Tag: bill

  • Florida lawmakers pass bill to roll back in-state tuition for undocumented students

    Florida lawmakers pass bill to roll back in-state tuition for undocumented students

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

     Dive Brief:

    • Florida lawmakers passed an expansive immigration package this week that would remove undocumented students’ eligibility for in-state tuition rates at public colleges.
    • If signed into law, the reversal would take effect July 1. However, the legislation has intensified a growing rift between the state’s Republican lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis as they compete to show their loyalty to President Donald Trump and his goal of cracking down on immigration.
    • DeSantis heavily criticized the package, saying Wednesday that it “fails to honor our promises to voters, fails to meet the moment, and would actually weaken state immigration enforcement.” The governor said he would veto it unless legislators approved more restrictive immigration measures.

    Dive Insight:

    For a decade, Florida has permitted undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges if they attended their last three years of high school in the state and enrolled in higher education within two years of graduation.

    Republican State Sen. Randy Fine first proposed rolling back the allowance in December as a standalone bill. In January, DeSantis cited the bill as a priority when he abruptly called a special legislative session aimed at helping Trump implement tougher immigration policies.

    Florida has two public higher education systems — the Florida College System and the State University System of Florida, which oversee 28 colleges and a dozen universities, respectively. 

    In the 2023-24 fiscal year, just over 2,000 nonresident students attending one of the university system’s institutions received a waiver to pay in-state tuition, according to an analysis of the bill prepared by the Senate appropriations committee’s staff. In the Florida College System, the number was almost 4,600 that year. The combined discounts were valued at almost $40.7 million, it said. 

    The analysis did not disaggregate the student data by immigration status, and it’s unclear how many undocumented students would be affected by the revocation of the tuition waiver. One report from 2023 estimated about 40,000 undocumented students attended Florida colleges in 2021.

    It’s also unclear if colleges would benefit financially from the end of the waiver, the analysis said.

    “Some students who are undocumented for federal immigration purposes may choose to pay the out-of-state fee while others may choose to withdraw from school,” it said. “Institutions may experience an increase in fee revenue as students pay the out-of-state fees, or experience declines in fee revenue as those students decide to withdraw from school and are not replaced by other students.”

    Republican lawmakers praised the final legislative package — given the backronym title Tackling and Reforming Unlawful Migration Policy, or TRUMP, Act —  and said it would help the state act in partnership with the federal government. 

    The bill’s sponsors in the Florida House and Senate, as well as the top Republicans in both chambers, also repeatedly invoked Trump’s name in prepared statements.

    “Supporting President Trump’s mission to secure our borders, Florida stands ready to act with the most aggressive immigration policy ever introduced,” said House Speaker Daniel Perez. 

    Senate President Ben Albritton touted the state’s previous work on immigration.

    “When it comes to cracking down on illegal immigration, Florida is already so far ahead of most states,” he said.

    But in a press release two days later, DeSantis’ office dismissed the legislators’ work as a half-measure. 

    Republicans hold a veto-proof supermajority in both chambers of the Legislature. Typically, this supercharged influence would be unlikely to matter, as the governor’s mansion is also held by a Republican.

    But DeSantis’ lack of approval adds uncertainty and diminishes the odds of the package becoming law. Without his approval, it is unclear if legislators would return to the drawing board or if enough Republicans would band together to overrule his veto.

    DeSantis’ popularity within his own state party has weakened recently. 

    The governor’s decision to call the special session did not receive unanimous support from his peers. The dissenters criticized the move as inappropriately getting ahead of Trump’s policies.

    Shortly after the session began, Florida lawmakers ended it and called their own as a means of prioritizing their goals over DeSantis’. And both Reps. Perez and Fine have publicly criticized DeSantis.

    Perez suggested to the Tampa Bay Times on Thursday that DeSantis hadn’t sufficiently communicated with legislators ahead of the session. He added that “all options are on the table” to get anti-immigration legislation passed — including overriding a DeSantis veto.

    The $500 million package seeks to enact measures outside of the higher education sector. It would create the position of chief immigration officer to coordinate enforcement actions with the federal government. It would also mandate the death penalty for undocumented immigrants found guilty of capital crimes — a rule that would run contrary to longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and could spur legal challenges.

    Nikki Fried, chair of the Florida Democratic Party, did not mince words in response to the bill’s passage Tuesday.

    “Florida Republicans have lost their damn minds this week,” Fried said in a statement. “Despite attempts from Democrats to protect students, this legislation promises to kick Dreamers out of college before they can finish their degree and gives huge bonuses to local law enforcement for working with ICE to ramp up deportations. It’s an unconscionable abuse of power for a state legislature.” 

    Source link

  • FIRE kicks off legislative season by opposing speech-restrictive AI bill

    FIRE kicks off legislative season by opposing speech-restrictive AI bill

    The legislative season is in full swing, and FIRE is already tackling a surge of speech-restrictive bills. We started with Washington’s House Bill 1170, which would require AI-generated content to include a disclosure.  

    FIRE Legislative Counsel John Coleman testified in opposition to the bill. In his testimony, John emphasized what FIRE has been saying for years, that the “government can no more compel an artist to disclose whether they created a painting from a human model as opposed to a mannequin than it can compel someone to disclose that they used artificial intelligence tools in creating an expressive work.” 

    Artificial intelligence, like earlier technologies such as the printing press, the camera, and the internet, has the power to revolutionize communication. The First Amendment protects the use of all these mediums for expression and forbids government interference under most circumstances. Importantly, the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak without fear of government retaliation but also the right not to speak. Government-mandated disclosures relating to speech, like those required under HB 1170, infringe on these protections and so are subject to heightened levels of First Amendment scrutiny. 

    FIRE remains committed to defending the free speech rights of all Americans and will continue to advocate against overbroad policies that stifle innovation and expression.

    Of course, as John stated, “Developers and users can choose to disclose their use of AI voluntarily, but government-compelled speech, whether that speech is an opinion or fact or even just metadata . . . undermines everyone’s fundamental autonomy to control their own expression.”

    In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which includes Washington state) reiterated this fundamental principle just last year in X Corp. v. Bonta when it blocked a California law requiring social media platforms to publish information about their content moderation practices. Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. acknowledged the government’s stated interest in transparency, but emphasized that “even ‘undeniably admirable goals’ ‘must yield’ when they ‘collide with the . . . Constitution.’”

    This principle is likely to put HB 1170 in significant legal jeopardy.

    FIRE statement on legislative proposals to regulate artificial intelligence

    News

    Existing laws and First Amendment doctrine already address the vast majority of concerns that legislators are seeking to address.


    Read More

    Another major problem with the policy embodied by HB 1170 is that it would apply to all AI-generated media rather than targeting a specific problem, like unlawful deceptive uses of AI, such as defamation. John pointed out to lawmakers that “if the intent of the bill is to root out deceptive uses of AI, this bill would do the opposite” by fostering the false impression that all AI-generated media is deceptive. In reality, AI-generated media — like all media — can be used to share both truth and falsehood. 

    Moreover, people using AI to commit actual fraud will likely find ways to avoid disclosing that AI was used, whether by removing evidence of AI use or using tools from states without disclosure requirements. As a result, this false content will appear more legitimate than it would in a world without the disclosures required by this bill because people will be more likely to believe that content lacking the mandated disclosure was not created with AI.

    Rather than preemptively imposing blanket rules that will stifle free expression, lawmakers should instead assess whether existing legal frameworks sufficiently address the concerns they have with AI. 

    FIRE remains committed to defending the free speech rights of all Americans and will continue to advocate against overbroad policies that stifle innovation and expression.

    Source link

  • Community colleges in the lurch after WIOA bill founders

    Community colleges in the lurch after WIOA bill founders

    A bipartisan effort to update the nation’s workforce development law is dead, depriving hundreds of community colleges of increased funds and opportunities to cut through the red tape surrounding short-term job training.

    The Stronger Workforce for America Act would have given community colleges automatic eligibility to enter into training contracts with local workforce development offices, introduced a new federal grant and protected several existing programs from potential budget cuts in the new fiscal year.

    The bill’s sponsors were hopeful that the bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act would pass Congress before the end of the year, as it was included in a wider spending package to fund the government. But when Republicans voiced opposition to the omnibus spending bill just over 24 hours before the government shutdown deadline, lawmakers reversed course. They instead passed a pared-down continuing resolution to fund the government through mid-March, and WIOA reauthorization didn’t make the cut.

    Leaders on the House education and workforce committee had said the Stronger Workforce for America Act would create “transformative change” for the American workforce, pointing to how WIOA helps American workers keep pace with an ever-changing job market and gain high-demand skills. Reauthorizing WIOA was a top priority for Representative Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who chaired the committee until December.

    Members of the House and Senate education and workforce committees worked for the last two years to update the workforce bill, which expired in 2020. The House plan overwhelmingly passed last spring, and the Senate released a draft plan over the summer. The Senate bill didn’t move forward, but key lawmakers in the House and Senate reached a compromise in late November to update WIOA.

    Groups like the National Association of Workforce Boards and the American Association of Community Colleges say the death of the Stronger Workforce act won’t kill their programs, but nonetheless they expressed concerns about how a lack of reauthorization makes their programs vulnerable. They are trying to remain hopeful that reauthorization will be a priority for this Congress.

    “As the session waned, it was clear that getting a bill enacted in 2024 was going to be extremely difficult,” David Baime, senior vice president of government relations at AACC, said in a statement. “However, we are grateful for WIOA’s champions and very optimistic that a reauthorization will be enacted by the next Congress.”

    Until then, Inside Higher Ed called Baime to talk about the bill and what it means for community colleges and short-term workforce training. Here are three key obstacles he said remain until WIOA gets an update.

    Bureaucracy and Eligibility

    One of the largest benefits for community colleges under the Stronger Workforce act was that their training programs would have automatically qualified for federal WIOA grants.

    Currently, any training provider—be it a community college, an employer or a for-profit technical institution—must meet certain performance criteria in order to receive WIOA dollars. About $500 million is available for job training vouchers each year.

    Often, colleges receive funds by entering a contract with a local workforce board. The process begins with local workforce development agencies identifying key trades or certifications that are in high demand among their community. Then the board picks an approved training provider and contracts with them to train a set number of workers.

    But for years, jumping through the hoops required to make that eligibility list kept many underresourced community colleges from receiving those contracts and federal funds.

    “The bureaucratic nature of WIOA has made for some presidents not being as engaged as they might be,” Baime said. “In these cases, they just don’t find it worthwhile to invest a lot of time in their local workforce boards.”

    The WIOA update would have cut down that red tape.

    Increased Funds

    But even if community colleges did automatically qualify, Baime said, the funding set aside specifically for training programs is limited, and competition with other providers like for-profit technical institutions and employers is steep.

    “In fact, a lot more money for training goes to our students through Pell than through WIOA,” Baime explained.

    Since 2020, the Strengthening Community Colleges Training Grant program has provided dedicated funding for training programs at community colleges. Most recently, the Labor Department awarded $65 million to 18 colleges. Through five rounds of funding, more than 200 colleges have received a total $265 million.

    But the grant program was never formally authorized. That means there is no mandate requiring Congress to set aside a certain amount of funds each year, and the grant depends entirely on advocacy from specific lawmakers.

    The WIOA update would have authorized the grant, providing statutory protection for the funds.

    “SCCTG is a really important program for us. The program relies upon a tested model of community colleges working directly with businesses, in coordination with the federal workforce system. It’s not funded at the level we would like, but it reflects an appropriate prioritization of the role that community colleges play in job training,” Baime said.

    A few other, less direct funding increases were also lost when the legislation died. For example, one policy would have required 50 percent of all WIOA funds to be spent on training rather than administrative fees, leading local workforce boards to invest more in contracts with outside providers.

    Another would have specified that historically broad H1-B grants, which use the revenue from skills-based visas to train American workers, must be used to upskill individuals forced out of their current roles by innovations like AI. Workers would have received up to $5,000 through that change.

    “We think a voucher that size may be an attractive inducement for dislocated workers to receive training at community colleges,” Baime said.

    Future Vulnerability

    Finally, for community colleges, a key concern is how the incoming Congress and Trump administration will approach WIOA, especially now that legislation has failed.

    Republicans in Congress have made it clear they want to “substantially reduce funding,” so Baime fears that WIOA funding of all types could face serious cuts.

    The SCCTG, for example, which has historically been advocated for by Democrats, may no longer get a budget line at all.

    “The importance of workforce education is appreciated by lawmakers across the Hill,” he explained. “But we certainly would have rather gotten that bipartisan, bicameral demonstration of support by being part of this bill and enacted into statute going into the [fiscal year 2026] appropriations process.”

    Source link

  • Senators Introduce Bill to Implement 32-Hour Workweek – CUPA-HR

    Senators Introduce Bill to Implement 32-Hour Workweek – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 3, 2024

    On March 14, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Senator Laphonza Butler (D-CA) introduced the Thirty-Two-Hour Workweek Act, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours, while also providing that workers do not lose pay as a result of the reduced hours. A nearly identical bill was introduced in the House earlier this Congress.

    According to the Senate version of the bill, the FLSA would be amended to reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours by requiring overtime payment for any work done in excess of 32 hours in a given week. The bill includes a new requirement to provide overtime pay at the standard rate of one-and-a-half times the regular rate for any workday that is longer than eight hours but shorter than 12 hours, and it requires employers to pay an overtime rate of double the regular rate for any workday longer than 12 hours. The bill also stipulates that employers subject to the shortened workweek requirements may not reduce the total workweek compensation or any other benefit of an employee due to the employee being brought into the purview of the legislation. The 32-hour workweek would be phased in over a four-year period.

    The same day the bill text was introduced, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing on the need for a 32-hour workweek. Senator Sanders serves as the chairperson of the committee and led the Democrats’ arguments for shortening the workweek without reducing pay. He argued that new technology has increased the productivity of American workers, therefore decreasing the need for a 40-hour workweek as was enacted in the FLSA over 80 years ago. Republicans, on the other hand, argued that shortening the workweek without decreasing pay would hurt small businesses and would result in increased prices for goods and services and more automated jobs. They argued against a law mandating the 32-hour workweek and preferred flexibility for employers to choose to make that change if appropriate for their business operations.

    Given the partisan divide shown during the hearing, the bill is unlikely to move in the Senate anytime soon. Even if the bill passed out of the HELP Committee, it appears unlikely that it will garner the 60 votes necessary to bypass the filibuster if brought to the floor for a vote. The House version of the bill faces a similar fate, as the House Republicans currently have the majority. With the upcoming election in November, it will be interesting to see if power shifts in favor of Democrats in either chamber, which will likely be the only way the bill could pass in the House or Senate.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates as it relates to this legislation and future policy related to a shortened workweek.



    Source link

  • Retirement Plan Changes and Workplace Protections for Pregnant Workers Included in Fiscal Year 2023 Omnibus Bill – CUPA-HR

    Retirement Plan Changes and Workplace Protections for Pregnant Workers Included in Fiscal Year 2023 Omnibus Bill – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 10, 2023

    On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed the $1.7 trillion Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (omnibus bill) to fund the federal government through fiscal year 2023 (FY 2023). Given the “must-pass” nature of the bill, the omnibus bill also served as a vehicle for policy unrelated to government funding that was unlikely to pass as a standalone bill in Congress. Below outlines some of the highlights that will impact higher education generally and human resources specifically.

    SECURE 2.0

    Notably, the new law includes changes to the access and use of individual retirement funds. Provisions from a package of retirement-related bills, referred to as SECURE 2.0, were ultimately included in the final omnibus package. Specifically, the new law included the following provisions, in addition to others not listed here:

    • Automatic 401(k) and 403(b) plan enrollment: The new law requires employers to automatically enroll employees into newly created 401(k) and 403(b) retirement plans at a rate between 3 to 10 percent of eligible wages. Employees will then have the option to opt out of the enrollment. Employers with 10 or fewer employees and companies in business for less than three years are excluded from this requirement.
    • Expanded eligibility for part-time employees: The law requires employers to provide the option to participate in employer retirement plans for part-time employees who work between 500 and 999 hours for at least two consecutive years (lowered from three consecutive years previously required).
    • Emergency expenses and savings accounts: Employees would be allowed to withdraw up to $1,000 from retirement accounts for qualified emergency expenses without facing early withdrawal penalties if the worker is under 59.5 years old. Additionally, the law allows employers to offer employees an emergency savings account through payroll deductions for amounts up to $2,500.
    • Matching employer contributions for student loan payments: Employers will be allowed to make contributions to their company retirement plan on behalf of employees who are paying student loans and are not contributing to a retirement account as a result.
    • Roth treatment of employer contributions: The new law grants employers the option to amend their retirement plans and allow employees to choose their employer’s matching and non-elective contributions to be made as Roth contributions.
    • Multiple Employer and Pooled Employer Plans for 403(b) plans: The new law allows employers to participate in Multiple Employer Plans (MEPs) and Pooled Employer Plans (PEPs) for 403(b) plans.

    The final law also included several changes to individual activity with respect to their retirement plans, including an increase to the “catch-up” contribution limits of up to $10,000 for older retirement savers and an increase to the age an individual is required to begin taking minimum distributions from their retirement accounts, which is now effective at age 73 and effective at age 75 effective in 2033.

    Workplace Protections for Pregnant Workers

    Additionally, Congress was able to agree on the inclusion of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers in the omnibus bill.

    Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

    Passed by the House in May 2021, the PWFA specifically declares that it is an unlawful employment practice for employers with 15 or more employees to do any of the following:

    • fail to make reasonable accommodations to known limitations of such employees unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an entity’s business operation;
    • require a qualified employee affected by such condition to accept an accommodation other than any reasonable accommodation arrived at through an interactive process;
    • deny employment opportunities based on the need of the entity to make such reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee;
    • require such employees to take paid or unpaid leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided; or
    • take adverse action in terms, conditions or privileges of employment against a qualified employee requesting or using such reasonable accommodations.

    Though the bill enjoyed bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, Republicans opposed bringing the bill to a Senate vote without the inclusion of a religious exemption for employers. Such exemptions were provided in the omnibus bill’s version of the PWFA, ultimately helping lead to its passage.

    PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act

    The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act passed the House of Representatives in October 2021 with bipartisan support. The bill aims to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to expand access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace for lactating employees and builds upon existing protections in the 2010 Breaktime for Nursing Mothers Act by broadening breastfeeding accommodations and workplace protections. In the new law, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act is expanded to include salaried employees exempt from overtime pay requirements under the FLSA as well as other categories of employees currently exempt from such protections, such as teachers, nurses and farmworkers. It also clarifies that break time provided under this bill is considered compensable hours worked so long as the worker is not completely relieved of duty during such breaks, and it ensures remedies for nursing mothers for employer violations of the bill.

    Similar to the PWFA, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act did not reach a Senate floor vote, leaving the omnibus bills as one of the last options for passage before the 117th Congress’s term expired.

    Immigration Provisions

    Due to the situation at the southern border, the new law excluded any major immigration overhauls, such as the Equal Access to Green cards for Legal Employment (EAGLE) Act, which would have addressed the immigration visa backlog and made changes to the H-1B visa program. Additionally, protections for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and Dreamers that have been threatened by recent court decisions were not included in the final bill enacted into law.

    Despite the exclusion of important reforms, the new law reauthorized several expiring immigration programs that are already utilized by institutions of higher education, including additional funds for the E-Verify program.

    Higher Education Funding

    Several provisions were included in the omnibus package that will increase funding for a variety of higher education programs. Notably, the bill includes a $500 increase to the maximum Pell Grant a recipient can receive, raising the total to $7,395 for the 2023-24 award year. Additionally, the bill included funding increases for Federal Work-Study grants, Title III and V programs, Postsecondary Student Success Grants, and the TRIO and GEAR UP programs.

    CUPA-HR will continue to analyze the provisions included in the FY 2023 funding bill and will keep members apprised of any additional noteworthy provisions included in the law.



    Source link

  • House Passes Bipartisan Retirement Savings Bill – CUPA-HR

    House Passes Bipartisan Retirement Savings Bill – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 4, 2022

    On March 29, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2954, the Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2021, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 414-5. The bill includes many provisions to boost individual retirement savings and expand coverage to better access retirement savings programs.

    The bill includes several provisions that would impact employer-sponsored retirement programs. Notably, the bill would make enrollment in newly created 401(k) and 403(b) plans mandatory for eligible employees beginning in 2024. Employers with 10 or fewer employees or those that have been in business for fewer than three years would be exempt from this requirement, and employees would be able to opt out of the program. Additionally, the bill requires employers to allow part-time employees to participate in 401(k) plans if they work at least 500 hours per year after two years working for the employer — a decrease from the previously required three years.

    The bill will also allow employers to make matching contributions to the 401(k), 403(b) or SIMPLE IRA account of employees who are paying off student loans and do not contribute enough to their accounts to receive a full employer match.

    In addition to the provisions related to employer plans, the bill also has provisions for individual workers. The bill allows older workers to make bigger contributions to their retirement accounts than is currently allowed. Specifically, individuals aged 62-64 would be able to contribute an extra $10,000 for 401(k) plans and other programs and $3,000 for SIMPLE plans per year to such accounts beginning in 2024. These “catch-up” contributions would be required to be made after taxes.

    The bill now heads to the Senate where it will need to pass with 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. Given the bipartisan support in the House, the bill could receive similar support from both parties, but it is unclear when and how the Senate will vote.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised as this bill moves through the Senate.



    Source link

  • House Passes Bill to Increase Workplace Protections for Nursing Mothers – CUPA-HR

    House Passes Bill to Increase Workplace Protections for Nursing Mothers – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 26, 2021

    On October 22, 2021, the House of Representatives passed H.R.3110, the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act. The bill passed by a bipartisan vote of 276-149 and was supported by business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and advocacy organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union.

    As originally written, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to expand access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace for lactating employees. The bill builds upon existing protections in the 2010 Breaktime for Nursing Mothers Act by broadening breastfeeding accommodations and workplace protections to include salaried employees exempt from overtime pay requirements under the FLSA as well as other categories of employees currently exempt from such protections, such as teachers, nurses and farmworkers. It also clarifies that break time provided under this bill is considered compensable hours worked so long as the worker is not completely relieved of duty during such breaks, and it ensures remedies for nursing mothers for employer violations of the bill.

    Before the final vote on the bill, the House also adopted two additional amendments to the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act that would:

    • Direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study on compliance among covered employers, including employee awareness of their rights and proposals to improve compliance; and
    • Direct the Comptroller General of GAO to conduct a study on what is known about the racial disparities that exist with respect to access to pumping breastmilk in the workplace and submit to Congress a report on the results of such study containing such recommendations as the Comptroller General determines appropriate to address those disparities.

    The House-passed bill now moves to the Senate where it is unknown whether or not the bill will garner enough support from Republicans to bypass the sixty-vote filibuster threshold needed to pass.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any actions or votes taken by the Senate on this bill.



    Source link

  • The Bill Barr School of Law School Deaning

    The Bill Barr School of Law School Deaning

     

    BOOO Bill Barr, you unprincipled Trump sycophant. You rascal. All of us, (well  not all, there are a couple of numbskulls who admire you ) principled law professors and administrators think you are an awful example of the profession.

    But wait Billy Boy! There is a job for you. It’s even better than Trump University. You open a school for wannabe Law school administrations. You know, Bill, the number one goal  of any law school dean on the make is to climb the USnews ranking.

    So that’s what you teach. Some Units of the course would be:

    1. Hire your own graduates to do something, anything, so you can report high post graduate employment rates.

    2, Lower first year admissions but increase the number of transfers because the transfer LSAT and GPAs will not count against you.

    3. Oh, what the hell. Just do what UF Law has perfected, However qualified a student, do not admit him or her unless he or she improves your ranking.

    4, If a student is admitted and it looks like he or she, in hindsight, might lower your scores, pay them not to come.

    5. Make sure all law school employees are called faculty. This will raise your teacher to student ratio.

    6. Throw every cent you can get your grubby hands on to pay high scoring students to come to your school whether they need the money or not. 

    7, And Bill, here is what you can bring to the course your specialty.  Just lie. What the fuck, you are not hurting anyone so it’s not like a real lie.

    But Bill, there is one catch,  All of these things have already been done. Yes by the same people who say that  you are the crook, not them.

    So you will have to be imaginative. Your primary mission is to stay one scam ahead of what USnews is onto and cares about. This should be easy, They don’t really care if they get it right as long as it sells,  

    Source link