DREAM Act

During this lame-duck session for Congress, Arne Duncan has recently advocated the urgency in passing the DREAM Act. Under this act, minors who were brought into the US illegally by their parents will be allowed to attend universities at in-state tuition rate or join the military and gain citizenship upon proper documentation and lengthy requirements.

Duncan made a statement that outlines all the positives that will come out of the DREAM Act and rigorously pushes the necessity of the bill.

However, this bill cannot come without controversy. Many support the DREAM Act and say it will be a stepping-stone for ratification of immigration laws, which are up for debate soon. Others strongly disagree, and claim that this bill is only being used to garner the vote of Hispanics and disgraces the nation.

One media vehicle that commented on this new proposed legislation is the online news source Hispanically Speaking. On this site, they reposted an article from Politico.com that states the benefits for the passage of the DREAM Act and a summary of Duncan’s message. This would be a proper place to post such an article because Hispanically Speaking is targeted at Hispanics. A majority of the website is in Spanish, so to post an article that supports new opportunities for citizenship would be appealing for either an illegal minor or a parent looking for opportunities for their children.

This is important because this particular media source supports the bill and makes it look like the answer to immigration. Not only does it offer the opportunity, but it is important to note that the article also contains the specific requirements that illegal minors would have to take. This is especially important because it lets the readers know that it is not an easy scapegoat for citizenship, rather it is a law to be taken seriously, and will not be easily exploited and does not leave holes for fraud or misuse.

However, our friends at Kansas City Star would be appalled…in fact, they ARE appalled!  Kansas City Star posted a letter to an editor that demonizes the proposition of the bill, referring to it as a “bad dream” act. The author comments on the falsity of the provisions, saying that it is unfair to American citizens who work just as hard. The author also claims that illegal minors who take advantage of this new law will exploit it by using it to get green cards for their parents. It important to note this specific letter because it shows how uninformed people can still have crucial opinions that can influence other uninformed citizens.

Duncan Challenges NCAA

This post is different from any of the other posts on this blog, primarily because it does not address a specific policy or law. Rather, this post concerns a statement/essay made in January 2010 by Arne Duncan concerning college football and basketball programs.

In this statement Duncan calls for a reformation of the way college sports programs are run and the graduation rates of the student athletes. Duncan proposes that new regulations be implemented when deciding when a student can go pro, and the eligibility of teams to play in play-off games with regard to graduation rates.

Duncan offers data that about ¼ of NCAA men’s basketball teams graduate LESS THAN 40% of their players. Some schools graduate zero players, while other schools graduate 100% of their players. Duncan addresses the need to fix the unevenness. He proposes that teams with less than a 40% graduation rate should be banned from post-season competition.

The infamous “one-and-done” rule will be also overhauled. This rule requires potential professional basketball players to “attend” college for a year or requires them to be 19 to be drafted. Duncan thinks this is ridiculous because if a student is not given the chance at 18, they basically are wasting their time at a university for a semester until they turn 19. Duncan supports the right for students to try out for the pros upon graduation of highschool, and BEFORE entering college. If the student does not get accepted, he has the opportunity to get an education under his belt before trying out again.

There have been extremely mixed responses to this addendum. George Vecsey, writing for the New York Times, agrees whole-heartedly with this decision. He supports these new ideas and agrees with Duncan on the absurdity of collegiate eligibility laws. Vecsey goes on to say that Duncan’s points were terrific and attests to his credibility, saying he has the right to call these issues to attention and talk trash about coaches because Duncan himself played both college and professional basketball and was a coach before becoming Secretary of Education.

Quite contrary to this opinion is Bill Sweetland, who writes for Ragan Communications, and whose negative toned article was republished by the Huffington Post. Sweetland harshly criticizes Duncan, calling him delusional and unfit for the job of Secretary, and says that Americans should expect more from his position. Not only does he drag Duncan through the mud, he also claims that college sports are a mockery, and that student-athletes are a joke.

This is important because depending on what source a person chooses to read, their opinions can be strongly affected either for the good or bad

Higher Education Opportunity Act: Copyright Provision

The Department of Education has recently revised sections of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) specifically under the Program participation Agreement’s Copyright Provision.

Image Courtesy of Google Images

When dealing with copyrighted material and the illegal distribution, the first perpetrators that come to mind are college students. The ED used this knowledge to update the provision to assess this unlawful activity.

This new condition requires institutions to confirm that they have plans and proposals to thwart the possible unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Also, these institutions must offer students legal alternatives to downloading and/or file sharing.

Also, a subparagraph requires that institutions make available their policies on copyright infringement and the liabilities that come with each, both civil and criminal, that students may encounter for the illegal file sharing. This includes the prohibition of using the institution’s network to share the files. Such “file sharing” is defined as unauthorized peer-to-peer transfer.

As a way to get universities to comply, the threat is to take away federal funding.

Taking notice of this new condition, are The Daily Caller and university blogs.

The Daily Caller writes of the possibility for funding to diminish, and presents a somewhat objective tone. The author starts by mocking the condition, referring to the dismay computer junkies will feel after it takes effect. He then offers a more serious tone, presenting a quote from a college student, which supports the new ban on illegal file sharing. The author comments that this will make only a small dent in preventing piracy, but is a good stepping-stone.

Attorneys Nelson, Kinder, Mosseau, and Saturley have a non-profit blog that focuses on “items of interest” in higher education. They devoted a post to the new HEOA condition, which outlines the amendments and obligations of universities to students when dealing with copyright infringement. In the post is a transcription of expectations that the DE (Department of Education) will send to universities. It outlines what the university is to inform the students of and what information they are required to disclose.

Colleges have already started making the information available on their websites. The University of North Carolina has a link on it’s university website that provides a summary of the new provision.