ACUHO-I News Blog

The Senate Finance Committee’s recently approved health care bill specifies two sorts of health care plans: employer-provided and individual policies purchased through an insurance exchange. To much of the population, this would seem to cover all the forms of insurance, but those affiliated with college and universities know there’s a third way: college- and university-issued insurance. Health insurance plans issued by institutions of higher education fall into another category, “limited duration products” according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

This may be an inadvertent mistake, and representatives of the American College Health Association have written to Senators requesting clarification.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that, in 2007, 67% of college students 18-23 received health insurance through employer-provided plans (likely their parents’ plans); 6% used Medicaid and the like; 20% were uninsured, and 7% had insurance through another private plan, such as an college-issued program.

Student insurance plans were offered at 71% of private institutions, 82% of public institutions and 29% of two-year public institutions in 2008, reported the GAO.

The ambitious new Post-9/11 G.I. Bill is touted as the most generous version of the law since the original, extremely expansive, 1944 version.

Though the original G.I. Bill had its issues too, its passage enabled college educations for 7.8 million veterans who might have not had the opportunity otherwise, and helped stabilize the postwar economy. It also initiated a campus housing boom, as the veterans needed places to live while attending classes.

But a large government program meant to benefit a wide range of people in  a variety of geographical areas, in partnership with institutions in every state, will have complications, and some people willbenefit more than others. The Post-9/11 version doesn’t supersede its predecessor, the Montgomery G.I. Bill, but supplements it. The new bill goes into effect August 1.

Theoretically, with the Yellow Ribbon Program, veterans should be able to attend private schools with the same ease as they would attend public schools. Institutions enrolled in the Yellow Ribbon Program can partner with the Department of Veterans Affairs to match, dollar-for-dollar, the cost of enrollment at that institution above what the G.I. Bill would normally cover. The G.I. Bill’s base rate is the in-state tuition for the most expensive public school in the state. Yellow Ribbon Program institutions agree to help make up that difference, in partnership with the Department of Veterans Affairs, for a certain number of students. Public schools enrolled in the program agree to help meet the difference for particularly expensive programs or for out-of-state students. Veterans may apply for benefits starting this month; the monies are awarded on a first-come-first-served basis.  About 700 institutions have agreed to the plan.

The G.I. Bill was passed before the economic floor fell through, and the timing has complicated things. The Department of Veterans Affairs invited colleges and universities to apply for the Yellow Ribbon Program in early spring, after budgets were finalized and purse strings tightened. The vagaries in the ways institutions and states apply and award aid are also complicating factors.

California’s public institutions don’t charge tuition for resident students; all their costs are billed as fees. This distinction doesn’t make a difference for in-state veterans attending public institutions in California, but for veterans hoping to attend private institutions, or out-of state students, it means their tuition benefit is $0. Private colleges and universities in California found the prospect of making up such a huge gap daunting.

Some institutions, such as Princeton, declined to sign on to the Yellow Ribbon Program because they have a completely need-based system of awarding aid.

The tuition benefit varies considerably, depending how expensive public schools in a certain state are. In Washington, D.C, the only public institution, the University of the District of Columbia, is one of the least expensive in the nation. D.C.’s private institutions are among the most expensive. Institutions, such as American University, have a large gap to fill. American University, for its part, has agreed to offer $13,750 to up to four undergraduate student veterans for the 2009-10 year. Combined with the government benefits, qualifying veterans would have a full ride. However, there are at least seven veterans who are interested in the benefits, and they will reluctantly compete against each other for the money.  Many other institutions are in a similarly unenviable position–squeezed between budgets and the desire to assist veterans and potential students.

For details on the G.I. Bill and the Yellow Ribbon Program, go to the Department of Veterans Affairs website.

At this time each year, the Supreme Court releases its docket for the next session. They usually do not give a reason why other cases were refused. The justices prefer cases in which a precedent has not been set–and thus the Supreme Court can provide that guidance–and cases in which conflicting rulings have been issued by lower courts.  Thus advocates for Christian student groups and advocates for non-discrimination rules at high schools and in higher education found themselves united on at least one subject: They were surprised the Supreme Court did not take on the question of public institutions, student groups and the rights those groups have (or don’t have) to exclude certain people as members.

Public high schools and public colleges and universities say anti-discrimination rules (which usually include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation) should be applied evenly to all student groups receiving student activities funds. Christian students say such rules limits their right to free assembly and forces them to accept student members who don’t profess the same beliefs.

One case that has been used as precedent is Truth vs. Kent School District. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit backed a high school’s right to deny official recognition to a Bible study group whose members did not want to adhere to the district’s policy that all student groups must accept any interested students as members. The court found that since the district applied the anti-discrimination rules to all student groups, the Bible study group was not being treated any differently.

Truth vs. Kent School District was cited twice more, to uphold the right of higher education institutions not to recognize student groups that do not follow a similar anti-discrimination code of conduct.

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered Southern Illinois University to recognize a chapter of the Christian Legal Aid Society.

This all leaves higher education uncertain of what their next move should be, and the Supreme Court will be silent on the subject, at least until 2010-2011.

A student at Community College of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania wanted to start a club. So she created a brochure about her intended group and distributed it on campus. College officials called the student to the dean’s office and told her she should follow established channels for creating a student group: Completing an application; showing that at least 10 students have an interest in the group; and getting a faculty adviser. The student also says, however, that Community College of Allegheny County officials questioned the purpose of her group, and advised her not to move forward with its formation. College officials say their concerns were centered on preventing unauthorized solicitation on campus.

Christine Brashier was attempting to form a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, and she says the intent of her proposed group was the real problem, that the leadership of her school is attempting to thwart her attempts to start a pro-concealed-carry organization. Brashier contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (better known as FIRE), and FIRE wrote college president Alex Johnson with their concerns. In this Boston Globe story, representatives of FIRE claim that similar issues have arisen at other institutions as well.

SAFER is an organization that not only feels marijuana should be legalized, they say marijuana is safer than alcohol, as its use supposedly results in less violence and vandalism than that of alcohol. In order to accomplish their goals, SAFER (“Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation”) is taking on the massive alcohol industry and a culture that widely accepts drinking, suggesting that if people were allowed to use marijuana freely, there would be fewer of the negative consequences often associated with alcohol, such as fights, impaired driving and life-threatening intoxication.

Whether SAFER’s claims are true is up to debate. (SAFER and NORML, a pro-legalization lobby, are happy to engage with all-comers on their points of view.) In an attempt to force a discussion, SAFER has introduced the Emerald Initiative, a companion for the Amethyst Initiative. SAFER feels the push to rethink drinking age laws should be accompanied by a discussion on revisiting marijuana bans as well. They maintain that the illegality of pot drives students to alcohol consumption, and they advocate parity for alcohol and marijuana offenses on campuses.

As far as we know, no college presidents have signed on, though the Emerald Initiative has been endorsed by several campus newspapers. Likely, the Purdue University students who recently voted to loosen the pot penalties in their residence hall would agree as well.

On February 17, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 into law. The act provides $100 billion for, as the US Department of Education puts it, “save education jobs, send young people to college, modernize America’s classrooms, and advance education reforms.”

But how will that $100 billion be divided among 50 eagerly waiting states (imagine baby birds, mouths wide open for a meal)? Wonder no longer. The Department of Education has created a website with details and state-by-state parsings.

Last year, Congress passed a number of laws dealing with campus safety; among these were the Campus Fire Safety Right-to-Know regulations, which were included in the Higher Education Act. These regulations require institutions to report the number of fires, deaths in fires, and injuries from fires; how many beds are in halls with sprinklers and fire alarms; and the fire safety training provided to students and staff.

However, like all laws, there’s the rules, and then there are the rules that make up the rules. And this is the part of the process the Campus Fire Safety Right-to-Know legislation has reached. The US Department of Education is in the rule-making stage of the process, and they are seeking input.

Campus Firewatch has set up a handy site for those who would like to contribute their thoughts on how best this legislation can be worded and executed. If you would like to participate as a member of ACUHO-I through our Public Policy Advisory Committee, let us know!

Rukus, the free music downloading service promoted by the music industry as the way to limit illegal downloading by college students, has folded. Rukus abruptly halted services on February 6. An annonymous employee told The Chronicle of Higher Education that the business model, a downloading site funded by ads, was no longer working. Music industry representatives complained that students contributed to Rukus’ end by choosing other free, and illegal, downloading services instead. College officials said the restrictions on Rukus music–it couldn’t be transfered to a portable device or burned to a CD–made the service unattractive and unusable for students. They said these seemed to be strictures from another era, before digital downloading became commonplace.

Oddly, now that Rukus is gone, college and university officials are in a bind. The Higher Education Act, renewed by Congress last year, requires institutions to offer an “alternative” to illegal downloading. The langauge doesn’t make clear whether simply pointing students to iTunes or Amazon.com would fulfill this requirement, or if colleges and universities must be more aggressive, offering music services for their students. When the law was written, music industry officials suggested institutions contract with Rukus to fulfill this requirement, but this is no longer an option.

What institutions should do–or must do– to comply will be ironed out in the coming months. The Department of Education is begining the rule-making process now. If you would like to help shape any of the language in the Higher Education Act, contact the Public Policy Advisory Committee.

In December, FERPA got a makeover.

FERPA is, of course, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which attempts to establish the situations in which student records can or cannot be disclosed by an institution of higher education. Previous FERPA rules were restrictive in favor of student privacy, and somewhat vague as well. Institutions and parents sometimes found the rules binding and confusing. Colleges and universities were reluctant to release student information inappropriately, thus violating FERPA.

The revision follows 120 comments from higher education associations, institutions and other interested parties. As a result, the more confusing parts of FERPA have been clarified, and the new take on the law allows institutions a bit more leeway with regard to individual circumstances. In the first incarnation of the law, information was only to be disclosed in an “emergency” and this circumstance was narrowly defined. This definition has been stricken. Now institutions can disclose student information “if there is an articulable and significant threat to the health or the safety of the student or other individuals.” Administrators have more latitude also, when they decide which records to release and to whom this information should be given. Tragedies, such as the Virginia Tech shootings, may have prompted these clarifications, and the greater ability of institutions to manage troubling situations without violating FERPA. The law also covers issues such as accessibility of directory information, the use of Social Security numbers and the release of academic records. The regulations took effect January 8. The US Department of Education has provided a guide on FERPA 2.0.

So you’ve probably heard something about a stimulus package that Congress is concocting, and you might have also gathered that some parts of it benefit higher education, specifically renovation of facilities (not new-build) in higher education.

But how can you educate yourself on how this legislation could benefit you and take advantage of these opportunities?  First, pay attention to ACUHO-I’s announcements and e-mails in the coming weeks.  Second, check out these Web sites, which make the legalease a bit easier to digest.

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities NCEF has put together a great site on how the stimulus package affects school facilities. They neatly explain how the funds are allowed to be used.

Shovel Ready SCUP’s site’s title refers to the tight turnaround required by recipients of federal funds for renovation. Projects you wish to fund must be planned and “shovel-ready,” with only a few last-minute preparations to go. This is not the time to look for a new project. Instead, go through your list of renovation to-dos: energy-efficient windows to replace old, leaky ones; modernizing a building with new technology; or replacing an old roof. The major restrictions won’t affect residence halls much: monies cannot be used for sports facilites that charge admission or for a building in which worship services are held. The money also comes with use-it-or-lose-it time restrictions.

Keep an eye on the Chronicle of Higher Education, for stories such as this: The $7-Billion Patch for Campus Maintenance.

Also, talk to your colleagues through the ACUHO-I Social Network, and share tips and ideas on how to identify projects and get the money to make them happen.

The American Council on Education provided this handy summary of what the Higher Education Act, recently signed into law, means for higher education professionals. Much of the precise rules and how they will be applied will be worked out in the coming year, as the Education Department determines how it will use the provisions. If you are unsure of how the act will affect your campus, let us know: emily@acuho-i.org. We’ll try to help you figure that out.

For some reason, there’s been a lot in the news about get-out-the-vote campaigns on college campuses lately. I wonder why?

This morning, what caught my eye was Warning for College Student Voters at Inside HigherEd. Montgomery County, the place Virginia Tech calls home, issued a press release intended to educate college students on the possible complications of registering to vote in their college town rather than their hometown. According to the release, voter registration can affect insurance coverage (if held through parents who live in one’s hometown), scholarship eligibility, and one’s dependent status on taxes.

Critics, however, say the press release was unreasonably grim, and that based on their survey of insurance companies and other sources, no one has ever lost a scholarship, insurance or not been able to be claimed as a dependent on a parent’s taxes because of registering to vote at college. Montgomery County officials say they were just trying to be thorough. A slightly less dramatically worded release was issued two days later.

Meanwhile, get-out-the-vote efforts continue to happen on other campuses. Springfield College, in Springfield MA, is taking a different tack, encouraging students to register when they move in, giving them Rock the Vote t-shirts, and hosting a series of voter education forums.

Campus Compact, an organization promoting civic involvement and volunteership among college students, has created iVote, with lots of great tools for those wishing to get students involved: a voter registration tool and the campus vote map, where students can find others at their school who share their views. Paul Loeb, ACUHO-I conference speaker and author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While and Soul of a Citizen (both popular among ACUHO-I members according to our bookstore sales) is working with Campus Compact, helping to raise funds for their work.

In 2007, the People’s Burn Foundation of Indiana and Campus Firewatch surveyed college students to see what they knew, and didn’t, about fire safety. They were disappointed, but not surprised, when the results showed most students don’t know much about the topic.

Using these lackluster responses, the People’s Burn Foundation of Indiana, assisted by Campus Firewatch, developed “To Hell and Back: College Fire Survival,” a video on fire safety education. The video has been distributed to every institution of higher education and fire department in the United States. To Hell and Back describes a fictional, but realistic scenario: during a party at an off-campus house, a fire begins. Many fire fatalities on or near campus involve alcohol; 80 percent take place off-campus. Also on the video is the story of two survivors of the Seton Hall University fire.

As a companion to the video, igot2kno.org was developed. Students can access the site to learn fire prevention tips and what to do if they do experience a fire. A release from Campus Firewatch describes the site as “training in a box” that an administrator can use for student education. The site features more videos, one featuring Manoj, a student who was badly burned when a fire engulfed his apartment building a month before his graduation. Tests on the website can be used to quiz visitors on their knowledge.

The materials are cost-free because they were developed with a Department of Homeland Security Fire Prevention and Safety grant.

Of course, the more ways you convey your message, the more likely it is to be heard and understood. William Woods University with the cooperation of the local fire department, will set a furnished mock residence hall room on fire to show how quickly a fire can spread.

No matter what prevention and education efforts you take, there will be more eyes watching. The recently-signed Higher Education Act will require a great deal of reporting from colleges and universities on fire-prevention measures and the number of fires on campus.

We can’t stop talking about the Amethyst Initiative that is. Y’know, the petition signed by…let’s check the ticker here…129 chancellors and presidents at universities and colleges throughout the US advocating a “dispassionate debate” on the drinking age. The debate would be about, specifically, raising the drinking age, preferably to 45.

Just kidding!

Anyway, the Chronicle of Higher Education has helpfully gathered two professionals, on opposing sides of the debate, to offer their views.

William G. Durden, President of Dickinson College is on the pro side. He points out that the Amethyst Initiative is not necessarily arguing the drinking age be moved to 18; rather: “It does state the 128 signatories’ belief that it is time for our nation to engage in a serious debate about alternative approaches to underage and binge drinking and to examine whether current public policies are in line with current realities.” He argues that the current law and abstinence rhetoric are obviously not working, and in fact drive students to more secretive and dangerous behaviors. Often, he says, college students’ dangerous drinking activities are unrelated to driving, but endanger their lives in other ways. He points to other countries’ lower drinking ages, which are reinforced, he says, by extensive alcohol education and severe penalties for dangerous and destructive behaviors, such as drunken driving.

William DeJong, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at Boston University’s School of Public Health, points to studies showing a reduction in alcohol-related deaths and no greater alcohol use on campus than there was 21 years ago, when the drinking age was upped. He replies to Durden’s point about foreign countries’ alcohol laws with the example of New Zealand: In 1999, that country lowered the drinking age from 20 to 18. “The result,” DeJong says, ”was a dramatic upswing in traffic crashes and injuries among 15- to 19-year-olds.” He advocates a variety of prevention and education measures, from “specific guidance on how to keep their blood-alcohol concentration in a safer range” for students who do drink, to the usual restrictions of alcohol-laden advertising and purchasing opportunities.

What do you think of their arguments? My initial thought is that it’s a pity we couldn’t read a dialogue between these two, each responding to and countering the other’s viewpoints, and possibly finding middle ground.

Early this week, we heard a lot in the news about college presidents who had signed a petition advocating re-thinking the drinking age: specifically, considering the costs and benefits of lowering it to 18 again. Some signers argue that raising the drinking age to 21 has caused more problems than it solved, by encouraging an underground drinking culture, the use of fake IDs and “preloading,” i.e.: drinking heavily in seclusion before a night out on the town.

The New York Times writes today that two presidents, Kendall Blanchard of Georgia Southwestern State University in Americus, GA and Robert M. Franklin of Morehouse College in Atlanta, recinded their signatures. Blanchard told the NYT he felt critics misunderstood the petition’s intended purpose, to start a dialogue, and instead thought it is “some kind of effort on our part to turn our schools into party schools.”

Yup, because college and university presidents love for their institutions to be known as “Ibiza, But With Football”.

However, 15 more presidents have signed on, resulting in 123 signatories, some from household names such as Dartmouth, Duke, Tufts and Ohio State. Of course, the petition has its detractors, namely the Governors’ Highway Safety Administration and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

What do you think about the proposed “dispassionate public debate”?