February 9, 2010
Tale of Two CEOs
posted by Michelle Harner
As I mentioned in a previous post, Bank of America and some of its current and former executives, including its former CEO Ken Lewis, are facing tough times. The executives were named as defendants in a scathing complaint filed last week by New York Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, relating to Bank of America’s 2008 acquisition of Merrill Lynch. And yesterday, Judge Rakoff suggested that he might not approve Bank of America’s latest $150 million deal with the SEC to settle allegations of fraud and misconduct in connection with the Merrill Lynch acquisition. Judge Rakoff expressed his views that the settlement was too small, lacked focus on the individual executives and did provide sufficient oversight of Bank of America’s proposed corporate governance changes.
In contrast to these trying times for Bank of America and its executives, one former Bank of America/Merrill Lynch executive is getting a second chance. John Thain, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch who orchestrated the Bank of America deal and then redecorated his office for a reported $1.2 million, was named as the new CEO of small business lender, CIT. Admittedly, CIT could use a talented turnaround artist at its helm; having just emerged from bankruptcy, CIT has a long way to go. And the markets seem to think Thain is the guy. Time will tell whether Thain can achieve for CIT what he did for NYSE and Merrill Lynch. In the interim, Thain’s new opportunity must add insult to injury on the heels of Bank of America’s and its executives’ latest legal challenges, which stem in part from bonuses that Thain approved for Merrill Lynch employees immediately before the Bank of America acquisition.
February 9, 2010 at 7:50 am
Tags: Corporate Law, Current Events
Posted in: Uncategorized
Print This Post
Comments (0)
February 8, 2010
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Rewards
posted by Gerard Magliocca
In my last post I explained that the state sometimes offers money or status (a reward) to regulate behavior instead of imposing sanctions or granting property rights. Now let me explain the pros and cons of this approach.
On the positive side, a reward is almost always less intrusive than sanctions. The best example is the difference between the draft (or any compulsory labor) and the volunteer military. While in that case offering inducements is the more expensive option, in many instances rewards are also a cheaper form of regulation because their enforcement costs are insignificant compared to criminal law, tort law, or property rights. When I discuss the lack of a “Good Samaritan” duty in common-law tort with my students, I point out that the high costs of imposing such a duty (both from a libertarian and a litigation standpoint) compare unfavorably to maritime salvage doctrine, which rewards rescuers rather than going after those who are indifferent. Finally, a reward is more transparent than the regulatory alternatives, both because the cost of the policy can be measured easily (and often ex ante) and because enforcement costs are low.
What are the downsides of rewards? First, they are susceptible to fraud. Any time you offer a pot of money con artists will come out of the woodwork, in part because the value of success is so clearly defined and the costs of applying are pretty low (unlike, say, in litigation). Second, the state must establish the value of the reward, and that is often very difficult. For example, few people would suggest that the state should buy inventions or books in lieu of granting a property right for them, because there would be almost no way to know how much they are worth. Finally, there are many situations in which people simply feel that a reward is inappropriate because citizens have a duty to do what the state wants them to do. We could (as I’ll point out in a subsequent post) increase tax collection through a reward system, but many would object on the grounds that people should pay their taxes even if, in practice, many don’t — not be rewarded for doing so.
In the next post, I’ll talk about some factors that shape the scope of rewards and role that transaction costs play in the decision to use them.
February 8, 2010 at 10:22 am
Posted in: Jurisprudence
Print This Post
Comments (1)
February 7, 2010
Author poll: Spring target dates
posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger
We’ve asked editors to give us some information about their submissions windows. I thought it might be useful to check with authors as well. If you’re planning on sending out your masterwork this spring (and aren’t we all?), what is your target date for submitting it?
Loading ...
February 7, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Posted in: Law School (Law Reviews)
Print This Post
Comments (0)
February 6, 2010
Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?
posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger
It’s early February, so now let’s ask the regular questions:
1. Has your board turned over? If not, when will it?
2. Details please. Do you want new articles on the day the new board moves in, or would you prefer to get used to the new digs first? Overall, is your journal taking submissions yet; and if not, when will it start?
3. If you have already turned over, are you planning any theme issues that folks ought to consider submitting specialized pieces for?
4. What format do you want pieces in (especially if you are changing your previous policies).
5. Is there anything else that authors should keep in mind as this spring season (gulp) begins?
This thread will be bumped weakly. Err, weekly.
February 6, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Posted in: Law School (Law Reviews)
Print This Post
Comments (3)
Links and short thoughts on Amazonfail
posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger
Deven has already mentioned Amazonfail, in which Amazon temporarily delisted all MacMillan books — one-sixth of its inventory — because of a disagreement over Kindle pricing. (MacMillan was tired of Amazon using its books as a loss leader to get folks to buy Kindles).
It’s been interesting to read over folks’ analyses. The best overview comes from Scalzi, who lists seven ways that this was a complete fail on Amazon’s part. There’s also very good analysis from Cory Doctorow; another very good analysis from Tobias Bucknell; yet another very good analysis from Scott Westerfield (and there are more good analyses out there); a funny photoshopped picture at Engadget; and of course calls for revolution from a variety of folks, such as Tobias Bucknell.
At the end of the day, I’m thinking that the critics were right. Amazon apparently can’t be trusted not to do really stupid things, which may seriously harm readers and authors (and publishers with whom Amazon is squabbling). Amazon’s move was really stupid, and puts a major dent in their credibility. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can say that I read a variety of MacMillan titles, and I own a Kindle — and following this whole kerfuffle, I’m seriously thinking about Apple’s new feminine-products device.
February 6, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Posted in: Amazon, Articles and Books, Technology
Print This Post
Comments (1)
My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change
posted by Nate Oman
I recently sent the following letter to the editor of the Economist magazine:
Dear Sir,
In your most recent Lexington column you reiterated the Economist’s long standing preference for a carbon tax rather than a cap-and-trade system for dealing with global warming. Your preference has always puzzled me. The Economist is quite right to insist that providing market incentives is a better way of controlling carbon emissions than command-and-control style regulations. However, I have yet to see you make the case for carbon taxes.
A cap-and-trade system assumes that the government can set the optimal level of emissions and then lets the market determine the price of carbon. A carbon tax assumes that the government can determine the costs that emissions impose on society, price those through a tax and then lets the market determine the overall level of emissions. Another way of putting this, is that a cap-and-trade system assumes that scientists can determine the optimal level of carbon given the mosterously complex phenomena of the global climate. A carbon tax, in contrast, assumes that economists can determine the costs that carbon imposes on society given the monsterously complex phenomena of the climate’s effect on the economy.
Other than your publication’s name, I am at a loss as to why you believe that the scientists are at a disadvantage to the economists. Indeed, given the heroic intellectual feats that either policy demands, I’m at a loss as to which group of scholars has the edge. Sadly, I suspect that we actually don’t know.
Nathan Oman
February 6, 2010 at 10:28 am
Posted in: Contract Law & Beyond, Economic Analysis of Law
Print This Post
Comments (2)
February 5, 2010
Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided
posted by Daniel Solove
Last year, I wrote about a case involving a lawsuit by a family against the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for improperly disseminating the accident-scene photos of their daughter (Nikki Catsouras), who perished in a gruesome automobile accident. Two dispatchers for the CHP emailed the photos to others, and they soon began being posted on the Internet. The family began receiving harassing phone calls.
They sued the CHP for public disclosure of private facts, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of the constitutional right to information privacy. The trial court dismissed the entire complaint.
The California court of appeals recently reversed. In its opinion, it concluded, correctly in my view (both doctrinally and normatively) that “[t]he dissemination of death images can only affect the living. As cases from other jurisdictions make plain, family members have a common law privacy right in the death images of a decedent, subject to certain limitations.” They can thus proceed to trial on their tort privacy claims.
As for their constitutional right to information privacy claim, the court held that the CHP violated this right, but that the officers were immune under qualified immunity since the right was not “clearly established.”
In a Newsweek article about the case, Jessica Bennett reports:
Google still delivers 148,000 results for “Catsouras,” and there are multiple Web sites devoted solely to the awful photos. “It’s the simple things you never expect,” says Christos. “We live in fear of the pictures. And our kids will never Google their name without the risk of seeing them.”
I was interviewed for the article, and Bennett posed an interesting question: Could the Catsouras family sue the websites continuing to post the photos for invasion of privacy? Here’s an excerpt from the article:
February 5, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Posted in: Privacy, Privacy (Gossip & Shaming), Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Print This Post
Comments (4)
Defining Rewards
posted by Gerard Magliocca
Last year I briefly discussed a project that I’m working on that treats “rewards” as a distinctive legal category. Well, I’m still working on it, but I thought I would do a series of posts about this topic, as I’m getting close to writing up my work.
What do I mean by rewards? I’m referring to money or status that is given by the state, acting in its regulatory capacity, to induce socially valuable behavior. As a result, I am excluding rewards by private parties (“Find my lost cat and I’ll give you $50″), property rights (e.g., patents or copyrights), or state action as an employer (“Sally did a great job — give her a raise.”) The distinction with property rights is conceptual, as rewards are closely related to liability rules because the state establishes the valuation. The other exclusions are a matter of convenience, though I’m also unsure that there is anything distinctive about private rewards or how the state acts as an employer.
February 5, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Posted in: Jurisprudence, Uncategorized
Print This Post
Comments (0)
The purpose of copyright law
posted by Viva Moffat
I am always interested in popular (or at least non-academic) conceptions of intellectual property law, and there’s an interesting back-and-forth going on between Matt Yglesias at ThinkProgress and Sonny Bunch on Conventional Folly. Yglesias posts a graph showing the music industry’s declining sales — from $14.6 billion in 1999 to $6.3 billion in 2009 — and states that the purpose of copyright law is to protect consumers: “It is, of course, possible that at some point the digital music situation will start imperiling the ability of consumers to enjoy music. The purpose of intellectual property law is to prevent that from happening, and if it does come to pass we’ll need to think seriously about rejiggering things.” Bunch responds by claiming a very different purpose for copyright law: “The purpose of intellectual property law has very little to do with Matt Yglesias being able to enjoy a wide variety of new music. The purpose of intellectual property law is to protect the intellectual property created by artists so they are rewarded for their efforts. The purpose of intellectual property law is to punish people who steal that which isn’t theirs.” Andrew Sullivan has been tracking this debate (here and here), including reader comments along the way.
Though I think there’s too much bluster on both sides, I’m often impressed at the level of the debate. I tend more to Yglesias’ view, that copyright is (or ought to be) more about incentive than reward. What I’d like to see is a chart about the amount of music out there and available to consumers. What sorts of changes have there been between 1999 and 2009 that are not reflected in music sales (which is more about a particular business model than about the amount of creativity out there)?
February 5, 2010 at 9:11 am
Posted in: Culture, Intellectual Property
Print This Post
Comments (3)
Corporate Versus Individual Accountability
posted by Michelle Harner
The recent announcements that the SEC reached a new $150 million settlement with Bank of America (see here) and that the New York Attorney General commenced civil litigation against certain current and former Bank of America executives (see here) are an interesting study in corporate versus individual accountability for corporate misconduct. The SEC did not pursue any actions against the individual executives at Bank of America (see here); rather, the SEC’s action and resulting settlement focus on the corporate entity. The Attorney General’s action, on the other hand, focuses on alleged individual misconduct.
The different approaches may be due in part to different legal standards of liability. In general, the SEC must establish intentional misconduct on the part of individuals in this context (see also here); the applicable New York law does not include this type of scienter requirement. (A cynic also might say that the difference relates to public opinion and Andrew Cuomo’s potential campaign for the governor’s office.) Nevertheless, the New York Attorney General’s approach appears to address more directly the concerns expressed by Judge Rakoff when he rejected the SEC’s original $33 million settlement with Bank of America (see also here).
The different approaches also raise an important question regarding whether corporate or individual liability is a more appropriate or effective remedy and deterrent for corporate misconduct. How far do we want to extend the legal fiction of the corporation? How in either situation do we avoid the corporation and its shareholders paying for individual misconduct that harms the corporation and its shareholders (e.g., indemnification)? How do we distinguish between good faith, honest mistakes and reckless, cavalier misconduct? And how do we level appropriate sanctions against individual wrongdoers without deterring other qualified individuals from serving on corporate boards?
These are difficult questions that courts, legislatures and commentators try to balance and address. I am not convinced that we have reached an appropriate equilibrium, and perhaps we never will. But I think we could benefit from acknowledging that corporate misconduct is caused by individuals and that some individual accountability is necessary to deter future misconduct. Notably, that remedy does not need to be a monetary penalty. In fact, public reprimands and temporary and permanent bars could be even more effective because those remedies impact reputation and arguably make it more difficult for the individual to commit similar wrongs in the future. (For a discussion of bars and the SEC’s and courts’ use of them, see here and here.) They also may ameliorate the concern that holding an individual liable for the amount of losses typically associated with corporate misconduct is too punitive. (For other means to address this concern, see here.) As we continue to reflect on and try to learn from the economic crisis of the past few years, I hope we consider alternatives to link more directly corporate misconduct and corporate accountability.
February 5, 2010 at 8:09 am
Tags: Corporate Law, Current Events
Posted in: Uncategorized
Print This Post
Comments (6)
February 4, 2010
Welcome to a New Sponsor: Cambridge University Press
posted by Daniel Solove
I’m delighted to announce that Cambridge University Press is now advertising with us. Please be sure to check our sidebars for new books from Cambridge, as well as new books from Oxford University Press, which will continue to advertise with us.
We plan to rotate the ads, and we hope this will bring your attention to some great new books that will be of interest. Readers, we’re doing this for you . . . and to get filthy rich so we can blog from a tropical island!
February 4, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Posted in: Administrative Announcements
Print This Post
Comments Closed
Recent Book Reviews
posted by Daniel Solove
Here are some recent book reviews at Concurring Opinions:
In the weeks to come, a number of our readers will be contributing book reviews. We really have a great lineup ahead!
If you’re interested in reviewing a book, please email me. And if your book is published by one of our participating presses, you’ll even get a free review copy. Thus far, participating presses include:
* Oxford University Press
* Cambridge University Press
* Harvard University Press
* Princeton University Press
February 4, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Posted in: Book Reviews
Print This Post
Comments (0)
Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)
posted by Gerard Magliocca
“I have a lifetime job. He doesn’t.”
Justice Kennedy, responding to a question at Pepperdine about the President’s criticism of Citizens United.
February 4, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Posted in: Current Events
Print This Post
Comments (6)
The Take Away About Take Home Exams
posted by Lisa Fairfax
It may be early in the semester to think about exams, but I’ve never given a take home exam, and thus I am always interested in people’s thoughts on the subject. So I was particularly interested when a fellow panelists at an AALS program offered his thoughts on take home exams. Unfortunately, I found at least two of those thoughts pretty disturbing. First, he noted that students did not tend to do any better on take home exams than in class exams. And second, he said that students had been kn0wn to fail his take home exam. After doing some additional research on the subject, I noticed that these thoughts were echoed by others, including Concurring Opinions Dan Solove who noted his surprise in finding that the quality of take home exams were not much better than in class exams. Needless to say, this collection of thoughts in no way inspire me to give take home exams a try.
Indeed, I suppose I was under the impression that additional time would enhance exam quality. I also thought that students would feel less anxiety about take home exams. To be sure, taking anxiety out of the exam process seems like a worthy goal. But perhaps reduced anxiety translates into reduced rigor during the study process. Moreover, if the only benefit of the take home exam is reduced anxiety, is that really worth it? So what’s the take away? I suppose one important take away is that altering our exam methods is not about changes in the length or format (i.e., open v. closed book), but about a real change in methodology. So I guess back to the (in class?) drawing board.
February 4, 2010 at 6:38 am
Tags: Law School Exams
Posted in: Law School (Teaching)
Print This Post
Comments (15)
Book Review: Divergent Opinions: Why Community Matters — A Review of Sunstein’s Going to Extremes
posted by Marc Roark
Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide, by Cass Sunstein. Oxford University Press: New York 2009. Pp. 171. $21.95
Cass Sunstein argues in his new book Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide that extremism is a phenomenon that is enhanced when people of like minds get together to talk. When we think of people that lie at the extremes of society, our minds are often drawn to reclusive characters. People like John the Baptist living in the wilderness “wearing clothes made of camel hair, eating locusts and wild honey;” (Matt. 3:3-4) or people like Raskolnikov from Fydor Doystoyveski’s Crime and Punishment – a reclusive character who develops a radical and warped sense of morality in response to his perception of society’s values. In reality, people that live on the extremes are rarely alone. They are surrounded by a network of like thinkers who confirm the attitudes, beliefs and interpretations of sensory data that those persons embrace as normal. Extremes are about information. That is, where you get your information from; whether you believe that information to be reliable, and how willing you are to accept information outside of your preferred source.
Going to Extremes is about how, when and why extremes develop in communities. The theme of the book is that “[w]hen people find themselves in groups of like-minded types they are especially likely to move to extremes” (p. 2). Sunstein’s work fits into the genre of human behavioral psychology proposed by James Sidanius and others that views extremists’ cognitive complexity as more complex than moderates. See James Sidanius, Functioning Sociopolitical Ideology Revisted, 6 POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY 637, 639 (1985). This is in contrast to extremism theory, which largely assumes that political extremists display less-sophisticated cognitive behavior than moderates. About the form of extremism we call terrorism, Sunstein writes at one point,
it is tempting to think that terrorism is a product of extreme poverty, lack of education, or a kind of mental illness. It turns out that all of these thoughts are quite wrong. Most of the time, [terrorists] come from middle-income families. Nor have terrorists lacked education. There is no evidence that they suffer from mental illness…. Alan Krueger argues that terrorism is a form of political protest, and those who lack civil rights and civil liberties not having other means of engaging in protest resort to terrorism. To Krueger’s point, we might add that when civil liberties do not exist citizens have only one prominent source of information – the state – and that source cannot be trusted. (p. 115)
Terrorism then becomes a reaction against information that the extreme positions assume can’t be right. Thus, in Sunstein’s work, the why and how of extremisms (like terrorism) can be associated with how individuals interact in communities – the trust they place in the information received, the confidence they derive from like-minded members, and the authority or submission they respond to as a member of the community.
February 4, 2010 at 12:09 am
Posted in: Articles and Books, Behavioral Law and Economics, Book Reviews, Law and Humanities, Law and Psychology, Philosophy of Social Science, Politics, Sociology of Law
Print This Post
Comments (1)
February 3, 2010
So Young, So Cynical
posted by Michelle Harner
As I mentioned in a previous post, I teach (and really enjoy teaching) Legal Profession. In my prior post, I noted my sense that students resist ethics courses because they view themselves as moral, ethical people who will be moral, ethical lawyers. That trend has continued this semester, but I am also hearing more cynicism about the profession than in the past.
Now, it may be that I am teaching 1Ls this semester, as opposed to 3Ls who simply want to graduate and do not want to stir the pot. (And I have to say that I have a very thoughtful and engaged group of 1Ls.) It may be that law students are questioning their decision to enter the profession in different ways and on different levels than in the past because of the current environment. Indeed, given the amount of money these students invest in their legal education, they must cringe when they read the newspapers—or more likely the Internet—these days. (For recent stories regarding downsizing in the profession, see here, here and here.) Regardless of the reason, the sentiment is striking. I should note, however, that I am not surprised by it given the generally negative public perception of lawyers.
So what type of cynicism am I hearing? We recently were discussing what constitutes lawyer misconduct, a lawyer’s obligation to report the misconduct of colleagues and a lawyer’s obligation to disclose her own misconduct to the client. That last duty always gets them, and we typically discuss in detail the origins of this duty (see here, here and here) and the circumstances that might give rise to the duty basically to tell your client that you made a mistake. In several discussions with my students both in- and outside class, the common questions have been along the lines of: “Well Prof. Harner, this all sounds great in theory, but who actually reports misconduct in the real world? And why would you ever report your own misconduct?” These are very honest and sobering questions.
I do my best to instill in my students the importance of the self-reporting nature of the profession and the value (both personal and professional) to being an ethical, honest lawyer. We discuss the trust and integrity that underscore the lawyer-client relationship and what happens to legal process when that trust is breached. And I think they get all of that. But I also think they are sensitive to life in the real world, and the pressures they will be facing—assuming they can actually get jobs—as associates subject in many respects to the whims and behaviors of more senior lawyers and clients. As one of my students told me in discussing ABC’s new series, The Deep End (see also here), “You know Prof. Harner, the associates always find a happy resolution to ethical dilemmas on television, but I doubt it is really that easy in practice; being ethical and calling a colleague on her misconduct could end your career.”
I think my students are raising valid concerns; these certainly are not new concerns but perhaps they have renewed importance as students are more and more concerned about getting and then keeping jobs. I find that shock therapy helps drive the point home for some students, so I give them many examples of lawyers being disbarred and note the junior associate who now faces sanctions and discipline in connection with the Qualcomm discovery litigation (see here and here). And I hope that when they face that hard decision in practice, they will make the right one.
February 3, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Tags: Current Events, Ethics
Posted in: Uncategorized
Print This Post
Comments (8)
The Secret Behind Amazon and Macmillan’s Fight: Google?
posted by Deven Desai
Many may know about the fight between Amazon and Macmillan publishing. Yes it is about e-books and pricing, and the death of an industry, the death of print, and heck throw in Death in Venice if you like. But the real move may have been to highlight something else Amazon is quite worried about: Google and the Book Settlement.
Would Amazon really refuse to carry all books from one of the largest publishers in the Untied States? As my friend John Scalzi pointed out (He was one of the first to notice the move, because his publisher is part of Macmillan, and his fans asked him why his books were not available almost immediately after Amazon’s move.), Amazon waited until late Friday to remove the Macmillan books. John thought that the timing was probably designed to mitigate any negative responses that might go Amazon’s way. I think John was correct, but I think this statement reveals a perhaps bigger reason for the bluff:
“We have expressed our strong disagreement and the seriousness of our disagreement by temporarily ceasing the sale of all Macmillan titles,” Amazon said. “We want you to know that ultimately, however, we will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan’s terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books.”
Just to repeat it: “Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books.” Where else does monopoly and books arise? Ah yes, when Amazon (and others) opposes the Google Book Settlement.
I think this move provides an interesting, concrete example that will be offered to argue that the GBS will provide Google with power equal to or greater than Macmillan’s. The question is, if it is a monopoly as Amazon claims, why aren’t folks attacking all major publishers? Amazon may argue that Google will have a unique position in the e-book market, but those claims require more details if one is to sort them properly.
February 3, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Posted in: Cyberlaw, Google & Search Engines, Intellectual Property, Technology
Print This Post
Comments (0)
An Overdue Thank You and a Resource for IP Folks
posted by Deven Desai
Mike Madison is a great friend. Don’t take my word for it. Just take a look at one example of his generosity. Mike has always been a wonderful resource for anyone looking to improve their scholarship. I know I have benefited from his time and advice. We have talked a few times about a concern that Mike had raised: “younger IP scholars either have lost the knack of knowing something about the history of the discipline – or never acquired it in the first place.” A month ago Mike took action to help remedy the concern. I, for one, am most grateful to have the resource (and Mike might be happy that I contact him less often about such matters). I hope it helps anyone in the field. In addition, I hope others who perceive similar possible gaps in knowledge take the time to construct and share analogous lists in their fields. Until then, here are links to Mike’s gifts.
Lost Classics of Intellectual Property Law – Background and Introduction
Lost Classics of Intellectual Property Law – Copyright
Lost Classics of Intellectual Property Law – Trademark
Lost Classics of Intellectual Property Law – Patent
February 3, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Posted in: History of Law, Intellectual Property, Law School (Scholarship), Legal Theory
Print This Post
Comments (0)
U.C. WAKE UP CALL: How Scale and Action Can Save the U.C. and Maybe the Rest of Higher Education in California
posted by Deven Desai
I love California, and I love the University of California. I am saddened by the recent financial problems the state and the entire education system faces. But I am more upset by what seems to be a failure of the education system: people who think 60s style protests are useful and wise responses to problems they helped create.
Sit-ins, threats, throwing food at Regents, and chants of the “What do we want? X! When do we want it? Now!” ilk remind me of a five year old throwing a tantrum; not intelligent people trying to change the system and take responsibility for their role in the problem. When I was at Berkeley, a professor noted that protesting the first Iraq war (especially in the Bay Area) was not as effective as the same thousands of people writing to Congress members and being clear where their donations and votes would go in the future. The same applies to the education funding problem.
Instead of putting all that great activist energy to campaigning for funding education, Californians have coasted on a system that cannot work without incredible growth. Californians cling to a broken property tax system, fail to push for better education funding, and back spending a billion dollars on prisons. Shame on us.
U.C. Berkeley’s alumni association sent me an email claiming close to 500,000 living alumni. That is but one campus in a system of 10 campuses. Now, add in the numbers of Californians who attend or graduated from the CalState and Community College system. Given the graduates, the current employees, and students at all the higher education campuses, there ought to be a focused, powerful political group that could move the state towards fixing its education funding problems. Rather than doing so, many of these folks waited until the state had no money and in a sense no choice about what to do to address the shortfall. The Regents and the students are finally joining together to voice their views in Sacramento. This type of action should have happened in the first place.
And, there is more to do. We need to start giving money to our respective campuses. I have more to say on this point. But in case you want to give now, here is the link to give to Cal. Here is a jump page with links to give to other U.C. campuses. Here is the link for giving to the CalState system. Here is the link to give to California’s Community College system.
February 3, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Posted in: Education
Print This Post
Comments (1)
Tempus Fugit
posted by Jeffrey Kahn
I enjoyed my time as a guest of Concurring Opinions, but my monthlong visit is over. Having never blogged before January, I had no idea how fast time would fly. So thanks to Danielle Citron and Daniel Solove for extending the invitation to me and for providing the easy-to-use tutorial and sound advice on how, what, and when to post. At the risk of melodrama, I’ll just sign off with a line from a favorite poem: “They are not long the days of wine and roses.” And while I would not recommend blogging-while-intoxicated, that verse sums up the brief but pleasurable visit that I thoroughly enjoyed. Thank you!
February 3, 2010 at 10:24 am
Posted in: Uncategorized
Print This Post
Comments (1)
