The Effect of the Recession on Colleges and Universities

Ben Barasch

With about a half of the school year remaining, to high school seniors there is not a more diverse set of emotions towards a single issue than college acceptance. A portion of the senior class (such as my Purple Youth colleagues Max, Jon, and Gabe) is already in college; for them the rest of their high school career is about as challenging as criticizing George W. Bush. The remaining seniors are faced with a long road ahead filled with last minute applications, college visitations, and counselor meetings. As someone who witnessed another (my sister) agonize until spring break, let’s just say that I am happy that I am a junior (words that have are rarely spoken). Unfortunately the current economic climate is going to make the college experience, from applicants, to students, to educators, to admission board members, more challenging than it was before.
Basically colleges are run very much like large corporations. Because they usually generate more expenses than they can pay for from tuition, universities and colleges rely on earnings from their endowments and gifts to cover their costs. As we all know, investments in general have not really been in the green of late, and those of universities and colleges are no exception. Endowments are way down due to a combination of the failing economy and fewer people are willing to donate money. Harvard, a school that most would expect to be immune to such a crisis, has  lost 22% of its endowments which equals about an $8 billion loss.  Endowments are not the only financial hit that these education institutions face. As mentioned above, now that people generally have less money, donations are decreasing.
In theory, the amount of money that a parent has should have nothing to do with increasing or decreasing the chance of a student to get into the school of their choice. Many of our best schools have adopted “need-blind” admissions policies.  Now, this egalitarian practice may be at risk. It may turn out that parents who can afford tuition give their children better chance to be admitted to the schools of their choice. That would be unfortunate.
Another problem caused by the recession, is how the universities are going to deal with having less operating money. Less money for colleges and universities is bad news for everyone. Less money means that schools that were looking to expand need to put projects on hold and in some cases schools will shrink or even worse close their doors. Certain improvements that were proposed and were feasible two years ago are no longer economically viable and have been put on the back burner.
An added concern for applicants caused by the recession is price elasticity of   demand for schools now that money is tight. Price elasticity of demand is a measurement of how much interest waivers/increases as prices rise/fall respectively. For example if a top flight student from Illinois gets into a Princeton or a Yale, will he or she now be more inclined to attend their state universities where they can still receive a good education for a lot less? The answer is yes and no depending on the financial situation and circumstance of that particular family. Because of the reputations of the top schools, many parents will spring to send their children to the top private universities. This may spell trouble however for the less distinguished private universities where the tuition is still higher than state schools. It is a no brainer for a student to attend their state school as opposed to a private college/university where they are getting a similar education for a lot less.
Fortunately, amidst all of the financial issues facing schools, most schools have not yet cut into their financial aid programs to free up money. If Wall Street continues to deteriorate, financial aid may be the next thing in jeopardy in this economic crisis.

In my last article, “Why Prop 8 and anti-gay sentiment have to go”, I discussed a number of reasons why gays were entitled to marriage rights under the constitution. I hastily erupted as to why the 14th amendment and equal protection automatically guaranteed those rights. Here I will attempt to take a more specific and legal position.

The Supreme Court of the United States has more than once acknowledged  that homosexuals are entitled to certain rights under the constitution–most notably in the Romer V Evans and Lawrence V Texas decisions.

In Romer V Evans, the Supreme court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Amendment 2 that passed by initiative in Colorado was unconstitutional. Amendment 2 banned anti-discrimination laws for gays in Colorado.  In  rejecting this preposterous notion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “The amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. [through this amendment,] homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.” Justice Kennedy argued that because the anti-discrimination laws did not give preferential treatment, but only ensured that the liberties all citizens enjoy were not denied to gays.

In Lawrence V Texas, the supreme court overturned a sodomy law in a 6-3 decision finding that the statute unfairly targeted not only the rights of gays, but also their privacy. While the majority of the supreme court still did not recognize what the plaintiff argued  was a “fundamental right,” they did acknowledge that Lawrence’s rights, and for that matter gay rights had been violated under the Texas sodomy laws.

Although the court did maintain that both of these decisions did not give homosexuals the right to marry, the simple question is: why not? If the supreme court declared with these decisions that homosexual rights and anti-discriminatory protections were civically violated in Lawrence V Texas and Romer V Evans, and that such civil rights are protected by the equal protection clause, how can it not be rational that a civil legal marriage is not also constitutional. The response of the conservative court is that gay marriage is a social issue and not a place for courts to take a stance. Needless to say it is difficult to understand how equal rights are a social issue but then I guess the same arguments were made by proponents of slavery.  How can anything that provides legal and civic benefits be social and not civil? If marriage is indeed a civil issue and a civil right, how does the 14th amendment not encompass and protect that right. How can you insist that some rights of gays are protected, but not all? It’s baffling. I am not abusing the 14th amendment or even making claims for laws that haven’t already been made; I am merely stating that it is inconceivable for the supreme court to declare that gays are equally protected as a minority under specific laws but then deny them the same equal rights under all laws.

Conservative critics will probably argue with me about how the constitution says nothing about homosexuality and that’s true. But it also says nothing about a government’s right  to purchase land as Jefferson did in 1803. It also says nothing about John Marshall’s proclaimed judicial review. Moreover it says nothing about  the rights of privacy. Yet, I don’t see conservatives complaining about those implied powers.

The previous supreme court decisions that have guaranteed certain rights under the constitution and lay the very foundation for the argument of gay marriage. How can anyone possibly make the argument  that only some laws provide the guarantee of equal protection  and not all of them? How can the supreme court strike down sodomy and a ban on anti-discrimination laws possibly not symbolize a judicial understanding that gays are entitled to equal protection as a minority group. By Justice Kennedy recognizing gays as a minority, he also recognizes their natural rights as citizens. I am not manipulating anything for the sake of a cause; I am only reading the 14th amendment and taking those words to mean the simple things they purport to say.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich Arrested for Corruption

This afternoon, the governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich was arrested for allegedly taking bribes and cutting illegal deals for the replacement of President-elect Barack Obama’s senate seat. Having long been considered corrupt, Blagojevich’s arrest shows how truly dirty American politics can be. The governor’s Chief of Staff was also arrested. US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald described the case as, “the most staggering crime spree in office I have ever seen.” The Governor was quoted as describing his situation of power to appoint Obama’s successor as, “Fuckin’ golden”. Obama had been pushing for his close friend and adviser Valerie Jarret to take the seat, but Blagojevich was upset that the only thing he would get in return was appreciation. He replied, “Fuck her.” Blagojevich’s predecessor George Ryan was also arrested on counts of federal corruption charges. Obama has reportedly claimed he was not at all aware of the Governor’s proceedings. Blagojevich’s successor will be his Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn.

The battle to succeed Obama in the senate has been hard fought and has many Illinois politicians scrambling for the position. Front runners include Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Representative Danny Davis.  Max Godnick

Will Obama Close?

Obama’s up, but supporters are less than
confident.

It’s on the mind of every true blue supporter; will another one get stolen by either fraud or the bradley effect. Democrats remember that the exit polls predicted democratic winners in both 2000, and 2004. And while it isn’t largely spoken of, Ohio in 2004 was stolen just the same way Florida was on 2000. Obama is facing a number of hurdles in his way before he can be president. For those of you who don’t know, the Bradley effect refers to a politician who was the long time mayor of Los Angeles, ran for governor of California, and lost in a huge upset. In the final week, polls showed him up as much as 7 percent, however, a smaller number of voters, especially white voters voted for Bradley than polls indicated.

While much has happened in terms of tolerance since 1982, this specter has been looming over the heads of every democrat. According to some sources such as the New York Times, many think the Bradley effect could swipe as much as 6 percentage points away. If this happens, it will be truly heartbreaking. If Obama is up by any amount higher than 5 points and the  election is stolen by either racism or fraud, americans will lose all faith in democracy. If you thought 2000 made people lose faith in democracy, what will this do? We’ve had eight years of republicans, a failing economy, and no hope. I don’t think anyone can argue that if Obama were white, this election wouldn’t even be close.

Let’s not also forget that Obama is not a fantastic closer, he was pounding Hilary into a pulp and still couldn’t completely seal the deal until the end of the primaries. And lets not forget that McCain is a fighter and has been in this very position time and again. He has been written out countlesstimes only to come back and win. And while it might be somewhat preposterous to say, I think most Obama supporters are thanking the banking gods for delivering them the edge in this election.

The Military Industrial Complex: A Tool

of Defense or Dangerous Profit for A Select Few?

Jon Goldsmith

I am not a conspiracy guy, I do not think the government’s motivation for everything is to get more money into the hands of the already rich 1%, but I am extremely skeptical and suspicious of war becoming a means of profit for corporations or those in power.

Let’s for a moment take a look at our current Vice President–Dick Cheney, Mr. Cheney, former CEO of Haliburton, has been approved under the table contracts for the United States Military with specific defense contractors including Haliburton. Since taking office, Cheney has increased his net worth from $8.82 million as CEO of Haliburton to over $30 million as Vice President when the Vice Presidential job only pays a whopping $106,000 per year. His net worth is increasing from something. It is a little suspicious to me that since the Bush administration taking office, Defense contracting corporations have increased net worth by billions in the last 6 quarters alone. Vehicles such as the new Stryker and F-35 Joint Strike fighter in addition to the F-22 Raptor are all going to cost in the high billions of dollars. A single F-22 Raptor unit costs $137.5 million dollars.

Arms manufacturing and sales in the military industrial complex are really like a bigger version of the automaker or for matter of fact, any gadget market. The mustang you had in 1965 worked fine until you heard about the new ford focus with power windows and anti-lock breaks. The old junk works fine, the defense contractors are making things bigger, more expensive, and more deadly to turn a larger profit. The government and the military industrial complex are so synergized that it is nearly impossible to distinguish where Boeing and Lockheed Martin start and the United states government ends.

One cannot deny that the military industrial complex certainly had its uses during the second World War and the cold war by employing millions of americans and stimulating the economy, however, Eisenhower warned in his farewell address against the dangers of war becoming profitable. Washington warned against having large peacetime-standing armies. War cannot become a business. Our army is all volunteer and all they ask for their tremendous sacrifice is that we do not put them in harms way unless it is absolutely necessary–we have violated that trust.