College Journalism

 I am writing this piece in reaction to recent failures of The Spectator concerning the Kim Strassel event held on January 25. This is not about the opinion piece against Ms. Strassel’s talk, published in The Spectator, because the poor quality of that piece spoke for itself. Instead, I am responding to the blatant lack of journalistic judgment that is suggested by its publishing this column without any evidence of thoughtful editing. 

The failures of college journalism, however, do not originate with students. They cannot be blamed for what they do not know. The glaring problem with The Spectator is the lack of faculty input. 

While some students do have great journalism experience from an internship or work shadow program, faculty or staff members with years of experience in writing for publication should teach students how to write well for readers. 

From simple grammar edits to professional coverage of events, limited faculty oversight would ensure both a higher standard of quality in student pieces and the experience, for students, of working under a careful editor. When writing for Enquiry, I receive pages of edits on a 600-word piece (even when it is a good one). Over the past two years, these edits have improved my writing more than any writing-intensive class on campus has. This is the type of editing and writing experience students should seek out in college if they want to go into journalism – tear apart every line of your writing, if necessary, to improve its quality and therefore the overall quality of the product. You rarely, if ever, get the same experience if only your peers are looking over your work.

 Students should also look to “old journalism” to learn how to write, more than taking cues from blogs and “new journalists.” Exemplified by Vox and Huffington Post, new journalism leads the way in fast and thoughtless writing. While this fast writing is very easy to read and accessible, it tends to be less meaningful. Writers for these outlets are under constant deadline pressure to publish multiple times a day, in order to “drive” more clicks. These posts usually lack details about the topic, the structure found in good writing, and any integrity of ownership associated with the post. Writers can simply edit such quick postings to reflect the current “facts,” whether they are confirmed or not. This too-automatic relay of information takes all responsibility out of the hands of the writer and editor. 

In the wake of the 2016 election, there is a special need to hold journalists accountable for what they publish. Is it surprising that every major news outlet seemed to completely miss the signs indicating Trump might win when so much news coverage was fast and thoughtless? Had these journalists acknowledged the facts in front of them and the overall political picture in our country, the election result would not have been such a shock. Maybe better journalism could have changed the outcome. 

College journalists should not emulate these “new journalists,” or those more mainstream journalists who are too much like them. College journalists need to learn how to write and compose a piece before they adopt an easygoing style. They need to master the fundamentals of journalism in college if they ever hope to have a meaningful career in the field. So I urge campus publications: Think meaningfully about what you publish. Your articles and columns are not only for your writers’ benefit, but could significantly affect student life on campus if you use your journalistic tools skillfully and thoughtfully.

Self-Proclaimed “Nasty Woman” Gets Nasty

One of the most popular videos shared on Facebook last week was of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) “schooling,” “grilling,” or “snubbing” Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education. During a contentious three-hour hearing, the senator took the opportunity to display her classless charm by asking reductionist questions and interrupting DeVos in her attempts to answer them.

Betsy DeVos, a businesswoman and philanthropist, is the child of self-made billionaires Edgar and Elsa Prince. Her business history includes seats on the boards of educational advocacy organizations, which focus on improving access to charter schools in underprivileged areas like Detroit. Former senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has lauded her as a “champion of at-risk children.”

Senator Warren’s grandstanding and value-signaling performance at DeVos’s confirmation hearing was unnecessary and unproductive. She began by asking about DeVos’s background in higher education and how she will navigate the current student loan dilemma. The senator’s questions, however, had nothing to do with the nominee’s experience with issues in higher education, only her personal experience in paying for it. Warren peppered DeVos with yes-or-no questions like: “Have you ever taken out a student loan from the federal government to help pay for college?”

She went on to ask if DeVos’s children had to take out loans. The answer to both questions was no, but DeVos added that her children are “fortunate” in not having to do this. As Senator Warren continued with these privilege-checking questions, she interrupted DeVos’s attempt to explain her (admittedly distant) personal experience with receiving federal Pell Grants. This general yes-or-no line of questioning showed more about Warren’s character than DeVos’s experience.

Senator Warren also got into the issue of fraud in higher education. She opened this part of the questioning with a knock or two against President Trump – using a previous comment by DeVos. Early in the primary season, DeVos donated millions to Carly Fiorina before ultimately supporting Marco Rubio. During the primary season, she also called candidate Trump an “interloper” who “does not represent the Republican Party.”

After this gratuitous aside, Senator Warren pushed DeVos to promise to directly hold for-profit colleges and universities accountable for providing students a sufficient education. DeVos clearly explained that she will have the Department of Education enforce proper rules and regulations for educational standards and government oversight, but Warren accused her of planning to “subcontract” such responsibilities in her position as Secretary of Education.

This subcontracting or delegation really is not a problem at all. It is indicative of the approach of a good businesswoman, and the likely approach of President Trump’s cabinet as a whole. Capable CEOs do not involve themselves in every detail of their companies. They delegate, or hire, qualified experts to inform them of the details of most issues. With this information, the CEO makes an informed decision about how to steer the company or department. President Trump may be incompetent, unprepared, and often unintelligible, but he is surrounding himself with an intelligent, skilled, and economically savvy cabinet. His nominees are generally outsiders to Republican politics, and in some cases even dissenters from it. There are also major Trump appointees who disagree with him on certain important issues. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, for instance, disagrees with President Trump on the Iran nuclear deal and Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson dislikes Trump’s previous calls for a ban on Muslim immigrants. These are the kind of people who will effect change in this or any presidency – those who are willing to put aside personal differences, while also standing by their own views and values, to set productive policy.

One name missing from the social media outcry following the confirmation hearing is that of Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH). Senator Hassan also had the opportunity to pepper Betsy DeVos with questions, in this case about her experience with students with disabilities. Unlike Warren, Senator Hassan was clear and respectful – allowing DeVos to complete her answers – and managed to extract some meaningful information. She helped reveal to the committee that DeVos is wholly unfamiliar with a number of federal statutes related to the situation, and potential problem, of students with disabilities signing away certain rights when they enter charter schools. She did not interrupt DeVos, but asked open-ended questions and allowed her to tie herself into a knot attempting to explain her position on the issue.

This is how it should be done. This is how you resist a cabinet nominee seems somewhat undereducated about public school systems. This is how you resist a president who may threaten the rights you believe in. You don’t get nasty and rude. You use patient cunning to allow unqualified nominees to embarrass themselves.

Bad News for India?

Millions of Americans stayed up late to watch the election returns on November 8. Halfway around the world, Indians were also awake, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced sweeping changes in the country’s monetary policy. At around midnight, he declared that 500 and 1000 rupee notes, worth about $7.50 and $15, will no longer be accepted as legal tender.

The changes effectively cancel roughly 22 billion notes spread across India, stuffed in coin purses, stored under mattresses, and used in under-the-table deals. These notes are 86 percent of all circulating cash. Modi stated that this recall is meant to curb the use of “black money” and to reduce widespread government corruption. People have until the end of the year (less than 40 days) to exchange their current notes, at banks and ATMs, for new ones.

In addition to new 500 and 1000 rupee currency, the Reserve Bank of India is introducing new 2000 rupee notes, worth about 30 U.S. dollars.

The uncertainty of India’s cash-based economy has economists worried about the security of its future foreign investments and unforeseen repercussions on citizens.

This disruptive move is not unprecedented. It follows a similar decision of the European Central Bank, which recently phased out 500 euro “mega notes” due to concerns about illegal immigration, corruption, and the fallout from the terrorist attacks in Paris. Countries in crisis have also used such a monetary policy before: Germany after World War II, the Soviet Union on the brink of collapse, and Zimbabwe drowning in hyperinflation have all issued currency callbacks. But the policy does not signal India’s economic strength to foreign investors.

Kaushik Basu, a former chief economist at the World Bank, categorizes this currency move as “bad economics.” The ban on most of the existing currency immediately triggered a run on banks and ATMs, forcing individuals to wait in line for hours to exchange the equivalent of, at most, about $30. The banks simply did not have enough bills.

While people still have until the end of the year to exchange their currency, the current notes are essentially worthless. Merchants and shop owners are reluctant to accept the larger banned bills, as they no longer have smaller notes for change, thanks to the bank runs. The government’s move seems to do little to fight corruption, but it is already negatively affecting the nation’s law- abiding citizens.

The Reserve Bank of India’s contention that the policy will reduce the use of “black money” and fight corruption may be true in the near future. Looking further ahead, however, criminals will simply store their “black money” in the new currency as soon as it is available. Moreover, the addition of the larger 2000 rupee notes makes storing illegal currency even easier.

The mandate to exchange old bills for new ones also creates a new black market. Take, for example, this plausible scenario: an individual approaches a farmer or shopkeeper (or some equally hard-working, honest person) and offers to change the latter’s 500 and 1000 rupee notes for new ones. But there is a catch: the farmer will get only 800 rupees for the 1000 rupee note. As economist Prabhat Patnaik describes it: the government’s move shows “a lack of understanding of capitalism … Consequently, instead of curbing black business it will actually give rise to the proliferation of black business.”

There are no obvious significant repercussions on the global economy as a whole. It is not difficult to imagine spooked foreign investors holding their money if the Reserve Bank of India indicates there might be more surprise currency actions, but this seems improbable given the unlikelihood of positive results from the current one. Moreover, the new monetary regulations will directly affect only people’s cash reserves, not money stored in investments.

Unfortunately, however, the currency change is negatively affecting tourism. International visitors typically withdraw cash just before their arrival or upon arrival. Now, ATMs and banks across the country have little or no cash to give out. Additionally, some tourists who are currently travelling have either run out of cash or are relying on debit cards that are scarcely accepted by locals. For a country that relies heavily on tourism, stranded foreigners are not a great advertisement.

In addition to its likely minuses for the population and the economy, this currency reform does not seem productive or effective for the Indian government. Many economists agree that the costs will greatly outpace the limited benefits. Even if there do turn out to be few negative results, the exchange is a lot of hassle for no gain in the battle against corruption.

Looking Ahead for the Supreme Court

More than nine months after Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden passing, his seat on the Supreme Court remains vacant. Instead of allowing President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, to take his place, Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have undertaken what the Obama administration is calling “an unprecedented level of obstruction.”

McConnell and his fellow Republicans see Garland’s nomination as an effort by Obama and his supporters to liberalize the Supreme Court. In response, these senators are refusing to hold a confirmation hearing at least until a new president takes office in January. They hope that a President Trump would nominate a more conservative judge in Garland’s place.

In fact, Donald Trump has already presented a list of potential nominees, including federal and state judges. One prominent prospect is Utah Senator Mike Lee, a staunch conservative and close friend of Senator Ted Cruz.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton would have two options if elected – to push Obama’s choice through Congress or to propose her own appointee. Last month on the Tom Joyner radio show, she stated that she would cast a broad net for “common-sense” justices with some “real-world experience.” The worry among conservatives is that Clinton will yield to demands to nominate a younger and more liberal judge: California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker have already been identified as being among those who may be on Clinton’s shortlist.

Although the Senate has the power to refuse to confirm a new justice indefinitely, the strong possibility of a Clinton victory in November means that Senate Republicans should hear the case for Merrick Garland before it is too late to prevent her from filling Scalia’s seat with an appointee further to the left than this reputed moderate. Senate Republicans need to hear the case for Merrick Garland before it is too late. With three justices in their late seventies or early eighties, it is likely that there will be more than one vacancy to fill during the coming presidential term. It is particularly important that the Senate maintain the centrist nature of the court in filling these vacancies. If the vacancies were to be filled by liberal judges, some of the recent high-profile cases that were decided on a 5-4 vote may be overturned, including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.

Approving Garland before the next presidential inauguration will both fill the open seat and keep the court from becoming too liberal. If Clinton gets even one vacancy in addition to Scalia’s seat – or if Garland is not confirmed, meaning she can appoint someone in his place – the court is more likely to move strongly to the left. This is even likelier if the Democrats control the Senate after this year’s election, of which there is probably a 50-50 chance. Waiting for the next president, which by all measures could be Hillary Clinton, may end up backfiring on Republicans holding out for the inauguration of Trump.

Until then, Chief Justice Roberts will have to do his best to mitigate the ideological conflict on the court as it tackles cases involving restricted voting rights and gerrymandering in the term that began October 3.

For-Profit College Reform

Earlier this month, ITT Tech, a for-profit college based in Indiana, chose to shut its doors to more than 35,000 students after new federal financial aid regulations revoked federally backed aid for the students. Since 2015, the Obama administration has sought to protect vulnerable students from predatory for-profit colleges targeting out-of-work, poor, or elderly students. ITT Tech is the latest casualty in a series of shutdowns that has left students scrambling to substitute their credits.

For-profit colleges operate more like a business with a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders rather than a university with a responsibility to students. These institutions generally focus education on trade skills or degrees in immediately practical fields, such as nursing or tech. Students operate with flexible schedules, as many are full- or part-time workers or have families. Veterans also take advantage of the immediate educational opportunities after leaving military service. On average, two years at a for-profit institution costs more than four years at a community college, according to the Department of Education (DoE). 80% of students at for-profit colleges must borrow to earn their degree whereas less than half of students must borrow at public institutions. Graduation rates also differ significantly from public institutions. Only 27% of students complete their degree in six years at for-profit schools. That rate is above 60% for all other colleges.

Following the widely publicized failure of Everest College (closed in 2015), the Department of Education is reviewing the accreditation of for-profit colleges. In a 2015 press release, the DoE outlined the criteria for maintaining federal financial aid. For-profit institutions must provide “gainful employment in a recognized occupation” upon completion of the program. Gainful employment is defined as a position in which student loan payments do not exceed 20% of discretionary annual income or 8% of total annual earnings. Recent issues with for-profit colleges focus on the institutions misleading or lying to students about employment opportunities or job placement after graduation. Students do not realize this until they have already amassed a considerable amount of debt, typically leading vulnerable students to default on payments.

The newly established review process for financial aid has been in the works for a number of years. In 2014, the Department of Education attempted to establish similar regulations that would inevitably close hundreds of campuses and leave thousands of students out of school. A set of for-profit colleges sued the department over these regulations and won. The DoE then revised the new regulations before implementing them.

Losing federally funded financial aid is a death sentence for for-profit colleges. Up to 80% of revenue for some institutions came from federally funded financial aid.  With a responsibility to shareholders first, a school like ITT Tech could not operate with such a drastic cut in revenue and had to close its doors, leaving students scrambling for classes at other, less convenient institutions. The Department of Education assures students that federal loans taken out to study at ITT Tech will be forgiven. This, however, is not the foremost concern for most students. Many students must revise life and career goals now that they are forced to delay their degree. Students also fear that their credits from ITT Tech will not transfer to an accredited institution, only delaying their career success further.

The Department of Education regulations for federally funded financial aid force for-profit institutions to operate with more transparency about degree and career opportunities. The regulation of for-profit colleges extends the Obama administration’s legacy of corporation reform to protect consumers. These steps, however, do not address student debt issues at higher levels of education. The Association of Private Sector Colleges asserts that if the same rules were applied to well-known not-for-profit colleges, many prestigious ones would not pass the test.

Crippling student debt and little economic opportunity have extended beyond students at technical or for-profit colleges. Unable to repay large sums of debt for an inapplicable degree, more than 40% of all student borrowers are no longer making payments on loans.

The Obama administration has taken steps to address the rising cost of education, but many students are left with little to show after earning their degrees. The higher education system must adjust to meet the growing needs of students and a developing workforce. For-profit colleges gouging students for tuition, or private not-for-profit universities charging unheard-of amounts for degrees that do not guarantee gainful employment, will not survive in a competitive education system.