Ahh The Old Guard Speaks with Forked Tongue

Once again the guardians of the current indentured system are speaking.  This time it is Ms Susan Dynarski in her opinion piece Student Loans and the Facts.  She is correct, that most people do no default on their loans and when they do get a better job they are paid better then most people.  However, she does not bother to explain why this happens.

First, most people are paid more for their MA degrees because of their knowledge and because they need that extra earned income to pay off the student loans the have and live.  For the first 10 years someone has a good job with an MA they are actually living below the poverty line because they are paying off two mortgages.  The first mortgage is their home.  The second is their student loan debt.  This is the reality folks.  By vilifying Mr Siegel she is defending the current system of indentured servitude. 

What it that current system.  It is the fact that most people who do get a MA do not actually obtain the benefits of a higher salary for many reasons.  First, they are paying off their student loans.  Secondly, they obtain higher degrees in many areas that involve teaching.  This gets worse because many colleges and universities demand a PhD to teach.  MA’s are good enough to teach but not good enough to pay.  As a result many who have MA degrees are living the life of an adjunct.  Yes the no benefits, no retirement, no insurance plan that is offered to all who have that MA.  Many do break out of that system.  However, once one takes out the MBA’s and the MA’s in education, there numbers drop off dramatically in terms of actual pay.  It is a disease that is affecting this country in higher education. 

I too have always believed that my word is my bond.  I have always lived with the good intention of paying my bills.  However, the rules have changed as well as the game.  The days of the MA degree holders teaching full time on staff are dwindling.  And most are struggling to make ends meet with over 25% of all adjuncts on some kind of public assistance.  It is an invisible army of college teachers.  Adjuncts look like all other professors.  Students do not know that these are part time teachers and that the can be fired at will.  75% of all faculty are now adjuncts.  So when Mr. Siegel decides to default.  I can understand.  Ms Dynarski should also understand.  We were willing participants in a game where we mortgaged our futures to teach because we had talent.  Now the game and the system has changed.  How do you propose those of us in higher education make ends meet?  We constantly believed and were told that we could teach at a living wage and for the last 15 years it has become an open lie.  Most college teachers cannot make ends meet and many cannot work outside of higher education because they are “over qualified”.  That is the new kiss of death impose by the new Human Resources elite.  

What does Ms Dynarski propose for a change?  Instead of offering real tangible answers to this growing problem.  Her solution is to spout past facts and offer threats of what will happen if we default on student loans.  I have a partial solution what is yours Ms Dynarski? 

Smokey the Bear New Spokesperson For Abstinence Sex Education

Ok, I admit that I can be somewhat out of touch when it comes to keeping up with the news, but this article just hit me with a big question mark. Today the article Focus on the Family Reveals How Colorado Wildfires Are Providing a Valuable Lesson About Sex Ed just struck me as startling on the verge of hilarious. According to the article it appears that the tragedy of the wildfires out west are conducive to the consequences of sex education in that "teaching students about safe sex is no different than handing them matches and sending them out into the woods." Ok and what does the right think about barbecuing in the backyard? Hmmm, barbecuing will never be the same again. It also makes me wonder about what role Smokey the Bear now plays in this whole new world? I can see the headlines now "Smokey the Bear Now Spokesman for Abstinence Education." Only you can prevent forest fires. Once again, the right has attempted to make an alliteration that will not stick. If anything, one should argue that providing sex education would be a way to "prevent" forest fires whereas if one does not have any sex education that is really giving people matches and no guidance.


Now what about Smokey the Bear's new role? I have always been in favor of assigning new roles to government employees. Smokey has had it pretty light lately especially since the national park system has had to deal with decreased budgets lately his travel and pr expenses have been cut considerably. So I think this new role for Smokey as a spokesman for abstinence education could be a good idea. Its just what we need. Think of it in the wild male bears are loaners having several sexual partners. They then leave the females to bring up the children and go off hunting. How traditional. And, if a bear cub disturbs a male in his hunting ground he eats the cub, that will teach him. But, Smokey is different, one cries. He was saved from a forest fire and brought up by a forest ranger, another male who lives a life in isolation. We could say that Smokey suffers from being a bear living in a human world, but we will have no excuses. He lives his life as an abstinent bear in a human world. Once again, the absurd has hit the right. How can we compare sex education to wildfires. The answer is more education so that a wild fire does not occur. Something that abstinence education fails at miserably. Providing education to students is not like giving them the matches, they already have the matches and more than likely already use them. Sex education teaches students to have water nearby when they safely start a fire. One can read their own euphemisms into this.

The Historic Engle v. VItale Decision 50 years later

Justice Hugo Black wrote the decision of the Court announced 50 years ago this week.  "Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observances on the part of students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause. ... It is neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance."

Over the last 50 years many have seemed to either ignore or to attempt to include a new meaning in the Establishment Clause.  The most recent attempt was by the failed Republican Senate candidate in Delaware.  ""Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" she said in a debate with Chris Coons, her Democratic opponent. When Coons told her the First Amendment prohibited government from establishing any religion, according to the Associated Press and WDEL radio, O'Donnell replied, "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"  Gee it was only 48 years since the Engle v. Vitale decision and as an attorney one would have thought that it would be obvious.  Black in writing the 6-1 opinion took great measures to go back to 16th century England to track the historical basis for his decision.

The one key element here is that it does not prohibit individuals from saying a prayer in school if they want to engage in such behavior.  However, what the case prohibited was school officials in an official capacity from leading school prayers.  I remember my high school days in the Midwest in the early 1980s.  This issue was still being discussed.  What most people seem to forget is that the first Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . "  While the original application of the Bill of Rights was meant to be a list of prohibitions that the federal government could not impose on the states.  This explains why some states in their early days had "established" religions, like Virginia.  But the states eventually got rid of their state religions long before the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court used its provisions to incorporate the Bill of Rights to apply to individuals against state interference.

As a result, today we celebrate the freedom of religion without our school teachers attempting to prostlytize their beliefs.  Children can still pray there is no prohibition and that is the way is should be.  Everyone has the right to practice their religion as long as it does not interfere with another person's rights to be bothered by their exhortations.  Let's hope it stays that way.

 

The Immigration Issue

I take heart at Dr. Sunshine's recent blog entitled A Question of Immigration.  I too have had the unfortunate incident of having students with immigration problems.  What strikes me when these issues occur is how oblivious we as Americans really are concerning immigration.  Keeping with the tone of this blog is the undeniable issue that immigration has been a problem in the US for over a hundred years and yet we still do not fully understand the issues that underlie the problem.  The typical response to the issue is that when one hears the word "immigration" one automatically has a picture of someone from south of the border.  As one encounters the issue of immigration in education, one becomes increasingly exposed to the fact that this is an issue that covers any number of individuals form all over the globe.  Recently, I had the misfortune of having to fail a student in one of my classes who was from China.  He was in a panic that he might get deported.  I an not entirely sure if that could have been the case as I did see him return to campus the next semester.  But, I don't think that he genuinely was trying to scam me in order for me to be more lenient.  Nevertheless, that incident really shocked me to the point that I had a discussion with my department chair.  As an American we have never had to worry about deportation.  It really brings home the reality of how lucky one can be.  It also speaks volumes that despite the very difficult immigration laws people still want to come here. 

As Americans we do not have to prove legitimately why we should be here.  We are granted citizenship automatically upon birth.  I often wonder if children should be given conditional citizenship until they are 18 and can pass a citizenship test.  Perhaps that would help raise the level of patriotism.  Although, I am sure that this is not likely to happen.  What has become evident over the last 20 or more years is that the immigration issue is not a simple issue.  It is not just a matter of deporting those who are not citizens and are here illegally.  The issue has become more complex and, frankly, unforgiving.  What do we do with the children of illegals who have been here all their lives and never knew that they were not citizens?  Granted, we can say that it is the parents' fault for not seeking citizenship themselves.  But many high school graduates have just recently become aware that they cannot go to college because they are not citizens.  This is especially true of poor students who would need to rely on financial aid.  They are not eligible for student loans or grants from the federal government despite the fact that their parents have paid taxes. Often, these students are the ones getting the high gpa's coming out of high school.  Talk about the sins of the parents being forced upon the children.  Now what do we do about it?  That is the the $64 billion dollar question. 

I do think that one answer is simple.  We all have to recognize that whatever solution that develops, it will not be fair to everyone.  No matter what decisions are made in Washington, there will be those who will be treated unfairly.  Once we realize this we can come to the realization that there is no one size fits all remedy.  The must be a new path to citizenship for those who want it.  And there must be some way to document guest workers.  I don't have solutions but I have heard some interesting ideas and as long as we keep an open mind a reasonable solution might be achieved.  Though I doubt that it can be done in a Presidential Campaign year; the politicians will propose solutions but have no real clear answers. One will find that once in office they will have to compromise with those whom they have opposed during the election year.

The Radical Middle of the Road

I decided to begin a political blog on the issues confronting the those of us who are looking for answers in all the garbage of mis-information out there.  I do not intend to be politically neutral nor do I intend to be a Radical Middle of the Roader.  But what I want is to have a good compelling discussion with others about the issues that confront my students and many Americans who are finding that the issues are not being fairly presented.  The issues are not black and white to coin an often quoted phrase.  But what spawned my decision to start this was a series of conversations I have been having with a colleague.  We don't agree on may issues.  However, what has intrigued me in our discussions was that, I think, while we don't want to necessarily win an argument.  It is that we can have a civil argument and both recognize that each has a point but not necessarily agreement.   I hope to keep a civil conversation as I respond to other blogs going forward.