IDS 1: The Promoting Fairness and Equality in Education Act (Debating)

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I would assent to abolishing sports scholarships, on the proviso that the prohibition were only on the use of public funds for that purpose. If some wealthy alum wants to endow an athletic scholarship, that's up to them. But I don't think taxpayers should have to support it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     When you say increased oversight, what do you have in mind?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I was going to say that nobody I know chooses based on the sports team...except it occurs to me that in the South they probably do. College sports is much more important in this region than it is in the Bay Area where I live IRL. You're right, Duke; reducing funding for athletics would probably have a very negative impact on the region's schools.

     With that said, how about this? Our schools reach out to a group of their wealthiest alumni to endow athletic scholarships, and for each one that does we reduce our support by a commensurate amount. Considering how conservative our region is, I think there'd be some real interest in "buying out" government support of the universities here. College athletics would continue to be funded and we would be able to withdraw funds to budget towards emergencies, other initiatives, or refund to the taxpayers.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The critical thing to note is that athletics attracts greater philanthropy. Average gifts are higher, including from donors who also support academics. This is something I know about through my work. It might take some money from academic causes, but much less than it would add to athletics.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     They would probably have to specifically assent to it, or else the universities would lose out on lots of donations from people who would see it as pointless.

     For the purposes of our budgeting it should be yearly, based on the gift date. That's how the university will be tracking it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Anyway, I just read over the bill. I think an important question to ask is whether this is a good goal to be forcing more lower-income students into college under the current system. They are especially vulnerable to the effects of endemic underemployment that face recent grads, and more likely to end up "losers" in the employment game anyway given that many of the best positions are doled out through nepotistic means.

     Also by expanding enrollment of lower-income students, universities may find themselves putting together inferior financial aid packages that include more loans. This is true of both private universities, where tuition is quite expensive, and public universities, where endowments tend to be quite modest. The end result is higher debtloads that can have a ruinous effect on recent graduates from low-income backgrounds. The very people that we are seeking to help.

     This is my suggestion to help out: make college more affordable. We have the power to freeze tuition of our region's public universities, and to do so at whatever level is reasonable for us. This effect would also force all but the most elite private universities to lower their own tuitions as well in order to remain competitive. The exploding cost of college is a buzzsaw ruining our youths and damaging our region's economy. This is an issue that has to be dealt with, or else sending more people from low-income backgrounds to college will just mean ruining more lives.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I tried to keep sections I liked. Otherwise this is pretty much a new bill, but here are my ideas:

1. Starting with the 2015-16 academic year, tuition at public universities in the region shall be set to what it was at each university in the 2006-07 academic year.
     a. Tuition shall not increase for a period of five years, nor may it increase by more than 10% from year to year after that time has elapsed, unless otherwise provided for by the Southern Legislator, or by executive order of the Governor.
     b. The regional Department of Education shall commission a report on how best to cut spending at regional universities. The report shall be due by the end of August.

2. A regional commission shall be established to investigate the best methods for increasing the accountability of charter schools and penalizing those that fail to provide their students with a quality education.  The Southern Commission on Charter Schools shall report is findings in September. 

3. Public colleges and universities shall take no further steps toward race-based affirmative action than the absolute minimum required by federal law.

4. Should any private citizen making a gift to an athletic scholarship or endowment thereof choose to do so, that person's gift may be deducted from the regional budget's allotment for athletic scholarships.
     a. In the case of a gift to a scholarship, the deduction will apply only for that budget year. In the case of a gift to an endowment, the deduction will be permanent.
     b. Any university gift officer corresponding with the donor in the process of stewarding the gift prior to issuance of the gift or pledge payment shall be required to inform the donor of this option.

5. At public universities in the region, as well as any private universities that receive public funding from the region through student financial aid, all staff and faculty shall be required to forward any reports of criminal activities by students to local or regional law enforcement.
     a. Failure to report shall be a misdemeanor, carrying a penalty of six months to one year in prison. If said staff or faculty member is employed by a public university, then they will also be subject to disciplinary hearings, up to and including the possibility of termination.
     b. Any staff or faculty member found noncompliant with this provision may also be charged as an accessory to the crime of which the student has been accused.
     c. Such universities shall be denied the power to discipline students for criminal activities, in absence of a finding of guilt or a pleading of guilt or no contest in a trial by jury or judge.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     In light of a Senate bill currently being debated, I am adding a relevant section to this proposal. It is related enough and especially considering that this is already a hodge-podge of different ideas. Also, I hope to see some debate in here when I check this tomorrow....

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Indeed. I am open to making it effective 2016-17 to give schools time to make a plan and thought at length about it. I went with 2015-16 partially because I am hoping to create a situation where schools have to make tough decisions and cut more than just meaningless fluff. There are things like faculty salaries that are, barring financial exigency, essentially untouchable.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Making it so I don't get notifications for new posts when I post is convenient for fast-paced threads, but man does it make it easy to miss them. Noting Legislator X's objection to the amended bill, a vote will now be open on the amendment.

     Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

     So with 2 votes in favor and 1 against, the amendment passes.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Since this bill includes provisions of high priority for me, I have reached out to the Governor on the matter to try to determine his opinion.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'm opening the final vote on this now.

     Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The bill passes with 2 votes in favor and 1 abstention. It is now presented to the Governor to sign (and now I know where that is).

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A week has passed without Gubernatorial action. The bill passes into law without a signature.