justice without threats of force, and profane swearing or intoxication in public. He was released on bail later the next morning.

After the release of pictures and footage of the aftermath of Johnson’s arrest, many have been protesting the way in which he was treated. McAuliffe has authorized an investigation into the circumstances, and UVA president Teresa Sullivan has put out a statement detailing her concerns. In an email sent to the student body, she stated:

Today, as U.Va. students, faculty, and staff who share a set of deeply held values, we stand unified in our commitment to seeking the truth about this incident. And we stand united in our belief that equal treatment and equal justice are among our fundamental rights under the law.

She also stressed, however, that details aren’t yet clear at this time, and encouraged anyone with any information about the arrest to come forward and provide eyewitness testimony.

Last night, hundreds of UVA students, as well as faculty and other members of the community, rallied in support of Johnson, who also attended the march. His face clearly still showed signs of his injury from the night before.

Photos from protest at #UVa in response to #MarteseJohnson‘s injuries from ABC arrest http://t.co/i6XFYmlsz0pic.twitter.com/rXCJX33Et1

— Amy Friedenberger (@AJFriedenberger) March 19, 2015

Johnson thanked the community for coming out to support him, saying:

This University opened me up. You being here is the reason why I still believe in the community of trust even with a busted head standing here on this stage.

The gathering featured other students speaking about their personal experiences, expressing dismay about how Johnson was treated, and talk about how to move forward. It’s certainly moving to see the university community standing together to protest the inhumane treatment of one of its own, but the fact that such inhumane treatment happened in the first place remains troubling. It’s yet another example in national conversation about race and discrimination that seems to get more complicated and upsetting every day.

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 UVA Community Gathers in Support of Martese Johnson appeared first on Law Street.

From terrorism to racist fraternities, last week’s top news stories covered a variety of unsavory topics. The number one most popular post of the week came from Law Street Crime Editor Kevin Rizzo who shed light on the ISIS’ goals and motivations; the number two story of the week, from Alexis Evans, examined the University of Oklahoma shutting down fraternity SAE after it engaged in offensive racist chants caught on video; and the third most popular story of the week, also from Evans, brought us a look into Uber’s latest effort to win back women. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Understanding ISIS’ Radical Apocalyptic Vision

Nearly everyone knows what the Islamic State is doing–treacherous acts and the consolidation of control in territories throughout Iraq and Syria–but few realize exactly what the group’s goals are. ISIS is a unique manifestation of radical Islam that is bent on establishing a religious government that enforces what it believes is to be the purest form of Islam. Supporting that vision is its supporters’ closely held belief that ISIS is bringing about the apocalypse. Yes, deeply rooted in its ideology is the idea that establishing an “Islamic State” will eventually lead to a final battle between good and evil near the small town of Dabiq in northern Syria. Read full article here.

#2 University of Oklahoma Fraternity Shut Down After Racist Chant

University of Oklahoma’s President is giving chapter members of the fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) exactly one day to get off the campus after a shocking video of the fraternity brothers chorusing a racist chant surfaced on social media. Read full article here.

#3 Uber’s New Hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back the Women

Crowd-sourced mobile taxi service Uber has developed a bit of a reputation for having a sexist “bro culture.” A new announcement this morning from the company reveals it’s trying to change that. Uber announced it will be partnering with UN Women “with the goal of accelerating economic opportunity for women.” As part of that commitment, it has pledged to create 1,000,000 jobs for women drivers by 2020. That sounds good, but is this sudden explosion of growth really proof that the company is becoming more female friendly? Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Common Core State Standards have been a matter of controversy for a few years now, garnering opposition from both sides of the aisle. Common Core in some ways saw its inception in the George W. Bush era and serves as a predecessor to the No Child Left Behind Act. But what exactly is Common Core, why was it launched, and what is the opposition? Read on to find out.

What is Common Core?

The Common Core State Standards “aim to raise student achievement by standardizing what’s taught in schools across the United States.” They include a particular focus on language arts and mathematics. The objective is to universally prepare students from Kindergarten to high school to be successful for entry-level college courses or to enter the workforce. It lays out what students should know and be able to do by the end of each specific grade. The standards are results driven, but the methods used to achieve the set results are chosen by local teachers and facilities.

The History Behind Common Core

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was first signed into law by President Bush in January 2002. The next decade was spent revising the law’s requirements and attempting to create more successful “adequate yearly progress” reports. However, people quickly realized that NCLB was in need of serious reform itself. In November 2007, state chiefs first brainstormed Common Core standards at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Annual Policy Forum. The following year, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA), CCSSO, and education nonprofit Achieve released Benchingmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education. In it they recommended the common standards. In April 2009, the NGA and CCSSO officially invited states to commit to the Common Core standards, and by June 49 states and territories announced commitments. After public feedback, a final draft was released in June 2010.

The NGA and CCSSO  led the development of the standards and actively advocated for their implementation. They also sought input from teachers, parents, school administrators, and various state leaders in “how the standards are taught, the curriculum developed, and the materials used to support teachers.” Implementation, however, is completely up to the states. Once a state adopts the Common Core standards, it is delegated to local teachers, principals, and superintendents to introduce the standards into school curriculum.

 Why was the Common Core program started?

It has long been a bipartisan view that the U.S. needs education reform. Common Core was started to allow high school graduates to be competitive in college, but also in “the rapidly changing American job market and the high tech, information-based global economy.” It is widely believed that U.S. students are falling behind their counterparts in other countries. Standardized tests in countries like China and Singapore have advanced well beyond the U.S. over the last few decades. Bill Gates, a heavy investor in the Common Core, advocated,

Our nation is one step closer to supporting effective teaching in every classroom, charting a path to college and careers for all students, and developing the tools to help all children stay motivated and engaged in their own education. The more states that adopt these college and career based standards, the closer we will be to sharing innovation across state borders and becoming more competitive as a country.

In Gate’s interview, he repeatedly noted that the standards are not based on curriculum. They are “solely” milestones for where the students should be at each grade level.

How much does Common Core cost?

The cost for implementing Common Core will vary from state to state, but will undoubtedly be expensive. Training teachers and buying new materials will take a substantial amount of money. In 2011, California estimated that replacing its current standardized tests with Common Core standards would cost taxpayers approximately $1.6 billion. In Texas, the estimate is upward of $3 billion dollars.

According to the Common Core Initiative however, the implementation will allow for states to eventually save on resources, materials, and “cross-state opportunities that come from sharing consistent standards.” The cost-benefit ratio should end favorably. As of 2014, 43 states, Washington D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands adopted the Common Core.

What are some characteristics of Common Core?

English and Language Arts

Generally, the standards call for “regular practice with complex texts and their academic language.” They demand a steady increase in complexity and progressive reading comprehension. There is to be an emphasis on academic vocabulary, focusing on meaning, nuances, and range. There isn’t a required reading list; however, categories of literature are required. Examples include classic myths, foundational U.S. documents, works of Shakespeare, and staples of American literature.

Students should know how to provide evidence from the text when forming analyses and arguments at different levels. The standards call for text-dependent questions on assessments as opposed to questions based on student experiences and/or opinions. The objective is for students to be able to effectively inform and persuade, and for these skills to become stronger as students move up in grade levels.

There is also a larger focus on nonfiction. For grades K-5, there is a 50/50 ratio between informational (history, social sciences, etc.) and literary texts. In grades six through 12 there is substantially increased attention to literary nonfiction.

Mathematics             

In mathematics, the standards call for a “greater focus on fewer topics.” The standards aim to narrow and deepen lessons on concepts, skills, and problemsolving depending on grade level. For example, K-2 will focus on addition and subtraction, while grades three through five will focus on multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions.

There is an overriding theme across grades of linking topics and thinking. A standard at any grade level is designed to build upon the standard of the previous grade and act as an extension. This consistently reinforces major topics, which are used to support grade-level word problems that need mathematical applications to solve.

Finally, the mathematics standards aim to pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skills and fluency, and application with equal force. The idea is to deepen the understanding of concepts as opposed to memorizing rules. If the building blocks of complex math concepts are completely understood by students, that will eliminate degrees of future difficulty. Speed and accuracy are both to held in high importance.

What are the arguments against Common Core?

The goals of the Common Core seem to have U.S. students’ best interests at heart. So why is there so much opposition? Here’s a look at some of main challenges.

National Standards

First, some argue that the name “Common Core State Standards” is misleading. Since they have been adopted by 43 states, they are truly national standards. Detractors worry that states didn’t necessarily adopt the Common Core by choice, but were strong-armed by conditions ascribed by federal Race to the Top grants and the No Child Left Behind programs. Prior to the implementation of Common Core, all 50 states–whether on board or not–adopted NCLB or revised standards under the threat of losing federal funding.

More of the Same

Many see the Common Core as round two of No Child Left Behind. NCLB failed in both “raising academic performance and narrowing gaps in opportunity and outcomes.” This propagated the notion that American schools need to be fixed. Test results from NCLB did not meet expectations. After the first ten years, more than 50 percent of the nation’s schools were categorized as failing. Many of these same schools never received the support or resources necessary to stand a chance. In the same respect, will all schools be supplied with the needed computers required to take the Common Core tests?

Too Curriculum Based 

There are also worries that Common Core has become more curriculum based than originally intended. In the video below, a seven-year public school teacher discusses why the Common Core is not good for kids and dictates curriculum. She argues, “when the standards are tested that’s what you are going to spend your time on…[there is] no room to teach anything else.”  Her job security is based on meeting the standards. As a result, she’s concerned that the standards must be taught 100 percent of the time, and don’t allow flexibility or creativity.

She continues to argue that the material is not condensed, using the 93 elements of the third grade reading standard as an example. Her largest problem with Common Core is its age appropriateness. Although she advocates pushing students, she doesn’t believe seven year olds should be expected to master the difference between an adjective and an adverb. She labels the standards as a  “race to the middle” with “mediocre teaching.” Using a uniform approach, the faster learners are bored, while the slower learners are under immense pressure.

There is plenty of concern on the length and difficulty of the assessments as well. In the first round of distribution of the Common Core tests in New York, students, parents, and teachers strongly voiced their concerns. Many students felt immense pressure and were scared of failing, and teachers complained about the atmosphere the tests created.

Opting Out

Some children have started to opt out of the tests, often with parental support. The “opt out movement” has grown in popularity–thousands of students nationwide have chosen this route. Opt-outs protest the Common Core standards and the overemphasis on testing in public schools. There is even a National United Opt Out group comprised of parents, educators, students, and social activists. The legality of opting out seems to be a gray area, varying from state to state. In an extreme case, the Illinois State Board of Education sent a letter stating students opting out would be breaking the law and teachers refusing to administer the test would face legal consequences.

There are a variety of other arguments as well. One other concern is that corporate businesses are behind the standards to create a marketplace for Common Core resources. Others argue that electives like music and art will be sidelined. Finally, many teachers and parents don’t approve of the “one-size fits all” approach to teaching children.

Conclusion

It’s hard to say what is in store for U.S. education reform. We do need a change, but is Common Core the right one? There aren’t any studies regarding Common Core’s success to fall back on. Only time will tell. There are convincing arguments on both sides. Ultimately, everyone involved wants the same thing: U.S. students to be as educated and prepared for the world as possible.

Resources

Primary

Common Core State Standards Initiative: About the Standards

CCSSO: National Governors Association and State Education Chiefs Launch Common State Academic Standards

U.S. Department of Education: No Child Left Behind

Additional

Washington Post: The Common Core’s Fundamental Trouble

EdWeek: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World Class Education

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting for Common Core

Truth in American Education: State Costs for Adopting and Implementing the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: Opt-Out Movement About More Then Test, Advocates Say

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting Against the Common Core

Why Science: A Historical Timeline of No Child Left Behind

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Common Core: A Solution to America’s Education Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that college costs have gone up. Way up. Bloomberg estimated that the cost of college had gone up 1,120 percent since 1978. While inflation over time is obviously normal, that’s a huge jump. Compare it to the fact that over the same time period, the price of food has only risen 244 percent. Going to college now requires that many students take out loans, and then struggle to pay those loans off for years to come. President Obama and other politicians have been saying that something needs to be done for a while, and he recently floated a plan to help ease college costs for some students: two years of free community college for students who are willing to work for it.

Obama gave a speech at Pellissippi State Community College in Tennessee about his new plan. At its core, it’s a simple enough idea. Students who maintain a GPA over 2.5, attend at least half time, and make steady progress toward completing their degree will be eligible for the tuition elimination. The schools are going to be held to high standards as well:

Community colleges will be expected to offer programs that either (1) are academic programs that fully transfer to local public four-year colleges and universities, giving students a chance to earn half of the credit they need for a four-year degree, or (2) are occupational training programs with high graduation rates and that lead to degrees and certificates that are in demand among employers.

The reasoning behind providing those first two years free is to train students for more high-skilled jobs. While our unemployment numbers are looking better than they have in years–under six percent as of December 2014–there are still plenty of Americans who are unemployed and underemployed. Despite this nearly five million jobs remain unfilled in areas that require specialized training, such as healthcare work or technology. This plan will attempt to fill that gap by providing workers with skills that can be used in those jobs. As jobs that require a college degree increase–by 2020 it’s estimated that 33 percent of all job openings will require post-high school education–it makes sense to make it as easy as possible for people to get those degrees.

It’s estimated that this will cost about $3,800 per student, and that nine million students will take advantage of the program. That all adds up to a pretty hefty price tag, roughly $60 billion over ten years, which begs the question: how is the Federal government going to pay for this all? The details don’t appear to be fully formed yet, but advocates argue that it’s an investment in the economy. Until our work force is at its most productive, we’re not going to be able to get much done.

Despite the fact that this plan is more bipartisan than most undertaken by the government these days–Republican Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker attended the speech in Tennessee–there are plenty of lawmakers who disagree with the plan. Detractors point to the high price tag as an unnecessary expense. There are also concerns that community colleges aren’t necessarily that successful–only 30 percent of students entering community college graduate within three years.

While there are both positives and negatives to the plan, it’s an early step of what needs to be a much larger solution to the huge problem of college costs and student debt as a whole.

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 College Tuition Elimination Plan Aims to Fill Skilled Jobs Mismatch appeared first on Law Street.

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.

Sexual assault on college campuses has been one of the hottest topics for a couple years now. Many universities are being investigated by the Department of Education for Title IX violations. The recent Rolling Stone article about rape on the campus of the University of Virginia that was partially retracted and has landed the publication in hot water over concerns about its journalistic ethics has seriously reignited the discussion. There are a lot of moving parts to the debate about sexual assault on college campuses, and I think that one of the many, many reasons that the conversation gets so easily muddied is that we don’t all agree on definitions, or statistics.

While this is obviously an extreme example, watch this video of “Princeton Mom” Susan Patton who I’m still a little bit sure must be running the world’s longest satirical performance. She begins the video by talking about how rape is no longer just defined as a woman being held at gunpoint and assaulted, and then spends the next ten minutes pretty much going on about what a shame that is. She also thinks that rape is often women falsely accusing men after “regrettable sex.” Then she talks about how it’s women’s responsibility to protect themselves from rape by not drinking, making good decisions, and choosing better friends. It’s a charming exercise in a game I like to subject myself to called “Holy Shit, People Actually Think This Way.”

Now the Department of Justice (DOJ) has weighed in with statistics from a study it conducted, and it’s probably going to all get even more confusing.

The new DOJ report dealt with not just college students, but college-aged females more generally. The DOJ report included the statistic that six of every 1,000 college females are sexually assaulted, and now everyone who thinks like Patton is using it to prove that sexual assault on college campuses isn’t a thing we should be worried about, and that this talk of “rape-culture” is overblown.

First, what we need to do is remember that anytime this sort of study is undertaken–one that relies on people’s word, memories, and stories, rather than say, hard facts in a laboratory–is that it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

There have been other studies that indicate that the rate of college sexual assault is much higher than what the DOJ reports. A survey at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded that 17 percent of female students and 5 percent of young men were sexually assaulted as students. Then there’s the Campus Sexual Assault Study from 2007 that gave us the now-infamous and oft-cited “one in five” statistic.

There are a few reasons why two studies can have such radically different numbers, and they’re excellently detailed here, by the Marshall Project. The main takeaway is this though: neither is necessarily right and neither is necessarily wrong. They asked different questions, they talked to different people, and at the end of the day, it’s really very much an inexact science. We’re not sure how many students are sexually assaulted; more studies to come might help us pinpoint that number, but probably not.

But we do know that at least some are. Furthermore, the same DOJ report stated that eighty percent of students sexually assaulted don’t report it. And 80 percent were assaulted by someone they know. Both of those statistics are deeply troubling.

No matter how many people are being assaulted on our college campuses–whether it’s one percent, twenty percent, or somewhere in between–it’s too many.

But that “less than one” percent is probably going to get thrown around for a while. Because, unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who, for whatever reason, don’t want to see change. They just got some ammunition, for now.

That’s why we need to keep having conversations about rape culture. Why we need to keep educating our young people, and for that matter, all our people, on consent. Why we need to stand up for rape victims when they’re accused of making up their stories. It doesn’t matter how many–any at all are too damn many.

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 DOJ Stats Show College Sexual Assault Remains Too Prevalent appeared first on Law Street.

Ask anyone who has been to a college campus that has a fairly active Greek system, and you will hear some very strong opinions about the institutions. From those who think they are the absolutely best thing in the worl to those who think the idea is antiquated and the system needs a major renovation or even a demolition.

There are problematic aspects of Greek culture, to be sure, but is also a feeling of comradery and trust that goes into becoming a member of an organization. For some a fraternity or sorority might mean sister- or brotherhood, family, and fun while to others it is elitist, dangerous, and borders on bullying. Read on to learn about greek life and the arguments for and against it.

Brief History of Greek Life

Secret societies have long been a part of the cultural makeup of the United States. Students at the College of William & Mary in 1776 (does that year ring a bell?) formed a secret society called Phi Beta Kappa. It was the first Greek fraternity and set the precedence for those that followed: Greek letters, a secret ritual, a secret handshake, mottoes, a badge, and a code of ethics for all members. This group put an emphasis on academics and personal behavior, stressing the importance of being a gentleman.

The early 1880s saw a group of fraternities that is now called the Union Tria: Kappa Alpha Society, Sigma Phi, and Delta Phi. More and more fraternities were forming, often forming triads to keep in contact with other systems should problems arise.

In the 1850s the first sorority, Alpha Delta Pi, was founded, though it was not called a sorority at the time. It was during the mid-1800s that people started looking down on secret societies in fear of the unknown.

The National Panhellenic Conference (PANHEL, as it is called at many colleges) was founded in 1902 to unite sororities and in 1909, the National Interfraternity Conference (now the North-American Inferfraternity Council) was established to do the same with fraternities. As African Americans started to enter the college system with greater force and presence, organizations such as Alpha Phi Alpha were formed, as most other Greek organizations instituted racial and religious limitations on their membership until the 1960s.  Eventually the National Pan-Hellenic Council, the National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations, and the National Multicultural Greek Council would also be formed to govern their respective organizations.

World War I and World War II brought trouble for the Greek system. Most college-aged men went into battle, and fraternities couldn’t keep their charters due to low membership. Many houses were used to hold troops, or were used to hold spillover students after dormitories were taken over. Smaller fraternities merged together to create larger ones in hope of keeping both alive. However, the opposite problem started when the boys came home from war: there was an influx of men on college campuses that wished to go Greek, and the fraternities could become selective. This brought about the tradition of hazing to see who was “worthy” of joining.

Since that time, fraternities and sororities have endured during times of distrust and membership decreases to now have prosperity and popularity. Organizations no longer have racial or religious barriers to membership, at least in their handbooks.

Currently, many schools have at least some Greek letter organization, whether it is social, service, or academic Greek. In some colleges, up to 70 percent of the student body is involved in some form of Greek life. However, some schools don’t allow Greek organizations due to stigmatism, low interest, or history. Many schools fall between the two extremes.

What issues do greek organizations need to face now?

Hazing

Image Courtesy of JayBeezy58 via Wikimedia Commons.

Hazing has been at the forefront of much of the modern criticism of Greek life. Hazing typically occurs during the pledge period when a prospective member has to prove him or herself worthy of becoming an official member.

Almost all Greek organizations do have requirements to join the organization. Some of the requirements include interviewing current members, study hours, participating in service events, and memorizing the rules and history of the organization. Some sororities and fraternities focus on those who are academic, social, or sports leaders at the school. Earlier requirements to join Greek did include having the right family or the right bank account to back up the bid.

Many colleges require dry pledging – or require that no one pledging the sorority or fraternity can drink during pledging. However, some Greek organizations force alcohol upon pledges as part of the pledging process. Sororities will often have their pledges buy expensive jewelry and either gift it or throw it away, proving their monetary worth.

Horror stories from those who pledged sororities can be particularly vicious. While fraternity hazing can be dangerous or harmful to the body, girls take it to the extreme with the mental hazing. Many different schools claim to have some sort of body shaming where the women within the organization will circle or highlight the parts of the body that the pledges need to work on to be members of the organization. There are also reports of women and men performing embarrassing sexual acts in front of their sisters or brothers. Alexandra Robbins, author of the book Pledged, echoed the sentiment of emotional harm. “I’ve talked to thirty-somethings who are still haunted by their sorority hazing,” the popular author explains.

Many schools are cracking down on hazing and punishing fraternities and sororities that are even accused of hazing.

Partying

Partying, drinking, and staying out late will probably always be a part of college, whether Greek life exists on campus or it doesn’t. Sororities and fraternities seem to get the blame for a lot of on-campus partying, but the reality of it is that if a campus has any sort of group, they will get together to drink. It doesn’t matter if it Sigma Alpha Epsilon, cafeteria workers, theatre students, or the school newspaper – it will happen.

However, there are problems within the partying scene in Greek culture particularly. Many of the theme parties that fraternities and sororities are famous for are not in the best of taste. A college recently even sent out a letter to the Greek organizations to remind them to be appropriate and tasteful during Halloween events. In 2013, a Duke fraternity, Kappa Sigma, held an “Asian Prime” themed party where they dressed in Asian-inspired clothing and spoke in accents throughout the night. While other students were outraged, the college seemed to remain passive: “The event was thoughtless and offensive but we’re not sure if it actually broke any rules,” Larry Moneta, vice president for student affairs, told the Herald-Sun. Other problematic themes have included a “Thug Party” at Arizona State, “USA v. Mexico” at Randolph Macon,  “Colonial Bros and Nava-Hos” at California Polytechnic State, and “Bloods and Crips” at Dartmouth.

The simple truth may be that part of the Greek stereotype encourages people to think this about fellow classmates. Even if a party isn’t a sorority or fraternity, if one person is there who is a member of the organization or wearing letters, it is automatically dubbed a sorority or fraternity party. However, Greek organizations also have a responsibility to each other and the organization as a whole to use discretion and appropriate themes when planning and participating in events.

Sexual Assault

The news has been aflutter with case after case after case against fraternities accused of gang rape, violence, and sexual assault. Is it just a coincidence that the highly publicized cases are all fraternity members? Could be — but the truth remains that one in four college women will be sexually assaulted. Something is going wrong on college campuses. A story from Rolling Stone emerged last week about a woman at the University of Virginia who says she was gang-raped at a fraternity party her freshman year. Regardless of the specifics of the crime, it’s clear the university mishandled her sexual assault complaint.

Too often, colleges will mishandle any and all rape or sexual assault complaints from their students. A young girl was raped during an athletic weekend with the University of California, and it was swept under the rug by college officials to protect the integrity of the athletic department. These are just publicized cases, how many girls are being assaulted and not reporting it? How many girls are being told there’s nothing the school can do? Sixty-two percent of sexual assault at the collegiate level is drug assisted, so there are at least two crimes happening: the purchasing of drugs and rape.

Case Study: Clemson

Recently, a Clemson University student, Tucker Hipps, fell to his death from a bridge while running with his fraternity brothers. The college suspended all fraternities, citing reports of alcohol abuse, sexual misconduct, and general neglect. However, they didn’t tie the ban to the death of the student.

Clemson student affairs vice president Gail DiSabatino said in a statement:

“It is especially prudent to suspend fraternity activities given the tragic death of Tucker Hipps. There has been a high number of reports of serious incidents involving fraternity activities, ranging from alcohol-related medical emergencies to sexual misconduct … These behaviors are unacceptable and mandate swift and effective action to protect students. There is no higher priority than the safety and welfare of our students.”

Police haven’t connected his death to hazing or drinking, but there is still an investigation pending on the incident. The national Sigma Phi Epsilon organization released a statement saying that if foul play was involved in Hipps’ death, it would make sure those responsible are brought to justice and face proper repercussions.

Case Study: University of Virginia

The University of Virginia just suspended all fraternity activities, stemming from accusations in a Rolling Stone article that stated the Charlottesville campus failed to protect students from sexual abuse in the Greek system in 2012. According to the magazine report, a young woman was attacked by several members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. She was sexually assaulted for hours and sodomized with a beer bottle at the fraternity house. The victim had repeated meetings with campus officials, including the President and the Dean, but the campus did not take any steps. Two other women also had accused Phi Kappa Psi members of sexually assaulting them.

The school is currently investigating, as it could result in it losing its Title IX funding.

In Defense of Greek Life

Greek organizations do have a purpose on some college campuses. They serve to unite large groups of college students in a positive way. Students who are involved in Greek life are more likely to stay at a college than those who do not. Colleges with Greek life are more likely to see active participation in many other college events, including Homecoming and spirit week festivities. For those in academic Greek or service Greek, they make positive impacts on various areas of the school’s cultural landscape.

Those who participate in Greek life are also more likely to keep in contact with their college friends and return to the campus. According to Psychology Today: “for some people, memories from the Greek years appear to have a special significance, even influencing behavior decades later. In his book, Beer and Circus about Three A’s of University Life (academics, athletics, and alcohol), Murray Sperber writes about fraternity alumni seeking a little cross-generational bonding with current members through sharing memories of alcohol mayhem. “‘The main storytellers are often alumni, and they frequently gather in their old fraternity houses to narrate the tales and, on occasion, to try to relive them.’”

Greek life, despite its issues, does often have a place — it can help those who aren’t sure of their place in college find a home and a family. Amy Hansen sums it up best: “Sororities and fraternities teach young people to be strong, to be curious, to be brave, to be zestful. Their rituals aren’t just words whispered in a dingy basement. They are living, breathing actions during collegiate life and beyond.”

Conclusion

Some colleges don’t benefit from Greek organizations. If the college is too small, it definitely can seem like an “us v. them” situation. However, a large part of whether or not a college should have a Greek system depends on the actual organizations themselves. How the members treat each other, other students, and members of other organizations creates that atmosphere.

Aspects of Greek life certainly have problems, and there are many controversial situations with which Greek life organizations have to deal. However, there are tangible benefits from having the organizations on campus as well–schools need to encourage the organizations to find that balance themselves.

Resources

College Candy: Biggest Lies About Sorority Life

Business Insider: Don’t Ban Fraternities

Huffington Post: Greek Life Faces Crackdown at USC After Alcohol-Related Injuries

Colonnade: Greek Life, Myths, Truths Revealed

Cosmopolitan: The 13 Most Nightmarish Tales of Sorority Hazing

The Bottom Line: Cons of Greek Life

USA Today: Examining the Benefits of Greek Life

AJC: Fraternities Under Fire: Is it Time to Ban Fraternities?

Psychology Today: How Fraternities and Sororities Impact Students (Or Do They?)

Peterson’s: Should Your College Life Include Greek Life?

Fastweb: To Pledge or Not to Pledge

College Express: 10 Colleges That Get Greek Life Right

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to Psychology Today. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does Greek Life Serve a Purpose on Today’s College Campus? appeared first on Law Street.

For the last couple of years, any discussion on sexual assault has required a discussion of the way colleges handle the issue, and the national consensus has been that they don’t handle it particularly well. There are dozens of universities currently under investigation by the Department of Education for their sexual assault policies. It is within this context that Harvard University, one of those schools under investigation, unveiled its new sexual misconduct policies.

The new policies have received significant backlash from parts of the Harvard community, particularly a group of Harvard Law professors. An open letter was released by the professors decrying the new policies.

They have many complaints with the policies, but overall they argue that the new policies are far too expansive and stack the deck against the accused. They claim that the policies do not allow due process or fairness. They are also concerned that only one office will be evaluating the complaints, and that that office cannot be guaranteed to be impartial because in addition to “trying” the cases, they are the ones who investigate the cases. Mainly they are worried about the fact the policies seemed to them, to be one-sided, saying:

Adopting rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated, rules which are starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents, and entirely inadequate to address the complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students.

The law professors also note the fact that many parts of the Harvard community were not consulted in the drafting of the new policies — including the faculty of the law school.

Concern has also been brought up over the fact that the policies changed the burden that needs to be met. There are varying degrees of burdens — “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the one we’re probably all the most familiar with from hearing it in the courtroom. There are lower burdens though, and Harvard’s sexual misconduct policies used to be based on one of them: “clear and persuasive.” The new rules have shifted the policies to an even lower burden: “preponderance of the evidence.” What preponderance means is really just more likely than not — more likely than not that someone broke a particular sexual misconduct policy.

To say I have incredibly mixed feelings about the entire thing would be an understatement. On one hand, I’m the kind of person who likes to believe in justice. Everyone does deserve a fair trial, no matter how heinous the crime or convincing the evidence.

That being said, the way in which sexual assault has been handled at some of our nation’s universities has been reprehensible at best. Policies do need to be changed, we’re all on the same page here. The real question that needs to be answered now is how?

On the other side of the country, California thinks maybe it has the answer. The state just instituted a new series of policies for its public schools that have been summed up under the phrase “yes means yes.” The law states:

Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.

This law has certainly received less backlash than Harvard’s, although some are still worried that it’s too harsh on those accused of sexual misconduct. The disconnect puts us in an interesting position — what’s too far and what’s not far enough? I don’t think there’s a perfect answer to that yet. There’s a whole treasure trove of imperfect answers out there: the policies and actions of the schools that are under investigation.

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 Harvard’s New Sexual Assault Policies Spark Dissent From Professors appeared first on Law Street.

A few weeks ago the White House began what it calls the It’s On Us campaign to end campus sexual assault. This campaign is a direct result of last April’s Title IX developments to try and change the way we look at consent and rape. As Vice President Joe Biden so sagely put it: “Violence against women is not a women’s issue alone, it’s a men’s issue.”

Last week the It’s On Us campaign continued its onslaught on campus sexual violence by releasing guidance to draft sexual assault guidelines, handle reports of assault, promote prevention, and outline exactly what “consent” means.

It is a little early to tell whether or not these guidelines and the new focus on changing college rape culture will have a noticeable effect, but since every education institution in the U.S. is legally obligated to follow Title IX policies, I’d say change is in the air.

This is only the beginning, though. While sexual assault on college campuses is more common and also more ignored than elsewhere in society, it is by no means the only place rape culture runs rampant.

But what exactly is rape culture? It’s where rape is widely recognized and accepted as a normal part of society. Where, instead of trying to prevent rape, victims are blamed. Rape, unfortunately, has become normalized in American society. The word “rape” can be heard to describe anything but the act itself, and there has been more than one occurrence of assault recorded and uploaded to the internet. As if showing themselves raping someone will give the uploader fame.

No, college is definitely not the only place rape culture needs to disappear. It is also not the only place that things like the Title IX developments may not be taken seriously.

By the time kids get to college, they have had at least seventeen years of rape culture exposure. They grew up in gender roles that encouraged male dominance and female submissiveness. They grew up being told that a girl who dresses in a short dress is “slutty” or “asking for it.” They watched movies like The Hangover where being roofied was turned into a comedy. When they finally set foot on a college campus for the first time, they had years of societal expectations ingrained into their heads.

Now, while many college students are eager to have their minds opened and changed by their chosen institution, not all are willing to let go of the beliefs they got from their parents and relatives. “It’s On Us” will no doubt have some positive effects on the number of sexual assault cases on campuses, and it is a sure sign that rape culture can be changed, but it is just one of the steps that needs to be taken.

It should also be noted that, along with rape culture existing outside the college campus, women are by no means the only ones who suffer sexual assaults. It is a truth that is not widely acknowledged that men get raped too. But, as I said before, men are brought up to be dominant and therefore are too afraid to admit a woman assaulted them. When we, in the words of Emma Watson, “see gender as a spectrum, rather than two sets of opposing ideals,” assault initiated by both genders, and the rape culture in which those assaults are normalized, will end.

If you would like more information on Title IX and its guidelines, go here.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rape Culture Can (And Must) Be Changed appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Thirteen years ago yesterday our country was shaken to the core. I was sixteen, skipping school and watching some awful show on television when the program was interrupted by the news reporting on the first airplane hitting the Twin Towers in New York City. Not even 20 minutes later, as the news anchors were still reporting on the crash, we all watched as another plane crashed into the second tower. It was live TV and there was no controlling what the viewers were going to see. The confusion and horror coming from the news anchors was something I could never forget. My brother and I sat in silence not knowing what to do, what to think, or what was going to happen next. Parents pulled their kids out of school and I remember this feeling of urgency in the air and the uneasiness of what could possibly happen next. Thousands of people had just lost their lives and the country witnessed it. There were no answers, only questions of why and what will happen next.

Every year we remember that horrendous day. It was a constant fear for the first year or two, but also a great feeling that our country had come together and we had heroes to thank daily. Budweiser aired a commercial during Superbowl XXXVI that really demonstrated the somber tone and respect the entire country had for the events of September 11, 2001. The ad was only shown once to ensure they did not profit from it in any way. Even today, 13 years later, it is the most moving dedication done in such a small amount of time.

Yesterday was a somber day for us all. Most news outlets covered the anniversary in addition to current events. While watching one of the programs I had to do a quick rewind to make sure I was hearing it correctly. Young America’s Foundation had gone to the George Washington University campus in Washington, DC last Friday, September 5, to interview students about the anniversary of September 11. YAF only had a few questions to ask these students:

1. Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?
2. Do you know what ISIS is?
3. Did you know that ISIS is responsible for the beheading of two American journalists? If so, could you name one?
4. Are you aware of the celebrity “nude photo” hacking scandal? If so, could you name any of the celebrities involved?

The responses from these kids are just mind blowing…

So the total results:

• Six out of 30 students recognized that this week is the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
• Four out of 30 students were able to name one of the American journalists beheaded at the hands of ISIS.
• 29 out of 30 students were able to identify one or more celebrities involved in the nude photo hacking scandal.

The kid interviewed two minutes in genuinely reacts like he had no idea what had been going on and it clearly upset him, which is great but frustrating. Actually this whole situation is frustrating. How is it that college students in their late teens and early twenties know more about pop culture and the ridiculousness of a nude picture hacking scandal than they do about current events and the death of two Americans at the hands of terrorists? This is not only the responsibility of these young adults to know what’s going on but it is the responsibility of teachers, parents, and our society as a whole.

There are already so many issues with what kids are learning in the classroom today that this should not surprise me, but it honestly does. How is this possible? When I was growing up my parents and grandparents talked to me about Pearl Harbor and the significance of that date. We may have brushed through it in history class but it is a day that I remember because it was an important part of history. My grandparents even lost friends and family members during the attack on Pearl Harbor and World War II. The same could be said about 9/11 and the Iraq War that followed. Hell, there are even movies about the two events. While there have been about seven movies made about the Pearl Harbor attacks, nearly 20 have been produced about 9/11.

What has become of our younger generation? Things need to change or our society will become Idiocracy.

This video is a great representation of what is going on in our culture and it needs to stop. We need our children to be better and smarter and more informed. We are not only disappointing our parents and grandparents, but we are disappointing our country, our culture, the world, and our Founding Fathers! Flabbergasted.

I don’t want to end this post on a note of frustration for our society. Instead I want to share a moving video about the last surviving search and rescue dog who returned to Ground Zero yesterday, a place she had not been to since 2001.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Never Forget.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly For These GW Students appeared first on Law Street.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has ruled college athletics in a manner that would make dictators green with envy, and each decade under its rule seemed to indicate the increased power they’ve gained. In 1976 the association was entrusted with the authority to penalize schools directly. In 1988, the Supreme Court held that despite its quasi-governmental makeup, the NCAA was not a state actor and therefore need not provide procedural due process. Throughout the nineties and into the present day, the NCAA brokered broadcasting deals for more and more money, resulting in a body that generated more than $750 million as of 2013.  But as any powerful politician knows, you can’t stay on top forever.

On August 8, 2014, Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California held in O’Bannon vs. NCAA that the NCAA’s current structure violates federal antitrust law. Specifically, Judge Wilken found that the NCAA can’t forbid schools from providing marginal compensation to their student athletes. For now, the ruling only approves of a $5,000 yearly allowance to an eligible NCAA basketball or football player’s trust fund. But the old guard should be nervous, as this decision is just one of several recent (and well-designed) attempts to wrestle power away from the NCAA. Earlier this year, Northwestern University football players successfully petitioned the NLRB to form a players union. Around the same time, famed labor lawyer Jeffrey Kessler filed suit against the NCAA, which essentially seeks to remove all caps on a college athlete’s earning capacity. Some journalists have indicated this is the beginning of the endfor the NCAA, but if that’s so, what lies ahead?

The good news is that courts are unlikely to reverse the advances made by the students. The NCAA has already indicated its plan to appeal O’Bannon, but since the Ninth Circuit is generally labor friendly, it’s unlikely the decision will be overturned at the next stage.

A reversal at the Supreme Court isn’t likely either. Despite a recent trend of being generally unfriendly to labor (e.g., this and this), SCOTUS is unlikely to decide O’Bannon purely on employment/labor law grounds. O’Bannon is an antitrust case, and plaintiffs in antitrust cases generally argue to oust a singular bully and restore free market principles. This is a notion most friends-of-management favor, perhaps especially in the Supreme Court’s case considering they’ve restored free market principles against the NCAA in the past.

The bad news for the student-athlete revolution is that their respective schools may have conflicting interests, and they may continue to thwart any effort to provide meaningful pay to students. Not too long ago the NCAA attempted to pass a resolution whereby student-athletes would get a stipend in addition to their scholarships. The schools, not the NCAA, pushed back against the idea.  Essentially, the schools that generated less sports-related revenue believed they would be unfairly burdened if they were forced to offer stipends in equal proportion to money makers like Texas and Wisconsin, especially after considering Title IX funding requirements.

Okay, so tax-paying Americans live with a progressive income tax rather than a flat tax, why can’t NCAA schools construct something similar with regard to student-athlete trust funds? Because the aforementioned money makers in college sports are already positioning themselves to avoid it. The day before the O’Bannon decision came down, the NCAA voted to allow the richest schools in D-I sports to have more autonomy. The autonomy could enable big schools to provide their students with more financial aid and could allow students to receive money through other pursuits (something former Colorado receiver Jeremy Bloom would have enjoyed).

The possible downside to the autonomy is that it becomes less likely the richest schools would be forced to comply with a graduated trust fund plan akin to a progressive tax. The richest schools would pay their recruits what they wanted, while the less-flush schools would be forced to pay the same amount, or risk losing even more recruits to bigger schools. This dichotomy could widen the income gap between large and small schools.

So why would the NCAA do this? Because the NCAA was a puppet government all along, man. Unlike sports oligarch FIFA, the NCAA doesn’t have a lot of disposable income. Ninety-six percent of its annual revenue is returned to charter schools, which is disproportionately given to the moneymakers of football and basketball. This money, AKA leverage, forced the hands of the NCAA and smaller schools to vote for the power-five conference autonomy, because they were scared the big schools would split off and create their own league.

In sum, the students won the day on August 8, but the real war could pit wealthy schools against not-so-wealthy schools. And in the end, the tyranny felt under the NCAA may not compare to the misery that the students and administrators of less fortunate schools feel when they try to compete against the power brokers of college sports. But ya know, viva la revolution.

Andrew Blancato

The post Watch the Throne: Who Succeeds if the NCAA Loses Power? appeared first on Law Street.

The Class of 2018 is having an exciting summer. They get to figure out which dorms they will live in, which intro classes they will take, and, most importantly, which loans they will take out to pay for the next four years. Meanwhile, the Class of 2014 is experiencing some discomfort as they figure out how exactly to pay for those loans they took out four summers ago. Student loans burden a reported 40 million Americans. Read on to learn all about how these people and their finances are impacted by politics.

What is a student loan?

A student loan is pretty self-explanatory. It is a type of loan specifically meant to pay for university tuition and all other costs associated with going to college. This can include books, computers, and housing. Student loans differ greatly from other types of loans. For example, federal student loans do not have to be paid back until graduation. People obtain student loans by filling out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), a form that gives students access to all sorts of financial aid, including Pell Grants and Federal Work Study.

Who provides these student loans?

While some students obtain these loans from private banks, many of them obtain loans from the federal government. Federal loans are all backed and funded by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), which means that the interest rate is often lower than those provided by a private bank.

What are some problems with the student loan system?

The big problem is that so many students need them. Twelve million students each year, 60 percent of all college students, pay some portion of their tuition with student loans. This is partly because college is more expensive than it used to be. Over the last 24 years, the average cost of in-state public college education rose by $5,470. And that’s just in-state public school. Tuition at some private institutions is staggering.

This contrast illustrates it best: the overall consumer price index has risen 115 percent since 1985. How high has the college education inflation rate risen? Nearly 500 percent. It’s no wonder that more Americans than ever have student loan debt. Here’s President Barack Obama decrying skyrocketing tuition:

Interest rates used to be a problem. In previous years, the interest rate on student loans would be set permanently by Congress. However, these rates were set up so that, unless Congress reauthorized them, they would double. There was a fight to keep these rates low in 2012 and 2013. That’s why this weird clip from Late Night With Jimmy Fallon with Obama exists:

Congress quickly realized that going through this battle every year was not good for anyone. That’s why they passed the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013. This law tied student loans to the 10-year Treasury note and locked in individual rates for life. This means that, while your own rate will never rise, the rates of future students will raise independent of action from Congress.

The bigger problem is that student loans have saddled 37 million graduates with serious debt. It takes years, sometimes decades, to pay off these loans. Worse, these debts have been steadily rising over the past few decades.

Why does it take so long to pay back student loans?

Simply put, graduates just aren’t very good at paying these loans back. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of borrowers are late on their payments. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 35 percent of American student loan borrowers were delinquent on payments in the third quarter of 2012. This local news broadcast called the situation an “economic crisis.”

Graduating students are also struggling to pay back these loans because they are entering an awful job market. For example, 6.7 percent of students who graduated in 2008 were still unemployed in 2012. How are these young people expected to start paying down this debt when they have little or no income?

Many graduates also do not know how to correctly pay these loans back. This advice column from The New York Times shows just how complicated paying back student loans can be.

If so many graduates cannot quickly pay off their debts, they may be left out of certain opportunities, like buying a house. Student loan debt is a drag on the economy.

PBS NewsHour has more on that issue here:

What assistance is available to those with student loan debt?

Not much. Some politicians are attempting to reform the system to help graduates (we’ll get to that later), but there are only a few ways the government can currently help.

Loan consolidation is one such option. This is when the government lets you combine all of your loans into one. Graduates who are having trouble paying off multiple loans consider this option so that they can only have one manageable monthly payment. There are also some instances in which debt holders can defer their payments on principle and interest. Find out if your student loan payments can be deferred here.

Private companies exist that offer to help lower monthly payments, but these companies have recently come under fire from federal and state regulators for using predatory practices and charging graduates hefty upfront fees for services that the DOE offers for free. Illinois has sued some of these companies and more states are likely to follow.

In the past, those looking for forgiveness of their debt were out luck. Even today, graduates who want an immediate forgiveness of their debts will have trouble doing so. This table shows just how hard it is to get student loan debt forgiven. Even bankruptcy does not always result in a forgiveness of student debt. However, action taken by President Obama made forgiveness a little easier. Read on to the next section to find out how.

How is President Obama trying to fix student loans?

Obama has used his executive power to bypass Congress and expand the Pay As You Earn program. Pay As You Earn is a federal program that allows borrowers to cap their monthly payments at 10 percent of their income and forgives remaining debt after 20 years. This program was previously only available to new students. Obama expanded the program to a majority of loan holders, who can begin to take advantage of it in 2015.

Obama also supports the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. This bill, introduced this May by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), would allow those with outstanding debt to refinance their loans based on newer and lower interest rates.

What does Congress think about these reforms?

As noted in the last section, Democrats are on board with Warren’s plan. Every single Democratic Senator voted for the bill when it was brought to the Senate floor. This is most likely because it is a targeted demographic of the Democratic Party’s base — young adults — and that it is paid for by a tax that that has been a part of their platform for years.

Republicans in Congress are not a fan of Warren’s bill, mainly because it would be funded by the Buffett Rule. The Buffett Rule, proposed by Obama before the 2012 election, is a plan to tax millionaires so that they are not paying a lower share of their wealth in taxes compared to middle-class Americans. Even Senate Republicans, often seen as more moderate than House Republicans, rejected the bill, calling it a “political stunt.” Only three Republicans voted for the bill.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a possible 2016 candidate, has introduced a bill that looks nearly identical to the Pay As You Earn program, but applies the same logic to every single student loan. It caps payments as a percentage of income and allows for debt forgiveness. However, while Pay As You Earn forgives all debt after 20 years, Rubio’s bill would only forgive that debt if it were less than $57,500. The debt would be forgiven in 30 years if it were any higher than that figure. Still, there is a lot of common ground between conservatives and Democrats. Common sense would dictate that this bill has a real chance of being passed.

Yet, as those who follow Congress know all too well, common sense rarely impacts Congressional results. The main obstacle for Rubio’s reform bill is that not all conservatives are the same. There are significant divisions in the Republican party on this issue. Many conservatives do not even believe that the federal government should be in the business of paying for young people to go to college. When asked about his vote against Warren’s bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that it is not Congress’ job to forgive “obligations that have been voluntarily incurred.” He also said “not everybody needs to go to Yale,” presumably arguing that students who cannot afford college should look for cheaper options instead of depending on the government. There are certainly cheaper options than Yale, such as for-profit college. McConnell believes that students should consider these less-expensive options before depending on the government.

How do Americans feel about student loan reform?

There has not been much polling done on the issue of student loan reform; however, one 2013 Public Policy Polling poll shows that all Americans are unsurprisingly unified on one issue: 83 percent of all Americans want Congress to either keep rates on student loans the way they are or lower them. This poll was taken back when rates could have potentially doubled, so it does not reflect feelings toward current reform packages, but it does show that the American people are in favor of Congress acting to keep interest rates low.

Americans are much more divided when it comes to opinions on the worthiness of their own loans. A poll by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling shows that, by a two-to-one margin, most Americans believe that their own student loan was worth the cost. However, most would not recommend taking out student loans to finance an education and some claimed they would not have taken a loan out if they were aware of how much it would cost them in the long run.

Congress would be wise to spend time on this issue, regardless of which reform plan they support. According to a Harvard University Institute of Politics poll, 57 percent of Millennials believe that student debt is a major problem. That concern is consistent across party lines. This statistic will likely keep the student loan issue on the Congressional agenda for quite some time.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Senate: S 1241 The Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act

Additional

U.S. Department of Education: FAFSA

College Board: Average Net Price Over Time for Full-Time Students at Public Four-Year Institutions

Forbes: College Costs Out of Control

Huffington Post: Elizabeth Warren Slams Mitch McConnell: He Wants ‘Students to Dream a Little Smaller’

U.S. News & World Report: Congress Approves Student Loan Deal

Huffington Post: How Millennials and Students Won a Massive Victory on Loan Rates

Huffington Post: Why the Student Loan Deal is Bad News for Students

Vox: 2008 Was a Terrible Year to Graduate College

The New York Times: A Beginner’s Guide to Repaying Student Loans

U.S. News & World Report: Obama Sidesteps Congress to Expand Student Loan Repayment Program

CBS: Senate Republicans Block Consideration of Student Loan Bill

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Student Loans Burden a Generation appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Just the other day I was catching up on the happenings around the world and stumbled upon an article that has really annoyed me. Robert Morris University in Chicago is planning to offer athletic scholarships to kids who play video games. Not just five or six scholarships, but 30. Yep, 30 scholarships for kids who play video games; more specifically, one called ‘League of Legends’.

I will be perfectly honest, I don’t know much about video games. My experience was playing the duck hunting game on Nintendo 20 years ago and the occasional Mortal Kombat stint. I know a lot of the lingo and various games because of my brother who still likes to play occasionally when he has free time from, you know, being an adult; but I have never heard of ‘League of Legends’ and had to call upon both my brother and Google to set me straight.

So apparently ‘League of Legends’ is a mixture of RTS (real-time strategy) and RPG (role-playing game). These are both things that I vaguely understand but it seems to me like a group of kids get together around the world, team up, and try to conquer the game. So how exactly is this athletic related? It isn’t and that’s where this makes my blood boil.

I do think that this particular game requires a certain level of strategy but that does not make it athletic, which is defined as “sports, games, and exercises that require strength and skill.” Strength and skill. Where in the world does a video game require either one of those things? Lifting up and holding a controller while sitting on your ass does not require much strength, not to mention the level of skill required on a video game doesn’t seem to be all that much. Yes, you need to be able to understand the rules of the game and the role you are playing and how to win, but does that really require much skill?

Now, let’s look at this from a less self-involved perspective. Robert Morris University is a Division I school in the NCAA so obviously athletic scholarships from this school are tied to that organization. The NCAA website has absolutely no information on requirements for a video game athletem and honestly there really isn’t a true definition of a general athlete there either. The only requirements are certain core classes have to be taken, a decent GPA, and maintaining amateur status throughout school.

Are there professional gamers? I mean legally, real professional gamers? Not just 30-yearold guys sitting around playing video games in their parents’ basements. Does the NCAA even embrace this idea? From all accounts on its website it doesn’t seem to me like it is something that the NCAA would embrace willingly or very quickly. They even have a specific section dedicated to the value of college sports, including college education, academic success, scholarships, student assistance, academic and support services, medical care, elite training opportunities, healthy living, exposure and experiences, and preparation for life. Some of these are no brainers that every student should get from attending college, but others are specific and special to being a college athlete, things that I don’t think apply to the world of gamers.

Elite training opportunities…training for what in video games? Healthy living…so no more soda and chips as you level up? Exposure and experiences…sitting in front of a screen next to someone else not being exposed to anything even if you are in a different city competing for some video game competition? Medical care…for carpal tunnel and the occasional blister? Preparation for life…I don’t see how ‘League of Legends’ would prepare anyone for life outside of the technology world.

Courtesy of Mental Floss

As I get older I get more and more annoyed by the fact that younger generations would rather sit inside and watch TV or play video games than go outside and play tag or ride a bicycle. When I was a kid my summer days were filled with sunburns, swimming pools, neighborhood kids, and adventures that took me outside of my house and sometimes out of my own comfort zone. Now I don’t see kids playing in the streets with other neighborhood kids. They don’t even go up to the seemingly abandoned neighborhood pool. Technology is taking over everything, creating anti-social lazy kids and colleges are now going to promote it?

Way to go Robert Morris University, you have taken us one step closer to allowing video games to be considered a sport and to the ideals of Idiocracy.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

 Featured imaged courtesy of [Sherif Salama via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Athletic Scholarships for Gamers appeared first on Law Street.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed in 1984, is turning 30 this year. The law, meant to curb teen drunk driving, has been the topic of debate since it was passed. Read on to learn more about what inspired the law, whether or not it works, and a few unintended consequences.

What is the National Minimum Drinking Age Act

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 set the drinking age of every state at 21.

Well, not exactly– congress is not allowed to tell states that they have to make their drinking age a certain number. However, Congress does have power to control spending, including the allocations of funds to states. That’s why this act threatened to cut ten percent of federal highway funding to any state that did not change their drinking age to 21. By 1988, every state had changed their drinking age to 21.

Critics of the law had two main arguments. Some complained that the law was was an intrusion on states’ rights. Others argued that it was not fair that the federal government could call 18 year olds adults when they fight for their country, but not when they want a beer.

Watch the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), author of the National Minimum Wage Drinking Age Act Late, respond to these criticisms on PBS NewsHour.

Why was it passed?

This bill was the end result of a massive campaign by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to lower the drinking age.

MADD was started in 1980 by Candy Lightner when her daughter was killed by a repeat drunk driver. The group aggressively lobbied President Reagan and Congress to combat the issue of drunk driving, in part by increasing the drinking age to 21. The problem, in MADD’s eyes, had started a decade earlier. In the 1970s, as a result of the Vietnam War drafting 18-year-olds, some states decided to lower their drinking ages to 18. It only seemed fair; if you could be forced to fight, you should be allowed to drink. However, this led to a sharp spike in drunk driving fatalities.

One major cause was the phenomenon of “blood borders.” These were the borders between states with high drinking ages and states with low drinking ages. Historically, 18 years olds would drive to neighboring states to drink, then while driving back, crash and die. The hope was that raising the drinking age to 21 would lower drunk driving rates.

Has it worked?

Sort of — a Boston University study has shown that, since the drinking age was raised, there have been significantly fewer drunk driving accidents, and a strong majority, 89 percent, of drunk drivers today are between the ages of 21 and 44.

But, lower drunk driving rates are not just limited to those who are banned from drinking. Drunk driving in general has reduced across almost every age group.

Courtesy of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

As you can see, the most dramatic drop was in the 21-29 age group. The minimum drinking age did not impact them. Admittedly, there was also a notable drop in the 16-20 age group.

This decrease in drunk driving rates for all ages could still be the result of a lower drinking age if young people had stopped drinking. However, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), 39 percent of high school students still say they drink. The statistics from the National Institute of Health are even more eye-opening. It states 72 percent of 12 graders have tried alcohol and 85 percent of college students drink, even though they are not 21.

So, if young people are still drinking, why did drunk driving decrease so dramatically? Choose Responsibly, an organization that sparks debate about alcohol laws and supports lowering the drinking age, argues that a mix of seatbelt laws, a lower legal BAC, and public awareness all explain the drop in drunk driving fatalities. They also argue that the drop in alcohol-related fatalities actually started in the 1970s, well before the drinking age was raised to 21.

Have there been any unintended consequences?

Different sources have come to different conclusions. While some say that the higher drinking age has definitely saved lives, others argue that unintended consequences have led to a binge drinking crisis.

According to the earlier mentioned NIH report, “underage drinkers consume, on average, four to five drinks per occasion about five times a month. By comparison, drinkers age 26 and older consume two to three drinks per occasion, about nine times a month.” So, while an adult might have a couple glasses of wine a few times a week, a young person will instead have double that amount once a week. Young people are drinking more alcohol in a shorter timeframe.

Watch this clip to learn about why this trend is so dangerous:

Binge drinking can also indirectly cause dangerous behavior in college students. This includes violence, unprotected sex, and even sexual assault. Choose Responsibly argues that this is a consequence of a high drinking age. If these young people were allowed to drink with adult supervision, they would learn how to drink safely and responsibly. Since drinking is illegal, they have been pushed into the shadows. It’s a lot easier to get dangerously drunk in your friend’s basement than it is at a bar.

The binge drinking trend has led some to call for a repeal, or at least a discussion, of the minimum drinking age. A 137 college presidents are signatories on a statement from the Amethyst Initiative, a group dedicated to lowering the drinking age. The presidents argue that they have seen the negative impact of a high drinking age on their own campuses, including high amount of binge drinking amongst their students.

On this point, the presidents are wrong and right. For one, Americans are binge drinking less than they used to as a whole. However, college students are the only group of Americans that are binge drinking as much as they used to. With this in mind, it makes sense the college presidents would be so concerned about this issue. Their point of view is shaped by their experience with a group that represents an outlier in drinking attitudes nationwide. College students are still binge drinking at higher rates than the rest of the country, but raising the drinking age to 21 seems to have lowered the amount of binge drinking amongst young people who are not in college.

Still, Amethyst presidents are concerned about a culture where college drinkers move from bars, where someone can cut them off, to basements and pre-games that are unregulated and unchecked.

Signatories to the Amethyst Initiative have other reasons to lower the drinking age, mostly philosophical. For one, they believe that forcing young people to drink in secret and violate the law fosters a disrespect for all laws. They also believe that a person who can vote, smoke, marry, and fight for their country should be given all of the responsibilities of adulthood, including drinking.

Conclusion

It’s been 30 years since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act became a law, and it is still hard to measure the act’s impact. It’s difficult to tell how many lives it saved from drunk driving accidents because there are so many other factors. It’s also challenging to figure out if it has really curbed underage and binge drinking. More research needs to be done on the issue before the act can be defined as a success or failure.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984

Additional

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Impaired Driving: Get the Facts

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Epidemiology and Consequences of Drinking and Driving

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: No More Victims

Fox News: When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition

Mental Floss: Why is the Drinking Age 21?

CNN: Drinking Age of 21 Does Not Work

Amethyst Initative: Rethink the Drinking Age

Washington Post: Drinking Age Paradox

Washington University in St. Louis: Higher Drinking Age Linked to Less Binge Drinking…Except in College Students

Boston University: New Report on Minimum Drinking Age Makes Strong Case for Existing Laws

National Institutes of Health: Underage Drinking Fact Sheet

Choose Responibility: Those Who Choose to Drink Are Drinking More

Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Binge Drinking Fact Sheet

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turn Down for What: Does the Minimum Drinking Age Act Work? appeared first on Law Street.

I’m not a violent person. Some may even say I’m compassionate. But if I were to witness the defenestration of George Will, I cannot deny that I would crack a smile.

What has caused such a drastic shift in my nature? Well, the columnist recently published an article in the Washington Post spewing his opinion that colleges and universities “make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges.”

Let’s let that sink in. A Pulitzer Prize winner, Princeton educated, syndicated columnist has stated that being a victim of sexual assault is a privilege. When my eyes were first subjected to that sentence my body went into shock, as I was not sure if I should shriek, gag, or faint from the ignorance. Perhaps the Fox News Kool-Aid is stronger than previously suspected, but this is new realm of revolting that I didn’t think possible.

One of Will’s arguments against the “supposed campus epidemic of rape” is the statistic of women who will be sexually assaulted while in college: 1 in 5. Although the government, nonprofits, and research institutions support the statistics he attempts to discredit, the evidence is still not enough for good ol’ George. Dr. Jen Gunter broke down (accurately this time) the “pesky arithmetic” Will complained about. I recommend that Will and all those who agree with his assessment give it a thorough read.

Schools are more frequently including trigger warnings at the beginning of lectures and assigned readings in an effort to alert people who may self-harm or have their post-traumatic disorder triggered by exposure to controversial readings and assignments. Will scoffed at this concept, belittling individuals who would benefit from the notices. The mocking of trigger warnings was the garnish atop a cocktail already soiled with hebenon.

Four Senators sent a letter to Will challenging his position on the issue of sexual assault. He issued a rebuttal, including this nonsensical gem:

“I think I take sexual assault much more seriously than you do.”

Really? Is he truly going to claim that he takes assault more seriously than four Senators who have dedicated their careers to helping victims; not downplaying the trauma they have endured like he has done?

As an Ivy-educated, affluent white male in America it may be fair to deduce that George Will hasn’t faced too many incidents of sexism or racism throughout his experiences — but that is neither my place nor anyone else’s to presume. Just as I do not know his personal history, he is not aware of the thousands of victim’s experiences he was so quick to demean.

Although offensive and infuriating to read, his column serves as an example of the beliefs surrounding sexual assault that continue to plague our society even when there is evidence to refute them. If any good has come from his piece, it is that the backward way of how victims are viewed is being thrust into public conversation.

I am not the first to voice my disdain for Will’s column, and likely not the last. Just last night the St. Louis Post-Dispatch dropped him due to his comments. Everywhere he turns he should be saturated with vehement rebuttals exposing the callousness of his article.

—

Alex Hill is a student at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital. Contact Alex at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Scott Ableman via Flickr]

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Dear George Will: Sexual Assault Isn’t a Privilege appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Unlike most of the world I don’t start my day off with a morning cup of Joe. I tend to just jump right into whatever I have going for the day minus the caffeine jolt. I know, it’s a little weird. But all of you who survive your days because of a great cup of coffee should take into consideration that, most likely, that cup of coffee you are drinking is from one of the greatest companies in the United States.

I’ve had my love affair with a venti White Chocolate Mocha with an extra shot of espresso, but too many of those and a massive anxiety attack will cause anyone to stop with the coffee for a while. Starbucks makes a mean cup of coffee and you can have it any way you want it, that’s the point of their existence. Until now. I was intrigued the other day when I heard the announcement that Starbucks would be paying for any employee who works 20 hours or more to go back to school. It was even more interesting to discover that it would be online and at Arizona State University. I find it odd that there is a specific school that Starbucks has teamed up with in order to get their employees a higher education. Why Arizona State? Isn’t Starbucks a Seattle-based company? Wouldn’t they want to promote a Washington state school? These are all valid questions but then I realized, why am I asking such silly questions. I just graduated from Arizona State with my Master’s.

Arizona State is a great school, the curriculum is sharp and to the point. Not to mention I had the greatest experience with the professors. Most college professors are extremely liberal and I did have a few moments of uneasiness when things were said about the Republican Party or conservatives in general but I was allowed to voice my opinion and it was well received. So of course Starbucks would want to pick Arizona State and the online program has such an extensive selection that you could pretty much become a doctor or lawyer through their online program.

Although I have personal reasons for thinking this is a great idea, I wonder how many other people would agree. I mean there are those who may not like the idea of an online education or attending Arizona State, but I feel like this is a great partnership between Starbucks and ASU. I don’t think, though, that Starbucks is taking into account what their employees might want out of their own education. Some may not feel comfortable with the online method of learning or they may learn better in a classroom. Though an online education is just as good as being in a classroom, some just don’t do well with it. There is a certain kind of person who can succeed with the online program and that is usually someone who is very dedicated and organized. Online classes are in no way easier then classroom courses; in some instances they are even harder. With that being said it is a great step in the right direction for a company to promote education and to want to help their employees become better in their own personal lives.

All in all I say kudos to Starbucks and Fear the Fork!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Jun Seita via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Starbucks and Arizona State Team Up in Exemplary Partnership appeared first on Law Street.

In the past six months, if you were to Google the keywords college rape scandal, a disturbing amount of articles would pop up. Whatever side people stand on for the debate on college rape, every can agree that system is virtually broken. Previous notions of college campuses being an oasis for intellectual development and personal growth have begun to crumble as concerns over the sexual victimization of students are heightened. So the next question is, what do we do about it? Should we address rape culture, universities’ policies on sexual assault, or place all the burden on the individual? So far, it has been a combination of the three–here are all the facts on the college rape epidemic.

UPDATE: July 17, 2014

Statistics

Multiple organizations and government agencies have conducted surveys to gather data on the staggering amount of rapes that occur on college campuses:

Rape

• According to a survey conducted by the National Institute of Justice, one in four college women have survived rape or attempted rape in their lifetime.
• Estimated a college with a population of 10,000 students could experience more than 350 rapes a year.
• Fewer than 5 percent of attempted and completed rape incidents were reported to law enforcement officials. Victims commonly do not want their family and friends to know about the assault. Additionally, victims who do not report their attack, commonly fear of being treated with hostility by the police, that officials will not believe their account of the incident, and retaliation from their assailant.
• 7 percent of college men admitted to attempting rape, and 63 percent of those men admitted to multiple offenses, averaging six rapes each.
• 58 percent of incapacitated rapes and 28 percent of forced rapes took place at a party.
• On average only 12 percent of student victims report the assault to law enforcement.

College Involvement

Schools are suppose to follow ordinances in providing information about sexual assaults that happen on their campus, however that is not always the case:

• Only 37 percent of colleges and universities nationwide reported crime statistics that fully complied with the requirements of the Clery Act.
• 64 percent of schools do not provide new students with sexual assault awareness education.
• Fewer than 2 in 5 schools train campus security personnel to handle sexual assault.
• Only 46 percent of schools provide the option of anonymous reporting.
• Less than 50 percent of schools tell students how they can file criminal charge.

Mishandling by Colleges and Universities

Case Study: Amherst College

In May 2011, an acquaintance and fellow Amherst student raped Angie Epifano. A year after her assault, she published in a school newspaper her account of the attack and the callous treatment she received by college administrators. She wrote that she was questioned if she was really raped, her requests to change dorms and study abroad were denied. Furthermore, she was discouraged from pressing charges, and eventually brought to a psychiatric ward. These events led her to withdraw from Amherst while her alleged attacker graduated with honors.

The schools counseling center told her that,

“We can report your rape as a statistic, you know for records, but I don’t recommend that you go through a disciplinary hearing.”

This is only one example of how the college incompetently treated her.

Her wrenching account prompted other Amherst students and alumni to come forward and announce they, too, had been sexually assaulted at Amherst.

Another incident at Amherst is Trey Malone, a student who committed suicide after he could no longer cope with the sexual assault he endured while at school. His family released his suicide note for publication, where he alludes to Amherst’s incapability to help him,

“What began as an earnest effort to help on the part of Amherst, became an emotionless hand washing. In those places I should’ve received help, I saw none.”

Since Epifano, Malone, and others have stepped forward with their accounts of assault, Amherst has employed new measures to assist students who undergo such traumatic incidents.

Case Study: Occidental College

Students and alumni of Occidental College filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education stating the school failed to protect women from sexual assaults in April 2013. In their complaint, it was stated that they were, “raped, sexually assaulted, battered, harassed or retaliated against for speaking out against sexual violence.”

After the complaint was filed, the college was accused of tracking down students who had used anonymous sexual assault reports. When a student who had used the anonymous report was brought in to the college’s Title IX coordinator to discuss her accusation, she was denied information on how the college had been able to track her down.

Also, Occidental admitted that they failed to report 19 sex crimes to the annual Clery report statistics in recent years.

While the college has implemented new measures to combat sexual misconduct, many find these changes to be superficial and an attempt to salvage their reputation.

Omitting the incidents at other schools does not trivialize the horrific events those victims endured; there regrettably has been too many to thoroughly cover. Schools such as Wesleyan University and Tufts University have also been in the news for sexual assault.

Government Involvement

Department of Education Investigation

On May 1, 2014 the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a list of 55 colleges and universities under investigation for potential violations of federal law over the handling of sexual violence and harassment complaints. The Office of Civil Rights compiled this list to create more public awareness and transparency to enforcement work.

The release of the list works to advance a key goal of President Obama’s White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. It is hoped that this will increase discussion among communities about the issue and the best ways to combat assaults.

By having a college or university on the list does not indicated that the institution has violated or is violating Title IX. The schools under investigation will be continuously updated and accessible to the public upon request.

White House Involvement: President Obama

President Obama has taken great measure to combat sexual assault compared to previous administrations. He has publicly spoken out against sexual crimes, bringing to the nation’s forefront how it is an attack to the basic humanity and decency. The president has signed a memorandum creating a task force to respond to campus rapes.

The White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault was created with the objectives of:

• Provide educational institutions with best practices for preventing and responding to rape and sexual assault.
• Build on the federal government’s enforcement efforts to ensure that educational institutions comply fully with their legal obligations.
• Improve transparency of the government’s enforcement activities.
• Increase the public’s awareness of an institution’s track record in addressing rape and sexual assault.
• Enhance coordination among federal agencies to hold schools accountable if they do not confront sexual violence on their campuses.

As of April 3 the task force has received 30 Title IX complaints, equal to the total number of complaints in all of fiscal 2013.

The government also made a website, NotAlone.gov, to track enforcement and provide victims with information.

White House Involvement: 1 is 2 Many Campaign

Developed by Vice President Biden, the 1 is 2 Many Campaign focuses on dating violence and sexual assault suffered by teens and young women. After seeking ideas from students on how to prevent violence on campuses, it was found that an abundant amount of respondents answer was to get men involved.

Biden and Health and Human Services started an “app challenge” that in turn created apps geared toward young people. An example is Circle of 6 that puts a group of friends instantly in touch with each other. This is incase someone is in trouble they are able to send a “come and get me” message, complete with a GPS map to show the exact location.

Legislation: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 is federal law that was signed by President Clinton on September 13, 1994. It is a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Obama signed on March 7, 2013 imposes new obligations on colleges and universities under its Campus Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act) provision. The provision states that, “Most higher education institutions – including community colleges and vocational schools – must educate students, faculty, and staff on the prevention of rape, acquaintance rape, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.” Under the new requirements, colleges and universities are required to:

1. Report stalking, domestic violence, and dating violence further than the Clery Act already has mandated
2. Accept certain student disciplinary measures
3. Enhance or adopt institutional policies that will address and prevent campus sexual violence

Legislation: The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act

Commonly referred to as the Clery Act, the federal statute requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep a daily public crime log provisions, maintain reporting obligations, and have extensive campus security-related provisions.

Legislation: Title IX

Signed into law in 1972 as part of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title IX prohibits schools receiving federal funding to discriminate based on gender. Under Title IX discrimination on the basis of sex can include sexual harassment, rape, and sexual assault.

Student Activism

Students Active for Ending Rape

Started in 2000 at Columbia University students, Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER) battles sexual violence and rape culture by empowering student-led campaigns to improve college sexual assault policies. The organization released a report in April 2013 examining how schools fail to completely address the problem, giving more than 80 percent of college policies a grade C or below, an F to nearly one-quarter, and said one-third don’t fully comply with the Clery Act.

Know Your IX

The mission of Know Your IX is to inform students in the United States of the rights guaranteed to them under Title IX. Survivors and activists who wish to share their expertise of their first-hand experience with violence, the law, and activism built the campaign. The ED ACT NOW campaign is a part of Know Your IX as an advocacy measure to better federal enforcement of Title

End Rape on Campus

Activists a part of End Rape on Campus (EROC) strive to assist individuals who are filling Title IX and Clery complaints. They want to hold schools accountable for the mishandling of sexual wrongdoing.

Of the 55 schools being investigated by the Department of Education, it cannot be ignored that some of the country’s highest ranked institutions make up a significant portion of the list. Why is that? Why are the schools that should be the pinnacle of our education system conducting themselves in such a lowly manner? Is it to preserve the good name of the school, even if that means endangering the very students that give it such a respected reputation? Thankfully students, organizations, and (some) government officials have taken measures towards reform. If the school administration will not mend their ways, then hopefully, newly enacted  legislation and courageous activists will led the charge.

UPDATE: July 17, 2014

Since this post was originally published, more stories have been reported about sexual assault taking place on colleges. In a particularly high-profile case, a freshman named Anna at Hobart and William Smith Colleges was reportedly raped by three football players during a fraternity party. Before this story broke, Hobart and William Smith Colleges was already one of the schools under investigation by the Department of Education.

Compared to the 60 days that are typical of a sexual-assault investigation, the Hobart and William Smith Colleges cleared the accused of all charges after only 12 days. The school’s disciplinary panel was ill equipped to handle this case, lacking tact and omitting evidence such as Anna’s rape kit and medical records. As with many individuals who are assaulted, Anna has been re-victimized by the community, receiving “physical threats and obscenities on her dormitory door, being pushed in the dining hall and asked to leave a fraternity party. Her roommate moved out with no explanation.”

Anna’s story has become all too common. It should not be a regular occurrence for these horrific acts to take place. Colleges need to reform their handling of sexual assaults, and fast.

 Resources

Primary

Amherst Student Newspaper: An Account of Sexual Assault at Amherst College 

Good Men Project: Lead a Good Life, Everyone: Trey Malone’s Suicide Note

U.S. Congress: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

U.S. Department of Education: List of Higher Education Institutions with Open Title IX Sexual Violence Investigations

Additional

One in Four USA: Sexual Assault Statistics 

Associated Press: Obama Targets College Sexual Assault Epidemic

National Institute of Justice: The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study Final Report

Medical University of South Carolina: Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study 

National Institute of Justice: Sexual Assault on Campus: What Colleges and Universities Are Doing About It

Huffington Post: Occidental College Accused Of Secretly Tracking ‘Anonymous’ Sexual Assault Reports

Huffington Post: USC, Occidental Admit Underreporting Campus Sex Offenses 

Los Angeles Times: Occidental College Settles With Students in Sexual Assault Case

Los Angeles Times: Occidental College Fell Short In Rape Response, Victims Allege

Clery Center for Security on Campus: Summary Of the Jeanne Clery Act

ACLU: Title IX and Sexual Violence in Schools

Campus Save Act: The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act of 2013

American Council on Education: New Requirements Imposed by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

White House Council on Women and Girls: Rape and Sexual Assault: A Renewed Call to Action

Students Active for Ending Rape: Moving Beyond Blue Lights and Buddy Systems: A National Study of Student Anti-Rape Activists

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post College Rape Crisis: All the Facts on the Rape Epidemic appeared first on Law Street.

Even casual consumers of online media have probably noticed the now-ubiquitous trend  of the ‘trigger warning.’ Usually right at the beginning of a piece, the short blurb warns readers of potentially disturbing or sensitive information — rape, eating disorders, shootings, etc. — before they stumble upon it unprepared. As a recent Buzzfeed article points out, some sites, such as Shakesville, add warnings to nearly everything, including a photograph where the writer’s dogs are baring their teeth in a way that could be perceived as aggressive. Other sites, such as Jezebel, purposely do not include trigger warnings.

Trigger warnings are pretty much everywhere on the internet, but now they’ve started to creep into the real world. A number of colleges have received requests from students that trigger warnings be added to syllabi to indicate troubling material, and the issue has sparked debate across college campuses.

I know that I have heard the conversation myself a few times at my own university, but I have very mixed feelings about trigger warnings when it comes to college material. Should people be able to prepare themselves for difficult content? Sure. Are there certain topics that can be emotionally damaging? Yes. But should trigger warnings be required on college syllabi? I don’t think so.

Trigger warnings on syllabi could force optional content and make courses unbalanced: There are two reasons that trigger warnings exist: 1) to allow someone time to mentally and emotionally prepare for a difficult read; and 2) to allow someone to back away from the content because they make the choice not to read it. While the first could be an appropriate use of a warning on college syllabi, the latter is problematic.

How might a professor fairly teach a subject that is perhaps controversial if she is mandated to include trigger warnings? She includes the warnings and as a result student A claims he can’t participate in a certain triggering reading; student B won’t participate in another; and students C-Z all say the same thing. The professor is left with a hodgepodge of students who all covered different material. How does one design a final around that? Non-tenured professors especially would worry about the ramifications of their jobs.

Professors have been dealing with tough subjects since the dawn of academia, and if they’re not dealing with them properly, that’s something to fix.  I was an International Affairs major with a concentration in security studies, which meant that I took a lot of very disturbing classes. Security studies focuses on war and conflict: civilian victimization, terrorism, gender violence, etc. I ostensibly had people in some of those many classes who could have found some of the material triggering, and in my opinion, every time, my professors handled it properly. Whether it was a video, or a reading, they provided fair warning but explained how it was essential to our discussion and lesson. They exhibited sensitivity, and compassion. And pretty much every time I was involved in a class discussion regarding a difficult topic, students were fairly respectful of each other because of the serious and appropriate environment our professors created.

Academia is a space that requires the discussion of difficult topics. Rich Lowry’s National Review op-ed, though highly inflammatory, makes the fair point that anything can be triggering to anyone. Focus on providing the resources to have productive, sensitive, and safe discussions about such topics, because at the end of the day, that is one of the purposes of academia.

Life doesn’t have trigger warnings: I wish it did, but it doesn’t. There’s no trigger warning to stop you from turning on the news at an inopportune moment and seeing something that invokes traumatizing memories. There’s no trigger warning to stop something terrible from happening in front of you, or to avoid an acquaintance’s disparaging remark, or to stop some asshole from yelling something disgustingly racist, sexist, homophobic, or harmful at you on the street. I know because all of those things have happened to my friends.

Academia has a rare opportunity to help discuss these issues in a safe place. It provides the opportunity for students to test the boundaries of what triggers them and then if they want to, get help to work on those issues.

—

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.

Featured image courtesy of [Openclips via Pixabay]

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 Trigger Warnings Creep Off the Web and Into the Classroom appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 for an affirmative action ban on April 22 that was enacted by a Michigan constitutional amendment. Sonia Sotomayor, one of the two Justices who voted against the amendment, delivered a scathing dissent – 58 pages long – criticizing her colleagues’ affirmative ruling.

“As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” – Justice Sotomayor

Seven other states have similar constitutional amendments that ban the use of affirmative action in the higher education enrollment process. This ruling is particularly pertinent as there is evidence that minorities as a percentage of the study body is dropping at n colleges that have executed these affirmative action bans.

Sotomayor’s dissent was not met kindly, however, as Chief Justice Roberts rebuked her on the bench.

“To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to ‘wish away, rather than confront’ racial inequality … People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.” – Chief Justice Roberts

The main reason as to why the Court ruled in affirmation of Michigan’s ban on affirmative action was based on a disagreement over whether the courts had the correct jurisdiction to decide matters regarding these cases, and not by voters themselves choosing directly.

Considering the earlier ruling striking down Sections Two and Three of the Voting Rights Act, people may start to wonder how this Court is taking up issues that are racially controversial. Critics of the ruling say that the Bench is attempting to skirt history by ignoring continuing trends of racism, while supporters of the rulings say that time has simply passed by when racism was at its peak in America. Watching the Supreme Court is important at this point in time, as the country changes demographically in the coming years.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Tony Esopi via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Justices Spar Over Affirmative Action Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Last week we examined whether or not your undergraduate major is a big deal in the scope of your professional life. The conclusion: what you study may not matter so much. But what about where you study?

In the not-so-distant past, a fancy name under the “Education” portion of your resume was a sure fire way to the land of gainful employment. Now, not so much. As I always say, competition is fierce and the economy is not great.

So, is that pricey university worth it now? Does the name matter? Or is it a waste of money? The big-name universities generally cost more. A lot more. A study of the real cost of higher education puts the average tuition at a four-year private university at $129,700 as of 2013 compared to $38,300 at a public institution. And this is only tuition. These numbers don’t factor in room and board. So, is it worth it? It certainly was once, but maybe not anymore.

A few weeks back The Atlantic published an article stating that businesses generally are more concerned with experience and what you know than the name of the school on your diploma. According to the article’s survey, only nine percent of business leaders consider where a job candidate went to school as “very important.”

That number is surely down compared to years ago. Private institutions will have to eventually come to terms with these changes and the shift in priorities. Until then, where does that leave someone considering his or her options for college? It’s daunting, to say the least, to consider that a decision you’re making at such a young age will have a direct impact on your life, career, and financial success or failure in the future.

What is means is: don’t worry about where you go, or what your major of choice is. Do worry about building your portfolio of skills. Your future boss will want to see work ethic, and a diverse set of abilities. Take extra classes. Most private schools even offer affiliate programs you can take at a lower cost at night. That way, you can still get the big-name credibility without shelling out the big-name cash. Focus on constantly learning new and relevant skills to bulk up your resume. Do internships. Get into real-life work environments as soon as possible.

I think this changing of tides is actually really beneficial to coming generations. Employers are starting to consider applicants as whole people, rather than a set of criteria on a piece of paper. Take care to always try to grow in the direction of your career goals, regardless of where you graduated.

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post How Important is an Ivy League Degree, Anyway? appeared first on Law Street.

If you are/were an English major, you’re going to completely understand this post. And so is most everyone else — at least, that’s how it feels when you opted for an unspecific, general course of study in college. It can feel like you’ve signed up to be unsure about your future, like your education was a waste.

Have no fear: majors don’t always matter. Of course, you couldn’t go into a medical field without the proper training (I mean, I wouldn’t want an English major slicing and dicing my body during surgery…noooo thank you), but vague majors (English, Communications, Liberal Arts — you know who you are) might have hidden benefits. They don’t pigeonhole you. If you major in something incredibly specific, it’s sometimes harder to break out into something different — especially for your first job out of college. If you major in something more open ended you can more easily alter your resume to fit a variety of positions.

So, don’t worry — what you decide to study at 18 won’t cement you into a lifetime of potential dissatisfaction. I remember that notion always scared me as a senior in high school. I was so worried that when I started as a freshman at college, my whole life would be decided. OK, so I was a tad dramatic, but still…that shit is scary. And it’s drilled into the heads of high school and college kids everywhere.

Very few careers require that you had a specific major. Employers just want to know that you have the skills the job requires, regardless of what it says on paper. If you’re still not convinced, pick a more specific minor such as marketing or business. There are some skills that are always applicable to any position and are consistently appealing as most careers develop in accordance to our world being more technologically savvy.

Side bar, it’s never too late to change directions (well, it probably is at some point but let’s be positive). My boyfriend majored in percussion and is now working as a website developer. Sometimes all it takes is one or two extra credits or professional development courses to set your career down a whole new path.

Thanks to our Content Development Specialist, @TaylorGarre013, for the idea for this post!

Happy hunting/studying!

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Is Your Major, Major? appeared first on Law Street.

This week, the Supreme Court is dealing with the second case to challenge affirmative action in two years—Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Last session, Fisher v. University of Texas made headlines when the Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of the case, but rather determined that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny that the precedents of Grutter v. Bollinger and Regents of the Univ of Cal. v. Bakke required. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit, and in doing so, chose not to take up the constitutionality of using race as a factor in admissions. Affirmative action remained constitutional.

This new case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action also deals with affirmative action, but from a completely different angle. In 2006, Michigan voters passed a ballot initiative that banned state-funded schools from using affirmative action policies. They argued that affirmative action policies are discriminatory because they treat people of different races differently, and that striking down such a policy removed that potential for discrimination. They are not the only state to make this choice—Washington, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, California, and Florida also ban racial preferences in admissions. The US Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit struck down this ballot initiative, basing their precedents on other cases in which changes to a political process were deemed discriminatory.

There are a few obvious questions that arise from this case. First, what effect has this ban on affirmative action yielded? Does the Supreme-Court-approved constitutionality of affirmative action make it an option or a requirement for states? And finally, what will the justices decide?

Let’s start with the easiest of those three questions: what effect can we see in Michigan from the affirmative action ban? The answer: African-American and Latino enrollment at the University of Michigan has dropped since the 2006 ban. But something significantly more interesting is occurring in some of the other states that have banned affirmative action. Richard D. Kahlenberg found that many of these states adopted race-neutral policies, such as banning legacies, admitting students at the top of their high school class all across a given state, and programs for better financial aid. These states with race neutral strategies had the same levels, or higher, of minority enrollment as they did before banning affirmative action. Proponents of these policies argue that we need to focus on differences in socioeconomic class disparity, not just race. They cite the fact that poor white students only score marginally better on SATs than poor minority students as proof.

Next, does the Supreme-Court-approved constitutionality of affirmative action make it an option or a requirement? There’s no easy answer to this question, because any argument becomes somewhat cyclical. In the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, also focused on Michigan, the Supreme Court stated that certain affirmative action policies that aimed to promote class diversity and evaluated numerous factors for every candidate were not unconstitutional as they did not take the form of a quota system outlawed by Regents of the Univ. of Cal. Vs. Bakke. However that does not mean that states must allow affirmative action, just that they may.

Affirmative action is a good thing. It allows greater opportunities, greater diversity, and helps thousands of students each year get into great schools where they are able to thrive. And we do know it is constitutional—the Supreme Court has affirmed as much. But will the Supreme Court strike down Michigan’s ban? Probably not. Despite recent liberal wins, this is still a conservative Court. The plaintiff, Attorney General of Michigan Bill Schuette is arguing that Michigan is being nondiscriminatory by banning policies that do not treat all races the same. The defense, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is proposing that affirmative action is a mechanism in which to further equal protection and equal treatment. For this court, particularly for constant swing justice Anthony Kennedy, that argument probably won’t hold up.

There’s more work to be done in ensuring that every child, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic class, or any other criteria that has been marginalized in our society can receive the higher education that they deserve. Whether it is accomplished through affirmative action, race-neutral policies, or something else entirely, that is a laudable goal that will take time and effort, but will ultimately benefit us all.

[Slate]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Adam Fagen 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 Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action To Spar With A Conservative Court appeared first on Law Street.