President Obama talks about a safety net, but there is no safety net for student-loan defaulters

President Obama made a speech recently about income inequality in America, and Paul Krugman swooned like a 1950s-era school girl at a Buddy Holly concert. Only cynics, Krugman suggested, would discount the importance of President Obama's great speech. 

Rah! Rah! Rah!
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize Winner, loved President Obama's speech on income inequality

I'm sorry, Paul. But until the President backs up his soaring rhetoric with some action, I will remain cynical.

President Obama talked a lot in his speech  about strengthening the safety net for people who fall on hard times. "We've . . . got to strengthen our safety net for a new age," the President said, "so it doesn't just protect people who hit a run of bad luck from falling into poverty, but also propels them back out of poverty."

These are fine words, but let's look at the millions of people who took out federal student loans to get a college education and can't pay them back. There is no safety net for them. No, for them, there is only a cascading river of woe.

First of all, people who default on their student loans find that it all but impossible to discharge their student-loan debt in bankruptcy.  And this is true even for people who financed their education through private banks and not the federal student-loan program.

Second, many students enrolled at for-profit universities based on misrepresentations, but they
can't sue the institutions that defrauded them. We know that students who attended for-profit colleges have the highest student-loan default rate and the highest level of student-loan debt. Nevertheless, even if they accumulated debt based on a for-profit college's false promises, students are often unable to seek relief in the courts. That's because many--probably most--of the for-profit colleges make students sign arbitration agreements whereby students waive their right to sue fraudulent institutions in court.

Third, many student-loan defaulters find that the amount they owe on their loans is double or even triple the amount they borrowed. That's because interest accumulates on the unpaid debt and the government's debt collectors add a 25 percent penalty.  As we saw in the Roth case (discussed in a previous blog), a woman who borrowed $33,000 to obtain a degree she never completed owed $95,000 by the time she sought bankruptcy relief.

And there is no statute of limitations on collecting unpaid student loans. Thus, the government and its agents can wait 20 years, 25 years, even  40 years to sue a student-loan defaulter. And the government can garnish elderly defaulters' Social Security checks and apply the amount collected to their student loan debt.

Do see any safety net for these people?

How many people have their backs against the wall due to their college loans? Millions. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 15 million people whose loans are in the repayment stage aren't making payments.  Six million are in default, and almost 9 million more have obtained deferments or forbearances that allow them not to make payments. 

In his speech, President Obama acknowledged that people have had trouble paying off their loans, but he said federal grants and loans go farther under his administration than they did before.  Of course if that were true, student-loan indebtedness would not be going up every year.

The President also said that the government has made it "more practical" for students to repay their loans.  I take it he means that the government is encouraging students to sign up for income-based repayment plans that obligate them to make loan payments for 25 years.  The President may think 25-year loan repayment plans makes loan repayment more practical.  But in fact, these plans are a 21st century version of the indentured servant system.

In addition, the President said his administration was advancing "an aggressive strategy to promote innovation that reins in student costs," an apparent reference to his vague college rating system. "We've got lower costs so that young people are not burdened by enormous debt when they make the right decision to get higher education," he asserted.

But this simply isn't true.  Total student-loan indebtedness has grown to $1.2 billion, and average indebtedness for a college graduate is risen to more than $29,000.

 Of course President Obama could construct a real safety net for distressed student-loan debtors if he chose to do so. He could promote an amendment to the Bankruptcy Code that would allow destitute student-loan debtors to discharge their college loans in bankruptcy.  He could bar for-profits from forcing their students to sign litigation waivers as a condition of enrollment.  He could reform the student-loan debt collection protocol to lower the fees and penalties that debt collectors charge defaulters.  He could stop the practice of garnishing elderly defaulters' Social Security checks.

As he done any of these things? Has he even proposed doing any of things? No, he has not.  And although it is true that President Obama does not have a cooperative Congress, he could begin weaving at least a partial "safety net" through executive orders.  A lot of the abuses in the for-profit industry and abusive debt-collection practices could be stopped by executive action or administrative regulations.

So, yes, Mr. Krugman, I am cynical about President Obama's speech. And Mr. Krugman should be cynical too.  After all, he is a Nobel-Prize winning economist who surely knows that crushing student-loan debt has thrown millions of people out of the American economy. 

Mr. Krugman rebukes the cynicism of the so-called "pundit class," but it is Mr. Krugman, The New York Times and the entire elitist media that appear cynical to me.  Our liberal media have become nothing more than cheerleaders for an aimless President, while millions of young Americans who sought a college education in good faith suffer from an insane federal student-loan program and a rapacious for-profit college industry.

References

Editorial. The President on Inequality. New York Times, December 5, 2013, p. A30.

Paul Krugman. Obama Gets Real. New York Times, December 6, 2013, p. A31.

President Barack Obama. Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility. White House Press release, December 4, 2013.

I miss Barney Fife: Rice University police repeatedly beat suspected bicycle thief and Rice won't turn over records

I miss Barney Fife

Last week, a Houston television station aired a video showing Rice University police officers beating  a suspected bicycle thief while he was lying on the ground begging them to stop.  According to the Houston Chronicle, officers hit the man13 times in 20 seconds.

Did the Rice cops use excessive force? I can't say. The police maintain the suspect refused to be handcuffed and that they used the appropriate procedure to subdue him.

As of yesterday, Rice University refused to release the entire video of the arrest or the mug shot of the suspect. Rice claims it is not subject to the Texas Public Information Act because it is a private university. 

In an editorial that appeared on December 4th, The Houston Chronicle criticized Rice University's secrecy about the beating incident. "Police in a democratic society must be open to investigation, even if they work at a private university," the Chronicle argued.

The Chronicle pointed out that Rice gets millions of dollars in state funding and its students are eligible for state financial aid. The newspaper called on the Texas legislature to close the loophole in the Texas Public Information Act so that the law applies to private universities.

John Whitmire, a state senator from Houston, is also upset by Rice University's secrecy.  Whitmire threatened to make it harder for Rice to get public money. "One, watch what I do to their budget," Senator Whitmire was quoted as saying. "And two, watch what I do to their police department."

I agree with the Houston Chronicle and Senator Whitmire. Rice University, which receives millions of dollars in state and federal money, should not be able to shield its activities from public view simply because it is a private university. Rice should be subject to the Texas Public Information Act, just as state agencies are.

This incident is reminiscent of the pepper spray incident that took place at UC Davis in 2011. University police officers pepper sprayed nonthreatening students who were sitting on a sidewalk during an Occupy Wall Street demonstration.  Linda Katehi, UC Davis president, apologized for the incident; and the university paid a million dollars to settle a lawsuit brought by the victims.

But UC Davis never released information about what it did with Lieutenant John Pike, the chief offender in the pepper spray incident.  Pike left the university under undisclosed circumstances.

 I wish to make two points about the incidents that took place at Rice and UC Davis. First, as I have said before, every university that participates in the federal student loan program should operate in complete transparency, whether it is public and private.  It is time for a federal open records law that applies to all colleges that receive federal student-loan money.

Second, the Rice incident and the UC Davis pepper-spray incident may be an indication that our university police departments are slowly evolving from service agencies dedicated to protecting and assisting students to paramilitary organizations.  Was it necessary, after all, for UC Davis police officers to attack peaceful students while wearing riot gear?

Personally, I miss the good old days when campus police officers behaved a little more like Barney Fife and a little less like Robo Cop. 

UC Pepper-Spray Incident
Photo credit: Wayne Tilcock, Davis Enterprise

Reference

Editorial. Secret police: Footage of Rice  University officers beating a suspect raises serious questions. Houston Chronicle, December 4, 2013, p. B6.

Brian Rogers. Lack of police transparency in Rice arrest angers lawmaker. Houston Chronicle, December 3, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Lack-of-police-transparency-in-Rice-arrest-angers-5029397.php

Tyler Kinkade. Lt. John Pike, UC Davis Pepper Spray Cop, No Longer Working at University. Huffington Post, August 10, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/lt-john-pike-uc-davis-pepper-spray-campus-police_n_1727933.html

 

Yet another injustice: For-profit colleges force ripped-off students to arbitrate their claims rather than seek relief in the courts

The federal student loan program is a metaphorical train wreck--the wreck of a passenger train crowded with hapless commuters. The injured are strewn all over the landscape waiting to be treated.

The federal student loan program is a metaphorical train wreck.

If President Obama were a compassionate man, he would introduce legislation to assist the people who have been hurt by their participation in the federal student loan program. But he's not doing that. To extend the train-wreck metaphor further, Obama wants to close his eyes to the carnage on the railroad tracks and focus all his attention on designing a safer railroad car.

The President has done nothing to ease the plight of millions of young people who are burdened by student-loan debt and can't find decent jobs. Instead, he is pushing a college rating system that supposedly will help students make better choices about where to attend college. And he also wants more students to sign up for long-term student-loan repayment plans.

 

Of course, everyone knows that the most egregious student-loan abuses involve the for-profit colleges, which have been accused of high-pressure recruiting tactics and misrepresentations about students' job prospects. From time to time former students have sued for-profit colleges under state consumer protection laws, seeking damages based on claims that they'd been ripped off.

 

But the for-profits have figured out a clever way to stop lawsuits against them. Many of them force students to sign arbitration agreements when they enroll. Under these agreements, students waive their right to sue the college, even if they later believe they were induced to enroll based on misrepresentations. Instead, students are forced to submit their claims to arbitration, which most often benefits the college, not the student. More on this later.

Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges: Students at for-profit colleges are denied right to a jury trial

Here's a recent example. In Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., decided last August by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Kevin Ferguson and Sandra Muniz, former students at schools operated by Corinthian Colleges, Inc., sought to bring a class action law suit against Corinthian based on alleged misrepresentations. These were their claims, as outlined by the court:

The thrust of [the former students'] complaint was that Corinthian systematically misled prospective students in order to entice enrollment. Corinth allegedly misrepresented the quality of its education, its accreditation, the career prospects for its graduates, and the actual cost of education at one of its schools. Students were also allegedly misinformed about financial aid, which resulted in student loans that many could not repay. Corinthian also allegedly targeted veterans and military personnel specifically, so that it could receive funding through federal financial aid programs available to those people.

Unfortunately for Ferguson and Muniz, both had signed arbitration agreements with Corinthian or one of its subsidiaries as part of the admission process. Under these agreements, they waived the right to sue Corinthian and agreed to arbitrate any claims under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

When Ferguson and Muniz sued in federal court, Corinthian moved to dismiss their case on the grounds that they were compelled to arbitrate. A federal judge granted Corinthian's motion in part but allowed the former students to seek an injunction against Corinthian in federal court.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, ruling that all claims against Corinthian must be arbitrated, including any request for injunctive relief. The Federal Arbitration Act "reflects an 'emphatic federal policy' in favor of arbitration," the court said. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, "the FAA preempts contrary state law" and prevents the states from allowing a party to go to court to resolve claims that the party had previously agreed to submit to arbitration.

Why is Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. a bad decision for students?

Why do the for-profits require students to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of enrolling? Forcing dissatisfied students to arbitrate their claims is advantageous to the corporate universities because students must pay a part of the arbitrator's cost, something many students can't afford to do. In addition, the for-profits prefer to go before an arbitrator rather than a jury, which might be quite sympathetic to a student's claim that he or she was induced to enroll in a for-profit college based on false promises and misrepresentations.

 

Moreover, arbitrators generally do not award punitive damages, their power to grant injunctive relief is limited if not non-existent, and an arbitrator's decision is usually private and not subject to public inspection. No wonder the for-profits require their students to sign agreements promising to arbitrate their complaints and not file lawsuits.

Congress should pass a law barring for-profit colleges from forcing students to sign arbitration agreements

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, states do not have the authority to allow ripped-off students to sue for-profit colleges under state consumer-protection laws if those students signed arbitration agreements, which many of them are forced to do as a condition of enrolling in a for-profit college. This is wrong.

 

President Obama should introduce legislation that prohibits for-profit colleges from forcing students to sign arbitration agreements and specifically permits students to sue for-profit colleges for fraud or misrepresentation under appropriate state consumer-protection laws. The legislation should give students the right to a jury trial, and prevailing students should receive attorney fees and punitive damages when appropriate.

 

Of course, President Obama will never introduce such legislation, and Congress would never pass it if he did. The for-profits are too politically powerful for such a law ever to be adopted.
 

Rather than tackle the abuses in the for-profit college industry, President Obama prefers to introduce a complicated and toothless rating system for colleges--a rating system that will do nothing to reduce the harm so many students suffer when they borrow money to attend a for-profit college or university.

References
 

Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 733 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2013).

Peace for our time or a historic mistake? The Ivy Leaguers make a deal with Iran and your children will pay the price

World War II was unnecessary, Churchill wrote in The Gathering Storm, the first volume of his history of the Second World War. Had the British and Americans conducted their affairs "with the ordinary consistency and common sense usual in decent households," Church observed, they could have maintained their security without bloodshed.

Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain & Hitler
September 23, 1938

Those of us who read history know that Neville Chamberlain made a groveling peace pact with Hitler in 1938, and less than a year later, England and Germany were at war.  As Churchill put the matter, "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war."

Today, the United States and its passive allies are on the verge of a deal with Iran whereby the United States and the European Union lift their sanctions against Iran and Iran promises not to build a nuclear bomb.

Does anyone believe Iran will cease its efforts to become a nuclear power? I certainly don't.  And Israel, whose life depends upon this issue, doesn't believe it either.  The deal with Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated emphatically, is a "historic mistake."

But, like Neville Chamberlain, who believed his deal with Hitler would bring "peace for our time," President Obama believes he has made the Middle East a safer place. Or perhaps he merely believes a deal with Iran will look good on his vita.

America's national affairs are in such disarray that it is embarrassing to contemplate them. Today, the United States begs a mob of Afghan elders to allow us to pour American blood and treasure into a country that has no interest whatsoever in democratic values or human rights.

On the home front, the President has lied repeatedly about the essential features of Obamacare, but he holds average Americans in such contempt that he doesn't bother with a proper apology.  As Churchill said of British politician Stanley Baldwin, "He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened."

As I have said more than once, our country is being run by people who were schooled in the nation's elite colleges and professional schools--institutions which teach nothing more than arrogance, an unseemly obsession with power and recognition, and a studied cynicism toward traditional American values.

How will all this end? Regarding Iran, there are just two possibilities.  Either Iran will become a nuclear power and thereby make the Middle East even more unstable or Israel will launch military strikes in an effort to destroy Iran's nuclear capability.

If Israel acts militarily, you can kiss your 401(k) goodbye along with your draft-age children and grandchildren.

But don't worry about Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.  However things turn out, there's a book deal for Obama after he steps down from the presidency.  And John Kerry's wealth is well invested.  He will do just fine financially no matter what happens to you and me.

References

Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948.

Jodi Rudoren. Israelis See Ticking Clock, and Alternative Approaches, on Iran and Palestinians. New York Times, November 26, 2013, p. A12.

"You can't get there from here": It is very difficult to sue the Department of Education about a disputed student loan

According to urban legend, a traveler asked a Maine farmer for directions to a nearby town. "You can't get there from here," the farmer replied, a cryptic and distinctly unhelpful reply.

 You can't get there from here.

photo credit: treehugger.com

Well if you are a student-loan debtor who believes a  mistake was made about your loan, you are unlikely to get the problem resolved quickly in a court proceeding. In other words, when it comes to suing the federal government about your student-loan debt, "You can't get there from here."

The Wagstaff case: Eight years of fruitless litigation about a student-loan debt

Take the case of Audrey Wagstaff, who took out six federal student loans to attend Our Lady of the Lake University in the early 1990s.  According to the U.S. Department of Education, Ms. Wagstaff didn't make any payments on her loans.  DOE sued her in 1999, dropped the lawsuit, and then began administrative collection efforts against here.  DOE garnished Wagstaff''s wages in order to collect on the loans and applied some offsets to her federal tax refunds.

In 2005, Wagstaff sued DOE under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging DOE's collection practices violated the Act.  A federal court dismissed her case, and she appealed.  In 2007, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the Department of Education is not subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Undaunted, Wagstaff sued in a Texas state court. DOE transferred the case to federal court, where she was dismissed again.  She appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which ruled again that Wagstaff did not have a case.

In 2011, Wagstaff sued yet again, this time in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Department of Education tried to get this suit dismissed as well, and the Court of Federal Claims dismissed all her constitutional claims and statutory civil rights claims.

But the court did not dismiss all of Wagstaff's claims.  The court concluded that Wagstaff had properly pleaded a claim of "illegal exaction" against the government, which the court had jurisdiction to hear. In addition, the court ruled that she had brought her claim within the six-year limitation period for bringing claims against the government, so it allowed her lawsuit to proceed.

In the end, however, Wagstaff lost her case. On July 13, 2013, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that DOE had correctly calculated Wagstaff's student-loan debt. "There is no evidence to suggest the Government behaved unlawfully," the court ruled, and "the Government has properly supported its assertion that the promissory notes were valid . . ." (p. 765).

What does the Wagstaff litigation mean for the rest of us?

Audrey Wagstaff may not be a sympathetic plaintiff.  According to the Department of Education, she had never made a single payment on her six student loans. Nevertheless, her experience in federal court gives all of us some things to ponder.

First of all, if a student-loan debtor has a dispute about the amount of money owed, it is best to try to resolve the dispute as quickly and as  informally as possible.  According to the 2013 Court of Federal Claims opinion, Mrs. Wagstaff only borrowed about $17,000.  But interest and penalties accrued over the years, and by the time the Court of Federal Claims ruled in 2013, the amount she owed had more than doubled to $36,000.

Second, the Fifth Circuit ruled conclusively that the federal government is not subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and cannot be sued for unfair debt collection practices under that law. But shouldn't the federal government be subject to the same restraints that apply to other debt collectors? After all, six million people have defaulted on federal student loans; and the Department of Education, acting through private agencies, may be the largest debt collector in the world.

Third, Ms. Wagstaff was compelled to bring her claims of unfair debt collection against the feds within six years, but there is no time constraint on the government suing Ms. Wagstaff.  Shouldn't the same six-year statute of limitations that applies to student-loan debtors also apply to the Department of Education?

Finally, if someone has an unfair debt collection claim against the federal government that pertains to a student loan, shouldn't that person be able to litigate the claim in a federal district court in the debtor's home state rather than being forced to sue in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims?

In my opinion, student loan debtors who are unable to resolve disputes about their loans at the administrative level should have easy access to the federal courts to litigate their claims, and the federal government should be under the same constraints against unfair debt-collection practices that apply to private debt collectors.

Do you think anyone in Congress is interested in making the Department of Education subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? Do you think anyone in Congress is interested in putting a six-year statute of limitation on the federal government's efforts to collect on student-loan debt? Do you think the Obama administration is interested in either of these issues?

No, Congress and the Obama administration have absolutely no interest in giving basic consumer protections to the millions of  distressed student-loan debtors. Consequently, these people are suffering in silence, unable to pay back their loans, unable to discharge them in bankruptcy, and unable to start their lives afresh.

References

Wagstaff v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 754 (2013).

Wagstaff v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 99 (2012).

Wagstaff v. United States, 366 Fed. Appx. 564 (5th Cir. 2010).

Wagstaff v. United States, 509 F.3d   661 (5th Cir. 2007).

President Obama's Proposed College Rating Plan is a Non-Starter: Colleges Should Prepare for More Bureaucracy and Higher Costs

"When someone describes himself as a Christian businessman," my former law partner once observed, "I put my hand over my wallet."

I feel the same way when President Obama announces a new plan to help the middle class. When the President proposes to do something nice for average Americans, I get nervous.

And what is President Obama's latest proposal to help the middle class? According to a White House press release, President Obama wants to implement a college rating plan "to Make College More Affordable" and "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class."

That's right. Having mucked up health care, the President now plans to screw up higher education even more than it is already screwed up.

President Obama wants to help the
middle class. No, really!

Although the details aren't yet clear, the President's new system "will measure college performance through a new rating system so students and families have the information to select schools that provide the best value."  This new rating system, the White House assures us,  will "incentivize [sic]colleges to provide better value by improving performance, lowering costs, and investing in student access and success."

What's the President's ultimate goal? I think it is to shift federal aid money to certain favored institutions.  The press release says the Department of Education ultimately plans to give more federal student aid to colleges that provide the best value. According to the White House press release, students attending high-performing colleges would receive larger Pell Grants and more affordable student loans than students attending lower-ranked institutions.

So how will the President's latest grandiose scheme roll out?  This is my prediction:

1) First, DOE will vet its proposed college-rating regulations with higher education's powerful constituencies: the for-profit colleges;  elite schools like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford; and the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).  These groups will have their lobbyists and lawyers weigh in and make sure the new regulations won't hurt them. DOE will acquiesce to all these groups' demands.

2) Next, President Obama will sign executive orders and DOE will promulgate administrative regulations that will implement the President's new college-rating system.  All this will be accomplished without Congressional approval because Congress would never approve this hare-brained scheme.

3) Colleges will hire consultants and low-level bureaucrats to comply with the new rating system without changing the way they do business.  College costs will not go down. On the contrary, tuition will continue to rise faster than the rate of inflation just as it has for the last 30 years.

If President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan were serious about lowering college costs and providing a "better bargain for the middle class," they would kick the for-profit colleges out of the federal student aid program. The for-profits educate about 11 percent of all post-secondary students, but they get 25 percent of all the federal student aid money--about $35 billion a year.  They have highest student-loan default rates in the industry and low student-completion rates.

If the federal government shifted that $35 billion from the for-profit sector to community colleges, think what could be accomplished. Community colleges could educate the same groups of students now going to for-profit colleges for much less money.

But President Obama won't stand up to the for-profit college industry.  That would be too hard.  No, he would rather impose another level of bureaucratic reporting on colleges and universities that are already over-regulated.  That's President Obama's big plan to make college more affordable for the middle class.

References

White House Press Release. FACT SHEET on the President's Plan to Make College More Affordable: A Better Bargain for the Middle Class. August 22, 2013.

President Obama Did Not Tell the Truth About the Affordable Care Act: Where Was the President Educated?

Justice Ruth Ginsburg
It's OK to scam the rubes (wink!)

In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court overturned an affirmative action program at the University of Michigan that used a point system to benefit minority applicants to the university.  In the majority opinion's view, the University of Michigan had unlawfully discriminated against white applicants in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

In a remarkable display of cynicism, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. She argued that the Court should allow American universities to discriminate based on race because they would do it anyway, even if they had to lie about it.

Here is what she said:

One can reasonably anticipate . . . that colleges and universities will seek to maintain their minority enrollment--and the networks and opportunities thereby opened to minority graduates--whether or not they can do so in full candor through adoption of affirmative action plans of the kind here at issue. Without recourse to such plans, institutions of higher education may resort to camouflage. . . . If honesty is the best policy, surely Michigan's accurately described, fully disclosed College affirmative action program is preferable to achieving similar numbers through winks, nods, and disguises. (emphasis supplied)

What an astonishing thing for a Supreme Court Justice to write. In her view, college administrators are so lacking in integrity that they will lie in order to achieve their desired social goals, even if their tactics violate the law.

And Justice Ginsburg did not condemn such behavior. Implicitly at least, Justice Ginsburg endorsed the view that the end justifies the means.  Affirmative action is so worthwhile, she apparently believes, that it is OK for college officials to engage in subterfuge--to camouflage their activities, to advance their goals through "winks, nods, and disguises."

President Obama, we now know, shares Justice Ginsburg's views about honesty. Universal health care is such a good thing, he believes, that it is permissible to lie repeatedly about how the new health care law actually works.

I'm part Cherokee (wink!)

Where did Justice Ginsburg and President Obama develop such cynical views about honesty and the law? Well they were both educated at Harvard Law School and both served on the Harvard Law Review. (Justice Ginsburg transferred from Harvard to Columbia Law School before she graduated.) Perhaps Harvard infected them with the elitist view that it is OK to scam the rubes.  After all, it is the elites--people like Ruth and Barack--who know what is best for people.

And if a Harvard Law Professor (Elizabeth Warren) wants to claim she's an American Indian, that's OK too. It is important for Harvard to claim it has a Native American law professor, whether or not it's true.

Harvard's motto is Veritas--the Latin word for truth.  In light of the leaders Harvard has produced in recent years, perhaps its motto should be tweaked a bit.  How about "Veritas (wink)".



Veritas (wink!)

References

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).