Campus Informer: Direct Lending, Rhodes Scholars, and UND Debates the Fighting Sioux Nickname

Campus Progress is bringing back a renewed version of a feature called Campus Informer, a roundup of cool and interesting stuff happening at campuses around the country. Of course, the feature isn't only limited to campuses, since Campus Progress exists for non-college youth and to make higher education more accessible and affordable. If you think something in your area should be included in Campus Informer, just email us at campusprogresseditors [at] americanprogress [dot] org.

• Financial Aid administrators guess whether Congress will mandate direct lending. [Inside Higher Ed]
• A new study shows that religious activists and voters might be leaning left. [The Alligator]
• Rhodes scholars were announced and 32 Americans from 23 American colleges and universities made the cut. [The Chronicle]
• A pay equity study at Columbia University has taken more than three years and some say that's just too long. [Columbia Spectator]
• Members of the University of North Dakota's student senate debate weather to keep its Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. [Dakota Student]
• Former First Lady Barbara Bush is scheduled to speak at Texas A&M [The Battalion]

Cross Posted.

VA Under Secretary of Benefits Steps Down, Possibly Due to GI Bill Benefits Delays

The Department of Veterans Affairs announced in a press release today that the Under Secretary for Benefits has announced that he will be stepping down.

WASHINGTON (Nov. 20, 2009) - Patrick W. Dunne, the Under Secretary for Benefits for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), today announced his resignation for early next year. Dunne, who attained the rank of rear admiral while in the U.S. Navy, has been with VA since 2006.

As Under Secretary for Benefits since October 2008, Admiral Dunne has directed the administration of VA's disability compensation, pension, education, home loan guaranty, vocational rehabilitation and employment, and life insurance programs through a nationwide network of 57 regional offices, other special processing centers, and Veterans Benefits Administration headquarters.

I don't know Dunne's exact reasons for stepping down, but since he's only held the position about a year, and during that time there has been massive trouble with the distribution of the new Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, it seems likely that that may have factored into his departure.

The VA received more than 25,000 applications for updated GI Bill benefits within two weeks of the new program. At the time, Dunne was quoted on PR Newswire as saying, "We are very pleased with the tremendous interest in the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The number of applications submitted in the first two weeks clearly shows the value and importance of this new benefit for Veterans."

But it quickly became clear the VA was worried about being able to process the volume of claims they received. Dunne himself noted, "Our top priority is providing our students and schools with accurate and timely benefit payments so veterans can focus all of their energy on studies," he said in a statement quoted by the Columbus Dispatch in late September.

Although veterans were scheduled to receive living stipends from the VA by Nov. 1, by the end of October, it was clear that wasn't going to happen. The Navy Times reported at the end of October that, "'It is possible, if we have not worked their case by the end of the month, that some may not receive their housing payment on the first,' VA officials said in a statement, referring to Nov. 1."

The VA was supposed to implement a new computer program that would process the new GI Bill benefits faster. But delays in implementing the program put the VA behind in processing claims. Eventually, some emergency checks were distributed to veterans that were written by hand.

In a late September story about the delays in the payments from the GI Bill program, the LA Times quoted Dunne as saying, "The learning curve has been steep for us all." Indeed.

Cross posted.

Campus Informer: UC-Santa Cruz presents list of demands; U of MN Implements Blood Alcohol Tests on Game Day

(Flickr/mrmatthew)

Campus Progress is bringing back a renewed version of a feature called Campus Informer, a roundup of cool and interesting stuff happening at campuses around the country. Of course, the feature isn't only limited to campuses, since Campus Progress exists for non-college youth and to make higher education more accessible and affordable. If you think something in your area should be included in Campus Informer, just email us at campusprogresseditors [at] americanprogress [dot] org.

• Students at University of California-Santa Cruz present a 32-point list of demands to UC regents. [Student Activism]
• The University of Minnesota implements blood alcohol tests at football games to try to curb binge drinking on game days. [New York Times]
  
• Conservative students at the University of Toledo held a "Freedom Week" earlier this month involving members of the university's ROTC program; it got messy. [Independent Collegian]
• Harvard debates allowing all students access to gender-neutral housing. [Harvard Crimson]
• A Howard University student takes a year off to pursue an acting career in L.A. [The Hilltop]
• Some students at Kent State work their way through college at a bakery (Video). [Kent News Net]

Cross posted.

The Senate Doesn't Wear 'I'm With Stupak' T-Shirt

Today, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) is smiling. (Flickr/jdlasica)

The Senate released its health care bill last night, named the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (you can read it yourself, in PDF form). The Senate bill has some things about abortion that give the pro-choice community hope after the Stupak-Pitts amendment.

The New York Times has a nice side-by-side comparison of the two bills, and on abortion, the Senate bill looks much closer to what the pro-choice community was pushing for initially in the House bill -- closer to what's called the Capps amendment. Huffington Post reports that Capps herself is somewhat happy with the Senate compromise. "'I am pleased that the Senate has adopted a reasonable, common ground approach on this difficult question,' she said in a statement."

The Senate bill allows insurers to decide if they want to include abortion in each plan (much as they do now, and 87 percent of private plans already choose to provide such coverage). The Senate plan also says that private plans that receive federal subsidies to make the plans more affordable to individuals can provide abortion coverage, so long as they don't use the federal money to pay for the abortion coverage. The Senate bill also allows the public option to provide abortion, again, as long as it federal dollars aren't used to pay for it.

Under the Senate bill, each state is required to have at least one plan that provides abortion coverage and at least one plan does not include abortion coverage.

But, as Eleanor Clift pointed out at Newsweek, the abortion fight isn't over yet:

There are two numbers to watch: (1) Can an anti-abortion amendment offered by, say, Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, or pro-life Democrat Bob Casey, get 60 votes? Probably not, but Reid will have to get 60 votes to even proceed with debate on the bill. (2) Getting that 60 could mean putting stronger anti-abortion language in the bill to get those red-state Democrats.

But in the meantime, the pro-life community is pretty mad. The National Right to Life, one of the biggest pro-life groups in America, said in a statement that the Senate bill "substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs ... National Right to Life will continue to fight for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment."

There's also funding set aside for abstinence only education:

Leave it to the United States Senate to prove my prediction slightly off. Their provision would restore a program called Title V, which, since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, has allocated a yearly $50 million in grants to abstinence-only education programs. Obama let the program lapse in June, leaving some abstinence-only groups in dire straits. So in September, Sen. Orrin Hatch offered an amendment to restore Title V via heath-care reform, which (much to the outrage of liberal groups) just squeaked through the Senate Finance Committee with a 12–11 vote. A similar amendment, offered in the House by Rep. Terry Lee from Nebraska, died in committee.

If the Senate language survives reconciliation, the Title V program will be extended through 2014. This will not, however, bring abstinence funding back to the levels of the past decade. In 2008, Title V grants accounted for just under 25 percent of the federal abstinence budget (the rest of the budget came from other abstinence-only funding sources not restored in the Senate bill, including Community Based Abstinence Education Grants and the Adolescent Family Life Act).

On another reproductive health front, abstinence only groups are declaring victory. “It is encouraging that the hard work of grassroots constituencies from across the country have prevailed to ensure these common-sense programs will continue,” said executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, Valerie Huber to The Americano. But abstinence-only programming has been scientifically proven to be ineffective.

UPDATE: Jodi Jacobson over at RH Reality Check has a more in-depth look at abortion in the Senate health care bill.

Cross posted.

The Real Story with College Athletes and Graduation Rates

(Flickr/Illinois Springfield)

Late last night, the Associated Press reported that the Associated Press released its own report that its graduation rates were higher than ever. The AP reported the story as "dispelling myths" that athletes aren't good students. But it's always a little suspicious when the organization releases a report that analyzes itself.

The NCAA says that "nearly four out of five student-athletes earn their diplomas on time, an all-time high." But when you examine what "on time" means, it looks at six-year graduation rates, not four-year rates. The analysis also excludes transfer students. The federal numbers for college athletes are significantly lower than the 79 percent graduation rate touted by the NCAA. The 2008 federal analysis shows that college athlete graduation rates hover closer to 60 percent for Division I (data that incidentally can be found on the NCAA's own website). They point out that female athletes outperform male athletes on graduation rates, but this is unsurprising, since this is also the case among non-athletes as well.

That's not to say that there aren't student athletes that are also excellent academics, and I understand that the NCAA is often fighting stereotypes about athletes. But the AP got spun here. The NCAA released its own statistics that are significantly different than federal numbers and expanding the definition of "on time" is to make its numbers look better.

Cross posted.

Camups Informer: Prostests at NYU Against Anti-Muslim Sentiment, MIT Grad Students Push for Immigration Reform

Campus Progress is bringing back a renewed version of a feature called Campus Informer, a roundup of cool and interesting stuff happening at campuses around the country. Of course, the feature isn't only limited to campuses, since Campus Progress exists for non-college youth and to make higher education more accessible and affordable. If you think something in your area should be included in Campus Informer, just email us at campusprogresseditors [at] americanprogress [dot] org.

• The University of Montana is trying to help Native Americans fight Type 2 diabetes. [Montana Kaimin]
• MIT's graduate students are pushing for a tax exemption on stipends, more money for federally funded research, and higher caps on H1-B visas for advanced-degree holders. [The Tech]
• George Washington University has received its highest number of early decision applications ever. [GW Hatchet]
  
• NYU students protest a Forbes.com column that talked of "going Muslim." [Washington Square News]
• Texas A&M memorializes students who died in a bonfire 10 years ago. [USA Today]

Cross posted.

Study: 'Industry-Wide Effect' of Stupak Amendment Will Eliminate Abortion Coverage

(Flickr/Brian Rendel)

Via TPMDC, a George Washington University School of Public Health study of public health shows that the Stupak-Pitts amendment would eventually eliminate all abortion coverage. "We conclude that treatment exclusions required under the Stupak-Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange," the study says.

The study also calls out the rider alternative, an add-on women could purchase separately to cover abortion (incidentally, this is how many insurance providers handle coverage for pregnancy now), as bullshit:

In our view, the terms and impact of the Amendment will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions. In any supplemental coverage arrangement, it is essential that the supplemental coverage be administered in conjunction with basic coverage. This intertwined administration approach is barred under Stupak/Pitts because of the prohibition against financial comingling. This bar is in addition to the challenges inherent in administering any supplemental policy. These challenges would be magnified in the case of medically indicated abortions because, given the relatively low number of medically indicated abortions, the coverage supplement would apply to only a handful of procedures for a handful of conditions. Furthermore, the House legislation contains no direct economic incentive to create such a market. Indeed, it is not clear how such a market even would be regulated or whether it would be subject to the requirements that apply to all products offered inside the exchange. Finally, because supplemental coverage must of necessity commingle funds with basic coverage, the impact of Stupak/Pitts on states’ ability to offer supplemental Medicaid coverage to women insured through a subsidized exchange plan is in doubt.

In other words, the Stupak/Pitts amendment is just as bad as feminists have been saying all along.

Cross posted.