Comments on: Universities Becoming Their Own Country (and a repressive one at that) http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/07/universities_be.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:39:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Kurt http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/07/universities_be.html/comment-page-1#comment-3429 Kurt Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:52:46 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/07/universities_be.html#comment-3429 <p>Along these lines, the University of Pennsylvania (and I assume many others) requires all grad students to have fairly expensive health insurance. You are forced to buy the university's group plan unless you can prove that you already have a "gold-plated" plan (my old provider, BCBS, did not offer any plans at any price which met UPenn's requirements for waiving mandatory enrollment in UPenn's plan). Thus low-risk students are basically forced into subsidizing high risk students within the university's group plan pool, a la the Massachusets program. Heaven forbid we let students make independent decisions about their spending and health care. Apparently the people that create recruiting materials showing the students as indepent critical thinkers haven't talked to the people making health care policy in the next building over.</p> Along these lines, the University of Pennsylvania (and I assume many others) requires all grad students to have fairly expensive health insurance. You are forced to buy the university’s group plan unless you can prove that you already have a “gold-plated” plan (my old provider, BCBS, did not offer any plans at any price which met UPenn’s requirements for waiving mandatory enrollment in UPenn’s plan). Thus low-risk students are basically forced into subsidizing high risk students within the university’s group plan pool, a la the Massachusets program. Heaven forbid we let students make independent decisions about their spending and health care. Apparently the people that create recruiting materials showing the students as indepent critical thinkers haven’t talked to the people making health care policy in the next building over.

]]> By: Max Lybbert http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/07/universities_be.html/comment-page-1#comment-3428 Max Lybbert Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:22:38 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/07/universities_be.html#comment-3428 <p>/ * By my calculations, if half the lawyers thought that “offensive” speech that is reported should be punished, and half the lawyers thought that administrators should spend their time cruising the websites and proactively stamping out “offensive” speech<br /> */</p> <p>It sounds like half of those lawyers usually work for plaintiffs, and half for defendants.</p> / * By my calculations, if half the lawyers thought that “offensive” speech that is reported should be punished, and half the lawyers thought that administrators should spend their time cruising the websites and proactively stamping out “offensive” speech
*/

It sounds like half of those lawyers usually work for plaintiffs, and half for defendants.

]]> By: Josh http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/07/universities_be.html/comment-page-1#comment-3427 Josh Sun, 16 Jul 2006 02:04:24 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/07/universities_be.html#comment-3427 <p>---"The plaintiff then sued the university for sexual harassment, and the 11th Circuit held this year that the university could be liable because, by waiting to conduct an independent investigation until the criminal case was resolved, it had exhibited deliberate indifference to the alleged rape."</p> <p>---"Its interesting to see that while opposing such programs at the national level, they are crafting far more far-reaching speech monitoring and restriction programs on their own campuses."</p> <p>It looks like the courts are forcing them to take on more and more of these "nanny" responsibilities. What would you have them do?</p> —”The plaintiff then sued the university for sexual harassment, and the 11th Circuit held this year that the university could be liable because, by waiting to conduct an independent investigation until the criminal case was resolved, it had exhibited deliberate indifference to the alleged rape.”

—”Its interesting to see that while opposing such programs at the national level, they are crafting far more far-reaching speech monitoring and restriction programs on their own campuses.”

It looks like the courts are forcing them to take on more and more of these “nanny” responsibilities. What would you have them do?

]]> By: dtes http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/07/universities_be.html/comment-page-1#comment-3426 dtes Sat, 15 Jul 2006 07:10:25 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/07/universities_be.html#comment-3426 <p>you may enjoy this one too coyote:<br /> http://poorandstupid.com/2006_07_09_chronArchive.asp#115284155746616705</p> you may enjoy this one too coyote:
http://poorandstupid.com/2006_07_09_chronArchive.asp#115284155746616705

]]> By: dtes http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/07/universities_be.html/comment-page-1#comment-3425 dtes Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:57:57 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/07/universities_be.html#comment-3425 <p>I'd encourage you to read this: http://poorandstupid.com/2006_07_09_chronArchive.asp#115291632826618087, Miron's fourth principle, if you haven't already, from the esteemed Don Luskin. It relates to the current thread and it also relates to the principle topic of your blog.</p> <p>all the best. dtes</p> I’d encourage you to read this: http://poorandstupid.com/2006_07_09_chronArchive.asp#115291632826618087, Miron’s fourth principle, if you haven’t already, from the esteemed Don Luskin. It relates to the current thread and it also relates to the principle topic of your blog.

all the best. dtes

]]> By: Matt http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/07/universities_be.html/comment-page-1#comment-3424 Matt Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:34:47 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/07/universities_be.html#comment-3424 <p>I'd cast more of the blame at the plaintiff's bar than he does. One student suing another student for (for example) libel isn't likely to be the source of the kind of mega-damages that pay the lawyers' Mercedes leases. But a student suing the _university_ for the (alleged) libel committed by another student using university-provided computer network access is just what a contingency lawyer who wants to make the same kind of tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-per-hour that class action lawyers get is going to want to pursue.</p> <p>Hence, anything a student does that might possibly have had some (however remote) involvement of equipment, resources, or time passively provided by the university in the routine course of providing education and housing, which any court anywhere might possibly, in the nightmares of the administration and their own lawyers, find to be a tort of any sort, is converted into "if this happens, the university will lose millions". Or at least, it is in the minds of those administrators and those lawyers.</p> <p>Of course, they HAVE demonstrated on many occasions that even when there isn't money involved, "free speech for me but none for thee" is their natural mantra. I simply wish to point out that, in this sort of context, there's a powerful economic incentive operating as well, in addition to the ideology.</p> I’d cast more of the blame at the plaintiff’s bar than he does. One student suing another student for (for example) libel isn’t likely to be the source of the kind of mega-damages that pay the lawyers’ Mercedes leases. But a student suing the _university_ for the (alleged) libel committed by another student using university-provided computer network access is just what a contingency lawyer who wants to make the same kind of tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-per-hour that class action lawyers get is going to want to pursue.

Hence, anything a student does that might possibly have had some (however remote) involvement of equipment, resources, or time passively provided by the university in the routine course of providing education and housing, which any court anywhere might possibly, in the nightmares of the administration and their own lawyers, find to be a tort of any sort, is converted into “if this happens, the university will lose millions”. Or at least, it is in the minds of those administrators and those lawyers.

Of course, they HAVE demonstrated on many occasions that even when there isn’t money involved, “free speech for me but none for thee” is their natural mantra. I simply wish to point out that, in this sort of context, there’s a powerful economic incentive operating as well, in addition to the ideology.

]]> By: Matthew Brown http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/07/universities_be.html/comment-page-1#comment-3423 Matthew Brown Sat, 15 Jul 2006 03:20:00 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/07/universities_be.html#comment-3423 <p>In fact, having the university's own investigation running parallel to the criminal one could quite possibly compromise the criminal investigation - but it seems that doesn't matter.</p> In fact, having the university’s own investigation running parallel to the criminal one could quite possibly compromise the criminal investigation – but it seems that doesn’t matter.

]]>