(The "Guns in Schools" bill has been a major issue for many of us here at BOR, due in no small part to our strong ties to the UT community. Thanks to founder of Students for Gun Free Schools Texas and multiple-time "Best of Austin" Chronicle award winner John Woods for this post. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Over the last two legislative sessions, I organized students against bills which would have forced colleges and universities to allow guns in classrooms. I did so because I lost people close to me in the Virginia Tech shooting, and grew tired of lawmakers exploiting our tragedy to promote a political agenda having nothing to do with campus safety.
We won that fight, in no small part because of people like Chief Acevedo and Constable Bruce Elfant, as well as all the other members of law enforcement who oppose arming college students.
So it was with great concern that I learned Michael Cargill is running for Travis County Constable, Precinct 2.
There are a number of good things I can say about Mike. He is hard-working, warm, and intelligent. He holds to his convictions.
These bills were about opening a new market for firearms sales and concealed handgun licensing classes - and Mr. Cargill was one of those who stood to gain a great deal from that market. You see, Mr. Cargill earns his living at least in part by running CHL Class Austin, which - among other things - markets CHL classes to college students[2][3].
The Twitter feed for Mr. Cargill's business - which may also be his personal feed - offers some additional hints about his beliefs. It seems that Mike Cargill not only supports guns in classrooms, but also guns in bars.
And on July 26th, Cargill wrote, "Rep. Ron Paul of Texas introduced all three bills in the US Congress....We salute you Sir [sic]," referring to legislation which would (1) force the FAA to allow commercial airline pilots to carry guns, (2) repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, and (3) repeal the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (which instituted federal background checks).
Cargill believes in a Wild West version of Texas that no longer exists. Guns should be readily available to everyone, without background checks, for them to carry anywhere they want. One has to ask: if Michel Cargill believes these things, what would his role be as a member of law enforcement?
I worry that Cargill, if elected, will use his office to promote his own business. I also worry that his motivation for running for this position is to give himself a megaphone through which to broadcast his beliefs about guns.
I ask the Democratic voters of Precinct 2 to take a good hard look at the candidates before primaries come around. Ask hard questions. Make sure that the person you elect is a person who represents your beliefs - and the beliefs of Texans.
This year, The Daily Texan asked every candidate in the University of Texas student elections for his or her position on the issue of guns in classrooms.
The NRA has worked hard to make keeping schools free of guns appear to be a partisan issue, but the Texan's fearlessness in asking about the issue in its endorsements demonstrates that student leaders aren't buying it. More tellingly, only two candidates are listed as "in favor" of guns in classrooms.
This time last year, there were two bills in the Texas Legislature that would have allowed students to carry guns in classrooms. Both bills were ultimately caught in the Texas House, after one (SB 1164) passed the Senate, in part because of the time and energy spent by student leaders on the issue.
Although Students for Gun-Free Schools was created as a response to such bills, the organization pursues other strategies for preventing campus violence as well. "Our focuses are access to mental health, and various measures which can keep at-risk students from falling through the cracks," said SGFS's Southwestern University chapter president.
The organization's statewide director, John Woods, had this to say: "There's not a lot of violence on college campuses, and we'd like to keep it that way. But over thirty thousand people are killed every year by guns -- that's more than terrorism worldwide most years. We have a responsibility to make students aware of these issues."
Volunteers with SGFS have also put together resolutions against guns in classrooms and in favor of closing the gun show loophole. They plan to introduce these at some precinct meetings Tuesday, in an attempt to unify the Texas Democratic Party around common sense public safety issues.
"Our biggest obstacle right now is getting the word out about our organization," said Woods. "There are so many troubling things happening in Texas that sometimes keeping our classrooms safe gets pushed to the back of the line. Students know about what we're doing, but parents generally don't."
Campus-wide elections begin Tuesday at 9 AM and end Wednesday at 5 PM. Voting may be done online at utsg.org, or at computers on campus.
Will Higher Education Be the Next Bubble to Burst?
Is it possible that higher education might be the next bubble to burst? Some early warnings suggest that it could be.
With tuitions, fees, and room and board at dozens of colleges now reaching $50,000 a year, the ability to sustain private higher education for all but the very well-heeled is questionable. According to the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, over the past 25 years, average college tuition and fees have risen by 440 percent - more than four times the rate of inflation and almost twice the rate of medical care. Patrick M. Callan, the center's president, has warned that low-income students will find college unaffordable.
Meanwhile, the middle class, which has paid for higher education in the past mainly by taking out loans, may now be precluded from doing so as the private student-loan market has all but dried up. In addition, endowment cushions that allowed colleges to engage in steep tuition discounting are gone. Declines in housing valuations are making it difficult for families to rely on home-equity loans for college financing. Even when the equity is there, parents are reluctant to further leverage themselves into a future where job security is uncertain.
Consumers who have questioned whether it is worth spending $1,000 a square foot for a home are now asking whether it is worth spending $1,000 a week to send their kids to college. There is a growing sense among the public that higher education might be overpriced and under-delivering.
While this highlights the problems facing private colleges, I think the general point is still applicable and a very scary prospect given that Texas is falling to match it's support of public higher education (making even state supported school appear more like private institutions as far as their funding is concerned). See the chart below which included in UT-Austin's promotional materials for it's $3 billion Campaign for Texas fundraising drive.
Growing up, higher education was a given of something that I was expected to pursue; it was never a decision that was calculated based upon a cost-benefit analysis. Maybe that's because it was simply assumed that the benefit most certainly was going to outweigh the cost. Is that the core point being made here- that we are no longer assuming that higher education is a "value" but simply a "value added" subject to a risk/benefit analysis?
Earlier this week good news came when seven emerging institutions were invited to try out for the status of Flagship college campus in the state of Texas. Texas Tech, the University of Houston, the University of North Texas, and the UT campuses at Dallas, Arlington, El Paso, and San Antonio were the schools chosen.
Today, though, Texas Tech Chancellor Kent Hance said something worrying earlier this week:
Kent Hance, chancellor of the Texas Tech University System, took a mild shot at humanities research at the same hearing when he declared that research on "the best part of Shakespeare's play" isn't on the same level as the research his university is conducting for the Defense Department.
Mr. Hance testified to that extent in a Senate Higher Education hearing on Wednesday. The implication is unfortunate: his focus would be on the sciences and engineering (in all fairness, very important subjects) ahead of the liberal arts.
When auditioning for Flagship status, Mr. Hance and those at Texas Tech needs to be questioned on their actual policies for the liberal arts. There are three critical reasons for this.
As a flagship institution for the state of Texas, a college campus should strive for excellence in all academic matters. For that level of funding, partial greatness doesn't cut it.
The liberal arts are about understanding people, and in order for the United States to compete on an international level, we must give our students strong opportunities to understand their fellow human beings on this planet.
Finally, in an age where ideological warfare very often seems coupled with physical battles, the humanities seem key to help the technologies of the Defense Department succeed. General David Petraeus has often been dubbed a warrior-scholar, and the reason he currently succeeds in Iraq is not only because he has studied tactics of beating down an enemy, but also because he has studied the mindset of those in an insurgency: studies that some of us in the social sciences actually excel in.
I'm proud that William Powers, our head guy at the University of Texas, stood in support of the liberal arts, stating, "Those are parts of the American culture that drive our economy in the long run."
Hopefully the man or woman running the next flagship institution here will realize that, too.
May 29, 2008 -- The Texas Legislative Study Group, a public policy group Chaired by Rep. Garnet Coleman, releases an eight-page study on the "State of Higher Education in Texas" -- which includes numerous lengthy, policy-based recommendations, including the following call for more Top Tier universities in Texas:
The state's investment in university research programs must be expanded, creating more tier-one institutions of higher learning to compete with other states - this would ease crowding at Texas' two flagship universities by increasing available slots of excellence for Texas students while bringing more industries and economic development to the state and creating jobs for Texans.
The same higher-ed report declared another vital goal: building more Tier One universities in Texas. In doing so, the House's Legislative Study Group became the first panel of lawmakers to propose an approach for next year's lawmaking session.
The argument is student-focused, an important perspective. With only two top-tier public universities – the University of Texas and Texas A&M – the state can't accommodate the growing number of high-achieving students looking for a selective university with research-rich doctoral programs. Automatic admissions under the top 10 percent law put particular pressure on both schools.
The president of the University of Texas delivered an impassioned plea to state legislators Wednesday to provide the financial and political support for lifting one or two public universities to top-tier status.
[...]
"I think it'll take great leadership in the Legislature, the rest of government and on our campuses and (university) systems."
We agree, President Powers. And it's pretty clear what policy group -- and which political party -- has been willing to show that great leadership in the Legislature.
More Top Tier universities will do an incredible amount for the state of Texas. I'm going to close with the following argument from the LSG report that started it all:
Investment by the state serves as seed money. To qualify as tier one, a school needs to spend $100 million on research. After initial investments by the state, additional funding is drawn from federal and private grants as a return on the investment. Investment in research and development yields a 20 to 30 percent rate of return to the state in terms of jobs and economic stimulus.
Money begets money, and the state’s additional investment in institutions of higher education would not only greatly expand the possibilities for students, resulting in a better educated populace, but would help the state maintain a competitive economic edge in technology and human capital in the 21st century.
El Paso families this week said as gas prices and food bills keep inching upward, they are faced with tough decisions about how to pay ever-higher tuition at Texas public universities. Lawmakers preparing for the legislative session in 2009 are hearing those worries and threatening drastic moves to rein in the cost of higher education.
[...] It's a different story in Texas, where the burgeoning number of Hispanics will feed a 20 percent increase in the number of high school graduates in the next few years, even as the number of Anglo students dwindles. In the face of a shaky economy, these grads are likely to flock to college. But statistics show that as a group, they will show up less academically prepared and less able to pay the 50 percent jump in x the price of public higher education since 2003.
Tuition at Texas universities rose 58 percent between 2003, when schools were first allowed to set their own rates, and 2007. Student fees have gone up, too. "With tuition and gas, it's hard to make ends meet," said Charlotte Atkinson, 26, a senior at the University of Houston, where tuition rose 67 percent.
This is an issue I've written extensively on before. But the latest swarm of news has followed ever since Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston) -- who I worked for as Chief of Staff in the 80th Regular Session -- released, in his role as Chair of the Legislative Study Group, an extensive policy paper on the rising costs of higher education. (Read the LSG report here).
In fact, Rep. Coleman predicted this tide. From Kuff, we can read an editorial Rep. Coleman wrote in 2004:
Knowing that it would further strain the ability of many students to pursue a college education, our short-sighted leaders forged ahead with their plan to deregulate tuition. Students holding jobs to pay for their college education will be required to work longer hours or take out additional student loans to cover the costs of unchecked tuition increases.
The LSG Report that got the ball rolling on this issue received praise in two excellent editorials from the Dallas Morning News:
Texas Democrats would do well to heed the policy advice of Rep. Coleman on this issue -- as well as what their constituents want -- and advocate for an end to tuition deregulation.
With our second straight session of a multi-billion surplus, it's time we start investing our state general revenue dollars into areas of state budgeting that help all Texans (like lowering the cost of tuition) instead of continually funding property tax relief for only the richest Texans.
University of Texas at Austin President Bill Powers, in an email to UT alumni and friends, came out in support of increasing higher education capacity and funding "excellence" at the state's existing national research universities.
We cannot escape the fact that Texas spends less of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on education than other states. In 2006, Texas' spending on higher education and public schools amounted to 3.35% of our GDP. Michigan spent 4.49%, California spent 4.24%, and North Carolina spent 4.05%.* These differences may seem slight, but as an illustration, if we added 1% of our state GDP to education spending, it would generate $8.5 billion. Adding 1/10 of 1% would provide $850 million annually.
It is also worth noting that California spends almost twice as much on higher education than Texas, and it has done so consistently for many years, even though its population is only a third larger. That investment has surely played a role in California's GDP, which is 75% greater than ours.
Simply put, our competitors are investing more in education, and they have systematically done so for years. We are far behind.
Powers echoes many of the same thoughts as LSG Chair State Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston), and even notes the fallacy of the Legislature's current spending practices as they relate to the state of education in Texas:
So Governor Rick Perry apparently is "concerned that higher education is "becoming out of reach" for some Texans." Well, I guess that's a start.
So concerned about Texas teenagers reaching the college level, he called a summit on Wednesday for university regents and business folk to discuss the problems at hand with Texas' higher education. He thinks accessibility and affordability can mostly be solved by the boards of regents without new mandates by the legislature (such as renewing a tuition cap).
Unfortunately, that will only happen if his appointed regents decide they don't need to raise tuition for all their money, but I doubt most universities will follow Texas Tech's sterling example. Freezing tuition is often not even considered an option by regents, and it certainly isn't one considered by Perry.
But what else can the regents do? One would think that would have been discussed in his summit. The Houston Chronicle reports on those discussions:
Rising tuition, which has strained the budgets of many Texas students and their families since Perry signed a tuition deregulation law in 2003, was barely mentioned all day.
But the governor said his proposed reforms, which also include separating universities' research and education budgets and changing how tenure is determined for some professors, would make higher education "more accessible."
I don't know what our governor is getting at. If someone could explain to me how he is making Texas universities more accessible, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, my diagnosis is a case of delusion. Rick Perry thinks that, even after a very lucky plurality-victory in 2006, that he will make a good candidate for reelection in 2010. He thinks that his political showmanship will be enough for Texas voters.
Mr. Perry, let me give you a reminder. Texans showed in 2006 that they want more than showmanship. That's why you had such a tough time winning, and that's why State House Republicans lost 6 seats. Texas college students also know that their tuition is rising, and they want to see something real to remedy the problem.
Perhaps regulate tuition again? The regents at Texas Tech can't be that crazy, can they? I think the legislature will have much work ahead of them with state education. And I hope, for once, tangible solutions are put on the table.
Key Point: Since Republicans took over Texas government five years ago, tuition has skyrocketed -- increasing by 68% across the UT system. Bottom line: Republicans are pricing families out of the opportunity of higher education.
When Republicans took control of the Texas Legislature in 2003, they did everything in their power to shrink government in order to ensure that Texas families were left to drown in the bathtub. Take, for example, tuition deregulation.
Prior to 2003, the state invested in higher education tuition and set a hard cap for universities. This created low tuition for Texas colleges and universities, allowing Texas families -- many of whom are middle and working class -- to still have opportunties for higher education.
However, the 78th Legislature chose to implement tuition deregulation, allowing Texas colleges and universities to jack up tuition without any measurable increase in the quality of education. I started school in the fall of 2002, and left UT-Austin in the spring of 2006, and I never once witnessed any measurable increase in the quality of my education. I did, however, notice an increase in tuition -- an increase that is hitting students and families hard.
UT Regents -- appointed by the failed Republican leadership we must desparately replace -- have decided to increase tuition and fees at the UT system schools once again. Here is a look at the increase in tuition in fees, from the fall of 2003 (the last year before tuition deregulation) and what families can expect to pay when they begin their college journey next fall:
I'm researching how much Texas' other schools and universities are increasing their tuition and fees for the Fall of 2008. I know that, for the fall of 2007, the University of Houston had already witnessed a 70% increase in tuition and fees. The problem isn't unique to the UT system -- I'm using their figures to illustrate the larger problem:
If we don't put a halt to the skyrocketing tuition increases, Texas families are no longer going to be able to afford schools. For some, that means graduating high school seniors will simply choose not to go to college. For others, they will simply choose to attend school elsewhere, especially since the state's financial aid programs -- such as the Texas GRANT program -- now enroll fewer children than they did five years ago. There's real lives at stake in this November's elections.
TDP Chair Boyd Richie had this to say in a release today about the skyrocketing tuition increase:
“With rising gas prices, soaring homeowner insurance rates, and an economic downturn, the last thing Texas families need is another “tuition tax increase,” concluded Richie. “Uncontrolled tuition is another Republican failure that provides a powerful reason for Texas voters to elect Democrats this November and in 2010. "We need elected officials—not Republican donor appointees— who will take responsibility for making affordable higher education and the creation of an educated workforce a real priority. The economic future of Texas depends on it.”
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said he is investigating whether the athletic departments steered students to lenders in exchange for kickbacks, as well as how team names, mascots and colors may have been used to suggest the company was a school's preferred lender.
At [the University of Houston], the athletic department's Web site features a prominent advertisement for University Financial Services.
With a red and blue border, the ad encourages "Cougars" to consolidate their student loans at a lower monthly payment. The lender identifies itself as "a proud paying sponsor of University of Houston Athletics."
The student loan industry has grown substantially over the past few years, in large part because the skyrocketing cost of tuition. Incidentally, since 2003 when the GOP legislative leadership passed tuition deregulation, the cost of tuition and fees at state-supported universities in Texas has shot up 39%.
The New York Times reports on a "fast spreading, Velco-like aquatic fern" that, in 1950's horror-movie fashion, seems to be taking over Caddo Lake. Any East Texans have any first hand experience they'd like to share in the comments?
The House of Representative passed a reauthorization and expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) yesterday, which since 1997 has provided affordable health insurance for millions of children whose parents can't afford to buy insurance on their own yet make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Vince at Capitol Annex is all over the House floor debate from yesterday, including some unfortunately predictable shenanigans from Texas Republicans.
Starting this fall, the pledge to the Texas flag will have a little more God in it, thanks to a bill Rep. Debbie "Pit of Hell" Riddle authored and passed this session. This was little reported, but Rep. Scott Hochberg and she had a pretty good exchange during debate on the legislation:
HOCHBERG: Tell me why you picked out, you said last night that you were trying to essentially conform our pledge to the national pledge, and if I'm misstating what you said, please clarify that for me.
RIDDLE: No, that, I think, is what I made very clear, that in our national pledge, we say, "one nation under God." I felt like it was altogether right and appropriate for us to have in our state pledge, that we would say, "one state under God."
HOCHBERG: We also, in the national pledge, if I'm not mistaken, say, "with liberty and justice for all." You didn't include that in your bill, I don't believe. Was there some reason that you didn't include that, but you did include the "under God" part?
RIDDLE: No.
HOCHBERG: No? Would you take a third reading amendment to add, "with liberty and justice for all?"
RIDDLE: No.
The whole exchange (which you can read here) was pretty funny; Riddle seemed stunned by the question, and ended up saying she wanted to mirror the national pledge without explaining why she didn't want "liberty and justice for all." Apparently "liberty and justice for all" doesn't deserve repeating in Texas, but "under God" does. Go figure.
