Quick Takes: EEOC Sues Adelphi for Bias, Suit Challenges Exclusion of Scholar From U.S., Deal on Fisk Art, Student Debt Outpaces Salaries, Settlement on Abortion Signs, HEROES Bill, Faster Than Speeding Text Message, First For-Profit Degrees in UK

“Keep your rosaries off our ovaries.”

Okay, that made me laugh. But did anyone claim their religion was being bashed with those particular signs? Curious.

kgotthardt, at 7:15 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Rising Student Debt

With reference to the rising student debt article, the dollar amount used by the Project on Student Debt comes from a Common Data Set question that includes only “institutional, state, Federal Perkins, Federal Stafford Subsidized and Unsubsidized, private loans” borrowed by students and certified by Ursinus. This question specifically excludes all other family borrowing capacities and resources outside the institutional certification process.

The problem with only using that number, put simply, is the fact that the less wealthy the family, the more likely it is that the student, and not the parent, will take on the debt through institutionally certified loans. In fact, for these families these types of loans usually offer the best terms. On the other hand, wealthier families with broader options pay more in cash or use other debt products outside the institutional certification process.

The Common Data Set number is incomplete and reductive and does not in any meaningful way measure the real level of student or family debt to attend college—a much more complex calculation.

Rick

Richard G. DiFeliciantonio, at 10:25 am EDT on September 26, 2007

response to Janet

Janet, If people are going to get a message across they need to use various literary devices. Sure, some of them might not sound “mature” but in limiting the available devices, in the name of maturity you hurt your cause.

Very few people have any desire to discuss abortion in a mature manner. Most of the political debate has nothing to do with the legal debate. In fact, most of the vocal abortion crowd (on either side) has no idea what legal arguments are actually being made. Instead, at best, they see the legal issues as a proxy for some kind of political battle. These people are useless.

In my world, any kind of protest is considered immature. The ultimate in maturity is simply making the “law” conform to your position. Anything else is just immature babble from the masses. It is considered childish to march being for or against anything.

But, so long as you think that public statements are acceptable, lets take a look at them.

1) “RC Church, stay out of politics”

This leaves me confused, and doesn’t tell me much of anything. Sure it is mature, but I am wondering “why” should a “church” “stay out of politics” and what business is it of the speaker to tell a church what to do. In fact, it pretty much falls flat. (This might call to mind an argument about tax law, but I seriously doubt that the protesters care about taxes.)

2) “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries.”

Okay, this doesn’t actually insult a church, but rather says, “You can go about your church business, provided you don’t pretend to tell people not in the church what they can do with their privates.” And, whether you like it or not, abortion is an issue of what is private. At the very minimum, the juxtaposition of the religious symbol and a private part calls to mind at least part of the legal debate regarding abortion. The first slogan didn’t even attempt a superficial legal analysis. It also is catchy.

Larry, at 11:40 am EDT on September 26, 2007

Janet, I understand why you would recommend the “ovary” sign be removed. My amusement was not at a group of people being mocked or persecuted, but at the word play. Word play amuses me even if the exact message does not always do so. Additionally, my question was whether or not anyone protested that particular sign, finding it offensive to their religion. You obviously found it offensive, so you have answered my question.

Larry, I agree that abortion should remain a private issue between the medical community and the mother. I do also think there should be limitations, however. This isn’t the place to discuss my views, so I won’t expound. But I also agree that people get into political brawling about this issue, and that is usually a useless endeavor.

As to protesting, one of the problems with it is anyone who participates in a march or rally is subject to the whims and identity of the crowd. Therefore, if someone wants to bring an “immature” banner, the entire crowd is often perceived as “immature.” The same thing happens when even limited violence breaks out. A few idiots can stink up the entire event and intent.

I’m not sure I would categorize all marches as “immature.” Sometimes marches serve as a last resort, as we saw with the Civil Rights movement. I doubt you are calling Martin Luther King “immature.”

kgotthardt, at 2:15 pm EDT on September 26, 2007

Response to Larry

Larry, you’re our resident lawyer. You stated:

In my world, any kind of protest is considered immature. The ultimate in maturity is simply making the “law” conform to your position. Anything else is just immature babble from the masses. It is considered childish to march being for or against anything.

“Making the law conform to your position” is changing the law. Changing the law is a political act. Consequently, in order to change the law one must become involved in politics, somehow. This involvement perforce includes objecting to the current state of affiars, otherwise known as engaging in “protest” in one form or another. So your position is self-contradictory. Of course, you may have had a narrow view of what protesting means. Maybe people in the legal profession look down on people whose protests include “marching". (From your posting, certainly you do. Perhaps you can authoritatively speak for the legal community on this, and perhaps not.) But to take that view is simply to ignore reality, or perhaps to maintain a silly and offensive elitism (what the “masses” do is beneath what we attorneysdo).

Larry: Can you really deny that the manifold civil rights marches and other protests (e.g., sit-ins) were an important factor in getting civil rights legislation passed, or that the many marches, rallies, etc., held during the time of the Vietnam war were an important factor in the US eventually ending its involvement there?

math prof, at 3:15 pm EDT on September 26, 2007

Locked Out

Larry, many of us are “locked out” of the real mechanism for changing law. We can’t defend ourselves from predatory companies and/or institutions that break the law if we cannot afford lawyers. For example, the student loan industry has been able to ruin many a good student because students generally cannot afford attorney fees. However, the ACLU would prefer to fight for people carrying pro-choice signs and ignore students trying to dig themselves out of holes dug not by students but by lenders with big shovels. In this case, marching may or may not be construed as immature, but sometimes that’s the only way to get anyone with authority to listen.

kgotthardt, at 5:00 pm EDT on September 26, 2007