UNC Campus Y has organized a protest of tuition hikes for January 12th, which is amusingly titled “Skip Class for Public Education”. Just let the irony of that title sink in for a second… Ok, now a brief moment on the ridiculousness of the idea that cutting class somehow makes a difference in the tuition debate. All this will show the University administration, the Board of Trustees, Board of Governors and all higher ups is that kids are willing to use the excuse of a “cause” (which has largely been decided at this point) to cut class and protest higher tuition… shocker.
All this yelling and emotion is a method that has proven its futility time and again. If the Campus Y, OWS, or any organization truly want to have any effect whatsoever on this process, they need facts, figures, evidence, and proof that tuition hikes are not in UNC’s interests rather than loud chants and catchy slogans. They argue for unmentioned, unexplained “other solutions” to the problem of budget cuts. What are these solutions, Campus Y? How will they save us from these increases that keep us as one of the best value schools in the nation? I thought Mary Cooper’s plan was a good balance between revenue increases and student concerns for the University, and no one would object to any organization’s attempt to have it be given another look. That is not what the Campus Y seems to be doing, however. The Campus Y is trying to get students to skip class in the first week of the semester, so that they can make themselves feel like they tried to help the students who will be affected by the tuition increases without actually making any difference.
It may seem odd that the Campus Y is having this clearly pointless and disruptive protest. Well, it suggests, to me, that they are more interested in looking like they support students than actually supporting students. Maybe I’m too cynical, but this protest will certainly garner its due 15 minutes in the spotlight on campus (and garner positive publicity for the Campus Y), while in no way aiding students at UNC. In fact, it is easy enough to argue that this protest would actually harm students by sapping any class participation grades they may have accrued had they attended class instead of attending a futile protest. The populist message of the Campus Y would be fine if it were backed by something more solid than “other solutions”, but it’s not.
A very revealing speech by CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ConferencePa (the video is not embeddable, unfortunately).
Here’s a rough transcript starting around 2:08:55-
Question: I’ll be brief. You mentioned that with the AARA as it was moving through Congress, you provided projections based on a set of multipliers and econometric models and then later, when evaluating the effects you used multipliers and econometric models and that gives the impression of assuming what one’s trying to prove in terms of measuring the effects. So, a two part question: first, is that treatment required by the rules Congress sets for the CBO; and second, how would that be different if you compared the initial projections—both baseline and with the stimulus bill—versus actual experience?
Elmendorf: So, our method of analysis of that is not required by Congress. We’ve tried to be very clear on our reports on that that we don’t one can learn much by watching the particular components of GDP over the last few quarters about the effects of the stimulus. We think the best evidence about the effects of past policies comes from more detailed studies done often several years later: the behavior of particular households that got tax rebates sooner or later or whatever. We don’t think you can learn much from that so we fall back on repeating similar analysis that we’ve done before and we try to be very explicit about that that is, essentially, repeating the same exercise we did rather than an independent check on it. The part that is the check is we watch how the money has flowed out of the government budget—we can update that. We’re reading new evidence—if we thought we saw evidence that substantially shifted the body of work in this area then we would shift our views but we haven’t seen that at this point.
Question: If the stimulus bill did not do what it was originally forecast to do, then it would not have been detected by the subsequent analysis, is that correct?
Elmendorf: That’s right. That’s right. In terms of what we would have found otherwise—I don’t remember each of our forecasts—certainly by last March our economic forecast took on board a very large decline in employment, a run-up in the unemployment rate, weak GDP growth in the recovery of the second half of last year. Our January forecast—last January’s forecast—did not have that. We marked down the forecast considerably from January to March. Our first estimates of the effects of the stimulus package, I think, were coming out in between those benchmarks so it’s hard for me to go back and disentangle those pieces entirely.
So what about all the liberal brouhaha over the “independent, nonpartisan report by the CBO”?
As the referendum this May approaches, partisans on either side of Amendment One will undoubtedly organize, argue, advertise, and rally in attempts to persuade their fellow citizens that their point of view is the correct one.
A fellow Tar Heel, Jeff DeLuca, former Co-President of GLBTSA, recent participated in this process by questioning Speaker of the House Thom Tillis about the amendment and expressed his opinion on the matter:
Jeff provided a model for engaging in political discourse, so the video was rightly celebrated, even getting picked up by Think Progress, a left-wing advocacy group.
The irony, of course, is that the very same leftist groups who adore this kind of confrontation fell over themselves to quickly condemn the precisely same phenomenon three summers ago during the health care debate. A quick search of Think Progress reveals article after article mocking those “teabaggers” who were simply exercising their rights just as Jeff did when he questioned Speaker Tillis.
Conservatives do this too, make no mistake. No doubt some conservative in the state had a few choice words upon seeing the above video. But if we ever hope to have some semblance of a civil and measured- albeit vigorous- debate, we shouldn’t jump to attack efforts like the Tea Party or Jeff’s video- just the ideas they espouse.
Uh oh. Everyone hold their breath. In a new twist in his ongoing presidential run tease, Donald Trump has changed his party affiliation on his New York State voter registration to “unaffiliated.” In this way, he is leaving the door open for a White House bid as an independent.
“Mr. Trump has done that in order to preserve his right to run as an independent after the finale of his television show “The Apprentice” at the end of May,” said Michael Cohen, a Special Counsel to Mr. Trump. “Something’s he’s stated over the past six months he might elect to do if, in fact, he’s not satisfied with who the Republican candidate is and does not believe that that candidate can defeat Obama in 2012.”
Get over yourself, Mr. Trump. How many times have we heard this before? If you wanted to run for president, you would have tossed your name in the hat many months ago in the Republican primary. If you are not willing to step up to the political plate, stay away. Run your Trump Empire and star in your TV shows. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. Pad your pocket. You are good at it.
But do not try to play for both teams. America deserves that much. Presidential elections are not a game. They decide the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Stop dabbling. Enough with the charades of independent runs and nice public television chats with Newt. So either proclaim yourself fully as a candidate or get the heck out.
…or something. In his most recent column, my friend and DTH columnist Mark Laichena bemoans the apparent lack of activism at UNC and asks whether this shows that UNC is less committed to social justice than “service hours and other indicators would suggest.” Even more strangely, he seems to dismiss long-term, committed efforts by members of the Campus Y, the Roosevelt Institute, and other organizations on campus that actually achieve substantive results that benefit people.
To my mind, this is a great development for UNC and shows a maturity in how we attempt to address the problems plaguing our society. The futility of student protests should be obvious. Look at the examples Mark lists of student protests that he presumably wishes UNC would emulate: protests against the tuition increases in California, marches against Scott Walker’s ban on collective bargaining in Wisconsin, and protests like Occupy Wall Street in New York.
Now, show of hands: who thinks that, because of those protests, tuition won’t increase in California, public-sector unions will be restored in Wisconsin, and income inequality will magically disappear across the country? *crickets* Thought so.
The same would apply if we had a far more active Occupy Chapel Hill/UNC (and not merely a “damp squid”) or massive numbers of students protesting our own tuition hikes. They would achieve nothing. The tuition hike would still happen because protests don’t make economic realities disappear.
Contrast that with the approach currently being taken by Student Government or the Campus Y- instead of protesting, they’re sitting down to figure out a way to minimize the tuition hike. They’re working with administrators to achieve their ends, not calling them rich, white, males who clearly don’t care about the poor.
Consider the difference between the Campus Y of the ’90s and the Campus Y of today. Two decades ago, the Campus Y was a rowdy bunch heavy on ideology, not so heavy on actually doing social justice. Today, that’s almost completely changed. Committees like Best Buddies, Big Buddy, Carolina Microfinance Initiative, Nourish International, or Project Literacy do amazing things to change our community for the better. But we’re expected to believe that their time would potentially be better spent on protesting?
Protesting is merely man’s shallow attempt to satisfy that need to do something even though we realize that human action is ultimately futile. But on a practical level, imagine all the good that could have been done if, instead of beating drums all day and yelling, the Occupiers had devoted their time and energies to a Habitat build. We ought to celebrate that “this campus today seems far away from its activist history.” It’s not a sign that we’re any less dedicated to improving the lot of man- it’s just that we’re finally beginning to do so, little by little.
You may remember when our beloved (it is at this point I wish there were a sarcasm font) governor suggested that we suspend Congressional elections in 2012, and the “unbiased” Daily Tar Heel refused to devote so much as a column on the issue. Instead they lambasted the governor with a vicious “Thumbs Down” in their Quick Hits section. If not, you can read my brief post about it here.
Well, today, the DTH gave similar treatment to another controversy involving the governor. During her campaign, several members of Perdue’s staff allegedly siphoned money from the campaign to pay certain members of the campaign under the table. The DTH gave this too a “Thumbs Down”. No article or column or letter to the editor… just a “Thumbs Down”.
This gets at the ubiquitous liberal bias at UNC that Anthony Dent has been pointing out recently. It is not that liberals here necessarily wake up and say, “I’m going to discriminate against conservatives today” (though I’m convinced some of the very worst offenders may very well intentionally show bias because you have to try to be that hostile to open debate). They just sweep news that goes against liberal orthodoxy or that would harm their precious Democrats under the rug, and they see the conservative groups offering an alternative as an uneducated bunch who would become enlightened if they “got it”. Whether it is celebrating the diversity that manifests in Muslim students requesting a place to pray and perform the pre-prayer washing ritual (Wudu) and then lambasting Christmas trees on campus or not allowing their writers to affiliate with campus political parties and then ignoring scandals by Democrats, the Daily Tar Heel has shown that it is participates in liberal bias that touches almost every aspect of campus politics and political discussion.
UNC Students for a Democratic Society, a throwback to a time when the Left could actually get things done, seems to only be effective at providing comic relief. From making puppets to oppose the war in Afghanistan to having its leader run for mayor, you can’t help but laugh at their vain attempts to be relevant.
The recent debate about tuition is no different. A recent article in the DTH outlines the divide between SDS and reality. The three main student groups affiliated with the “UNC Education Justice Alliance”- how Orwellian- are SDS, Student Government, and the Campus Y. The latter two groups understand that, in a recession, the state appropriation has to decrease. To make up the gap, sadly, tuition has to go up. Fortunately, UNC has the Carolina Covenant, so lower-income students won’t feel its affect. Middle class students will primarily be affected.
This is unacceptable to SDS. The recent letter to the editor by SDS member Sean Langberg put forward the utterly asinine argument that, somehow, the race and sex of most administrators explains why they want to increase costs. They’re white males, as the logic goes, they don’t care about poor minorities. The comment section is a hilarious read because another SDS member chimes in by conceding the poor minorities are covered by Carolina Covenant, but they won’t apply in the first place because they heard about rising costs. No evidence to support her idiotic argument, but, in their alternate reality, this makes complete sense.
Student Government and the Campus Y understand reality with its (apparently) well-known white, male bias. They are putting forward proposals to limit the damage, but understand that tuition will go up. As it will.
Which just goes to show how useless SDS is as an organization. Given their track record of failure, why does the DTH even pay attention to them?
Over on the Campus Blueprint blog, my friend Wilson Parker asks if the new meditation room is an example of inclusivity or favoritism.
It’s definitely favoritism.
First, let me be clear that I do not think the “room is unfair to Christians.” Like I said in my original post, the room is not unfair to Christians (or any religious tradition), it’s the policy that caters to request by followers of one religious tradition, but not the other.
Let’s not play games: the meditation room was created explicitly to fulfill a request by Muslim students to have a room where they can pray five times a day. The room was given a wash basin at the request of CUAB President Cierra Hinton specifically to facilitate the Islamic ritual of Wudu. That any student including non-Muslims can use the space is irrelevant. Christmas trees are also accessible to non-Christians- it’s not like they’re thestrals that can only be seen and enjoyed by certain students. But this defense was ultimately rejected by Chancellor Holden Thorp when Christmas trees were removed from Davis and Wilson libraries three years ago.
The absence of a Muslim a capella group is a non sequitur. Yes, no group of Muslims have requested to form such a group. But, Christians did in fact request that the Christmas trees be re-instated, a request which, again, was denied. The precedent thus established was that the university would not celebrate one set of customs over others (even though the compromise solution, putting up a menorah and Kwanzaa candles in addition to the trees, was shot down).
I’m glad the union is creating a meditation room, but if they were seeking true diversity they would not create a room specifically (though not exclusively) for Muslim students while not allowing Christmas trees or other religious symbols as well.
This is curious:
If a Christian group needs and would regularly use a meditation room with a crucifix, or if some Muslims decide that they want to form an a cappella group, then they can and should be allowed to do so.
I’m glad to see a liberal reject that idea that secularism necessitates atheism, but I sincerely doubt that, if a Christian group were to make that request, the Campus Blueprint would see it as “inclusive” or “accommodating,” but just another step down the road to theocracy…
Yet another example of crony capitalism run amuck: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
An editorial in today’s DTH lauded a recent decision by the Union Board of Directors to create a “meditation room” almost solely due to lobbying efforts by Muslim students. This is a decision I don’t particularly disagree with- the editorial did mention the fact that, since Muslims pray five times a day, it’s harder to be able to consistently rent a room each day for that purpose. As we are a liberal arts university, true diversity ought to be upheld; however, true diversity does not imply catering to one religion while not allowing similar privileges to other religious faiths.
Let’s be honest here and call a spade a spade. The Union might defend the “meditation room” as non-denominational since it is accessible to all faiths, but it includes a wash-basin for the explicit purpose of facilitating the Islamic ritual of Wudu. If the Union created a similar room with an optional crucifix lying around, critics would rightly call the “it’s accessible to all religions” defense a sham.
Of course, if this room were created due to the demands of and with certain features exclusively for a Christian group, the outcry would be instantaneous and overwhelming. We already saw the criticisms of the Christmas trees in Wilson and Davis libraries. The associate provost in charge of the University libraries gave the reason for removing the trees by arguing that “it didn’t seem right to celebrate one set of customs.”
But three short years later, university officials decided that a Muslim prayer room is acceptable. The default secularism usually upheld by university officials- an Americanized laïcité- is soulless in its failure to recognize the very human commitment to a higher being. A Muslim prayer room is an important step in embracing the pluralism every politically-correct liberal allegedly supports. But given past precedents, the university is choosing to institute a pluralism of favored (i.e., non-Western) religions, not actual pluralism. While this double standard is unsurprising, it is, nonetheless, grotesque.
