Colleges and universities are in a difficult position. While there are campus police forces, their latitude is often limited; colleges and universities are institutions of education, after all, not law enforcement. Public police forces are sometimes reluctant to get involved. Evidence collection and investigations are difficult, especially if the attack isn’t reported immediately. Many victims, understandably, are reluctant to report the incident immediately, if at all.

The NPR series is grim, but it’s worth a listen, to see if there are ways to improve the situation.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.