Say it ain't so, Joe! Penn State coach Joe Paterno was in bed with Bank of America

According to a story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Penn State football coach Joe Paterno--Penn State's beloved "Joe Papa"--signed two $100,000 contracts to promote Bank of America products and sign some football helmets and footballs.

Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno
Photo credit: Paul Vathis/Associated Press

Apparently, Joe's $13 million pension, his access to a private jet, and his million dollar salary were not enough for him.  He had to sign on as a shill for Bank of America. No wonder he didn't spot Jerry Sandusky seducing little boys in the Penn State locker room.  Joe was too busy autographing footballs.

And the alumni association for Penn State University, Joe Papa's employer, also had a special deal with Bank of America. According to the same Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story, Penn State received more than $2.7 million in fees and royalties  from a deal to help a Bank of America subsidiary market high-interest credit cards to Penn State students and alumni.

Penn State's alumni association received a "1 percent kickback royalty" on retail purchases made by Penn State alumni on the Penn-State branded card and the association got 0.5 percent of purchases made by Penn State students.

Of course, both deals were confidential. We would not know about them were it not for a 2009 federal law that requires colleges and universities to file copies of their agreements with credit card companies with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. At one time, more than a thousand colleges and universities had deals with credit card companies. Today that number has dropped to about 600.

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, some universities made millions on these deals, but others got very little.  The University of St. Thomas, a Catholic university in Houston, Texas, only made $2,365 on its credit card deal in 2012. Why sell your soul for peanuts?

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story is another indication of the corporatization of American colleges and universities. Instead of focusing on their mission, which is to provide students with a high-quality education at a reasonable price, they wandered into the banking business, taking kickbacks from credit card companies in return from helping them peddle high-interest credit cards to college students.

This tawdry tale provides yet another reason for a federal open-records law that would require all colleges and universities that receive federal student-aid money to make all their records available to the public.

References

Associated Press. Joe Paterno earned $13.4M pension.  ESPN College Football, May 22, 2012. Accessible at: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7959425/joe-paterno-earned-134m-pension-penn-state-nittany-lions

Jo Becker. Joe Paterno Won Sweeter Deal Even as Scandal Played Out. New York Times, July 14, 2012. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/joe-paterno-got-richer-contract-amid-jerry-sandusky-inquiry.html?_r=0

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. College Credit Card Agreements. Accessible at: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/credit-cards/college-agreements/

Tim Grant. Penn State leads U.S. in earnings from collected credit card royalties. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.com, January 11, 2013.  Accessible at:

Such hypocrisy! The Obama administration urges private college-loan lenders to play nice with student borrowers

Obama administration officials summoned the leading private student-loan creditors to a meeting at the Treasury Department yesterday to urge them to do more to help student-loan borrowers who are in danger of default.

Who attended this meeting?  Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, and Richard Cordray, chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, represented the government.

And these are some of the banks that attended: Sallie Mae, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, RBS Citizens Financial, PNC Financial Services, SunTrust Banks, and Discover Financial Services.

The Obamacrats delivered their usual blather about easing the plight of overburdened student-loan borrowers.  This is how a government  spokeswoman described the meeting.

Participants discussed strategies to assist borrowers in successfully managing their private student loans, including servicing best practices and approaches to private student loan modifications and refinancing.

Yak, yak, yak.  The only way to get the private banks to behave decently toward indebted college students is to force them out of the student-loan business altogether.  And this could be done so easily.

In 2005, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to make private student loans nondischargeable in bankruptcy absent "undue hardship"--the same standard that applies to federal student loans. Consequently, private student loans--like federal student loans--are almost impossible to discharge in a bankruptcy court.

All Congress needs to do to reform the private student-loan industry is repeal the 2005 law and allow insolvent debtors with private student loans to discharge those loans in bankruptcy. I guarantee you, this single legislative change would dry up the private student-loan industry overnight.

But Congress won't do the straightforward thing.  No--it will tinker with all kinds of cosmetic fixes and allow the private banks to continue exploiting colleges students.  

Hands down, Sallie Mae is the chief offender. According to a 2012 news story, Albert Lord, Sallie Mae's CEO, made $225 million between 1999 and 2004 and was building his own private golf course.  What do you think his total compensation is today?

Democrats seem to think they can establish their liberal credentials simply by expressing sympathetic platitudes. Arne Duncan talks about helping student borrowers but hasn't done a damn thing to alleviate the student loan crisis.  And Senator Elizabeth Warren, a self-proclaimed consumer's  advocate, is all bark and and no bite.

Thanks, Arne,ever so much!

Why doesn't Congress act more aggressively to give college students some relief? Maybe because the private lenders and private-college industry hire well-paid lobbyists to protect their interests and make strategic campaign contributions to powerful politicians.

Personally, I won't start believing the so-called liberal Democrats who express concern about the student-loan crisis until some of them throw their support behind some straightforward and simple reforms.  First and foremost, insolvent students who took out private loans to finance their education should have access to bankruptcy.  

References

U.S. Urges Private Lenders and services to Help Borrowers. Inside Higher Education, January 20, 2014. Accessible at: http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2014/01/10/us-urges-private-lenders-and-servicers-help-borrowers

Sophia Zamen. "Education is Worth It": Students Take on Sallie Mae CEO Albert Lord at Shareholder Meeting.  Alternet.org, May 21,2012. Accessible at: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/932971/%22education_is_worth_it%22%3A_students_take_on_sallie_mae_ceo_albert_lord_at_shareholder_meeting

Note: My description of the meeting at the Treasury Department comes from the Inside Higher Education story.  My references to Sallie Mae are taken from Sophia Zamen's essay for Alternet.org

"Ye shall know the truth . . ." Have our great public universities lost touch with the people they were founded to serve?

Americans revere our Ivy League universities. Hundreds of American cities have a Harvard Street or a Yale Avenue. I live in the College Town subdivision of Baton Rouge, and Harvard Avenue is just a few blocks from my house.

But American adoration of the Ivy League colleges is misplaced. The real jewels in the crown of American higher education are our nation's great public universities: University of Wisconsin, University of Michigan, University of California and a few others. Founded and funded by state legislatures, these public universities were intended to be places where young men and women could receive a first-class education in their home states. 

University of Texas
"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

University of Texas, where I attuned law school, certainly ranks with the University of Michigan and the University of California as one of the nation's leading public universities.  At one time, bright young men and women from the cities and small towns of Texas could enroll at UT at very little cost and see a whole new world open up--the world of great ideas and great ideals.

In North Toward Home, Willie Morris, who later became a noted journalist and editor of Harper's magazine, wrote of his experience at UT in the 1950s.  Morris grew up in the small town of Yazoo City, Mississippi and attended the University of Texas in the early 1950s. He later made his home among the intellectual elites of New York City.

Years later, this is how Morris described how the University of Texas changed his life. "I believe now," Morris wrote, "that the University of Texas was somehow beginning to give me an interest and a curiosity outside my parochial ego."  It was at the University of Texas, Morris reflected, where he came to accept the notion of ideas "as something worth living by."

I first read North Toward Home while a student at UT, and my experience was similar to Morris's.  I still recall standing in front of the University's Main Library and reading these words above the steps, chiseled in stone in letters two feet high: "Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free."

Those words thrilled me then, and I must say UT kept its promise.  The law school opened a whole new world for me--a world of disciplined and clear thinking, academic rigor, and a reverence for ordered law.

I attended UT Law School at minimal expense; tuition was only $500 per semester. At that time, the Law School existed primarily for Texans. In fact, the law school was legally obligated to admit 85 percent of each entering class from among Texas citizens.  I met young men and women from all over Texas: African Americans from Houston and Dallas, Latinos from the Rio Grande Valley, Anglo men and women from such small towns as Vernon and Longview.

Today, I fear, the great American public universities have morphed into entirely different entities from the ones envisioned by the state legislatures that founded them.  As state funding has shrunk, the universities have become more and more dependent on tuition, endowments, and research funds.

Over time the great public universities have become to look very much like our elite private universities. They have lost their connection to the people of their respective states.

I see this phenomenon illustrated by rising costs and by the elitist posturing of our major public universities on social issues.  At their best, these universities once offered an education to the bright young men and women of their states--regardless of race, class, or wealth.  And tuition was kept down so the cost of receiving a college education would not be prohibitively expensive.

Today, the law school I attended for $1,000 a year charges Texas residents $36,000 a year in tuition, and it takes race into account when making admission decisions.  In fact, I believe all the major public universities have aggressive affirmative action policies in place. Until the policy was struck down by the Supreme Court, the University of Michigan even had a point system for admitting undergraduates that gave special preference to minorities.

Our great public universities are not only obsessed with race, they have increasingly become hostile to tradition religious values. The University of California's Hastings Law School refused to recognize a campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society as a student organization on the grounds that it declined to accept members who did not subscribe to traditional Christian doctrine on sexual morality. The University of Texas tried to bar a student group from handing out literature opposing abortion.

Today, our major state universities still describe themselves as public institutions but they increasingly look like the elite private universities in terms of their values.  Serving the common people of their respective states is too parochial for them.  Leave that to the regional institutions like Sam Houston State University in Huntsville or Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo.

This is fine, I suppose, but university leaders should be honest about their institutions' new identities.  Our most prestigious public universities now serve to advance a global culture of postmodernism and not the people of their states. In my view, state legislatures should cut all ties with these universities--formally designating them for what they really are: elitist private institutions.

 References

Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010).

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

Justice For All v. Faulkner, 410 F.3d 760 (5th    Cir. 2005).

Willie Morris. North Toward Home. New York: Delta Books, 1967.

Blah, blah, blah: Drew Faust, president of Harvard, lectures America on the value of arts education

Drew Faust, president of Harvard University, took time out from her busy schedule to co-author an op ed essay for USA Today on the value of arts education. Anxiety abounds, Faust and co-author Wynton Marsalis noted, about the ability of our current educational system to respond to a rapidly changing world. "Yet," they conclude, "the education we are fashioning for our children and their children seems ill-suited for the lives they will lead."

Faust and Marsalis went on to summarize the kind of education Americans need to live in the world we now inhabit and to shape the world to come:

We need education that nurtures judgment as well as mastery, ethics and values as well as analysis. We need learning that will enable students to interpret complexity, to adapt, to make sense of lives they never anticipated. We need a way of teaching that encourages them to develop understanding of those different from ourselves, enabling constructive collaborations across national and cultural origins and identities.

Faust and Marsalis then argue that many of the skills and attributes that students need to prepare themselves for life are taught through the arts--drama, music, dance, etc.

Well, who can argue with that? 

Drew Faust is president of  Harvard, the nation's most prestigious university and perhaps the most prestigious university in the world. We can reasonably assume that Harvard is providing students with an education that instills the values Faust and Marsalis articulated. Indeed, we might reasonably assume that all of the nation's elite universities--Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, Stanford, Brown, etc.--are instilling these values.

Drew Faust, President of Harvard Univefrsity

Unfortunately, I don't think these values are being taught in today's most prestigious universities.  Let's look at the people who work in the Obama administration, almost all of whom have undergraduate or graduate degrees from elite American universities.  For example, Jacob Lew, Secretary of the Treasury, has degrees from Harvard and Georgetown. Valerie Jarrett, one of President Obama's top advisers, received a degree from Stanford; and Obama himself has degrees from Columbia and Harvard Law School.

Do we see the Obamacrats exercising sound judgment as well as mastery? Do we see them demonstrating ethical values as well as analysis?  Do we see them expressing an appreciation for diverse cultures and religious traditions?

No, we do not.  Jacob Lew, our Secretary of the Treasury, received a $685,000 exit bonus from New York University when he left NYU to go to work for Citigroup. He also got a special deal from NYU on a home mortgage. Illegal? No. But certainly this compensation is inappropriate for a person working at a tax-exempt university.

And how about Valerie Jarrett, who basically said Americans are too dumb to understand President Obama's grand designs.  Has she demonstrated an understanding of people different from herself? No, she has shown contempt for the very people she is supposed to be serving.

And President Obama, who has accumulated honors and accolades all his life--has he demonstrated moral rectitude? Has he shown himself able to build "constructive collaborations across national and cultural origins and identities"? No, he has repeatedly insulted the Catholic Church, casually and perhaps even unknowingly. He has lied to the American public. His administration has managed to outrage many of the major nations of the world: France, Germany, Spain, Brazil, Mexico, Israel, Saudi Arabia and India among them.

It is time for Americans to realize that our nation's elite universities are not producing the leaders we need. The people who run our government--almost all graduates of our nation's elite colleges, are arrogant, provincial, condescending, and contemptuous of traditional American values, including the values associated with Christianity.  Perhaps more art education would produce better citizens as Faust and Marsalis suggest, but somehow I think President Obama and his cronies would still be as crude as they are now, even if they had taken a few art classes at their high-toned colleges.

References

Drew Faust and Wynton Marsalis. The Art of Learning. USA Today, January 2, 2014, p. 7A.

Danny Hakim. Obama's Treasury Nominee Got Unusual Exit Bonus on leaving N.Y.U. New York Times, February 25, 2013.  Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/nyregion/lew-treasury-nominee-got-exit-bonus-from-nyu.html?_r=0

George F. Will. How a Presidency Unravels. Washington Post, November 22, 2013.  Accessible at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-obamas-presidency-unravels-through-chaos-and-crisis/2013/11/22/57132e74-52de-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html

 

Bah humbug: Why are the secularists so mean spirited?

Ross Douthat  recently wrote a perceptive essay in the New York Times about the spiritual condition of American society.   Today, Douthat wrote, Americans can be categorized into three groups.  The

first group is made up of people who have a biblical view of the world. They believe God literally entered history in the form of a man named Jesus and redeemed humanity.

Catholics and evangelical Protestants belong to this group, but Catholics believe something more. We believe that Mary is the mother of God and fulfills a unique roll in God's salvation plan for humanity. We also believe that Christ is present in real form in the wine and bread of the Eucharist.

A second group, Douthat explained, has a spiritual view of the world. For this group, "the divine  is active in human affairs [and] every person is precious in God's sight." But broadly speaking, people with a spiritual point of view "[don't] sweat the details." For them, religion is "Christian-ish, but syncretistic; adaptable, easygoing and egalitarian."

Many Americans with a spiritual worldview don't care whether Jesus was born of a virgin or whether an angel conversed with Joseph.  But they ascribe to the Christian virtues; they are kind-hearted, congenial, and generous.  And just as importantly, they are tolerant of other world views, lifestyles and cultures

Finally,  Douthat identifies a third group of Americans--the secularists. This group "proposes a purely physical and purposeless universe, inhabited by evolutionary accidents whose sense of self is probably illusory." As Douthat points out, the purely secularist world view is rare among most Americans, but predominates among the intelligentsia--including the nation's political and media elites.

Douthat ascribes moral purpose to this last group--a commitment to "liberty, fraternity and human rights." Indeed, as Douthat points out, although secularists renounce a spiritual meaning to human existence, they "insist on moral and political absolutes with all the vigor of a 17th century New England preacher."

 Douthat is right to compare contemporary secularists to 17th century Puritans. In fact, the priggish self-righteousness of postmodern secularists is evocative of Cotton Mather.  We see this puritanical intolerance exhibited daily in the New York Times and especially in the writings of Bill Keller and Frank Bruni.

And here is where I disagree with Ross Douthat's description of secularism. Unlike Douthat, I do not believe there is any moral center to secularism, any real commitment to human rights. On the contrary, once you scratch the surface of secularism, you find only shrillness, intolerance and mean-spiritedness.

The atheist-sponsored Times Square billboard, proclaiming that  no one needs Christ in Christmas, says it all.  The secularists are the Ebenezer Scrooges of the 21st century: Christianity? Bah, humbug.

We also see the true nature of secularism in the presidency of Barack Obama, the nation's supreme postmodern secularist. Contrary to the President's rhetoric about hope and change, we see nothing in his leadership but deception, manipulation and hollowness--dished out with an air of self-righteous superiority.

Douthat concludes his essay by asking where the nation is headed. Will biblical religion gain some of its lost ground, he asks, or will  the spiritual worldview ultimately prevail? He also asks whether "the intelligentsia's  fusion  of scientific materialism and liberal egalitarianism  will eventually crack up and give way to something new."

Personally, I don't think the secularists' world  view will long prevail in the United States. How can secularists insist they have a moral purpose if they believe that human life has no ultimate meaning? If there is no God, why not turn toward materialism, why not join the empty quest for power and recognition--which in fact is what the secularists have largely done.

I agree with Alexis de Tocqueville's  prediction about the future of American religion, which he made in 1835.  O]ur posterity," he observed, "will tend more and more to a division into only two parts, some relinquishing Christianity entirely and others returning to the Church of Rome." In other words, the day will come when Americans will either be Catholics or nothing at all.

It is a lonely view, I grant you, but I believe that the foundations of Western civilization were laid on the bedrock of the Catholic faith. Eventually, as  de Tocqueville has said, Americans will drift into one of two camps--Catholicism or secularism. Although the secularists appear now to be in the saddle, God moves through history in mysterious ways.  In God's own time, He will send us new saints who will witness to God's presence in the world and inspire us to return to the ancient doctrines of our Mother Church.

Even now we have the lives of past saints to inspire and guide us: Saint Catherine of Sienna, Saint Edith Stein, Saint Katharine Drexel, Saint Teresa of Avila, and Servant of God Dorothy Day.  And though the secularists may say "Bah, humbug," let us cling to our childlike belief in the Christmas story.

References

 Ross Douthat. Ideas From a Manger. New York Times, December 22, 2013, Sunday Review Section,p. 11.

Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America, edited by Phillips Bradley. New York; Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1945.

The Doting Mother Syndrome: The New York Times endorses America's gross insult to India

When it comes to President Obama and his administration, the New York Times is like the doting mother of a spoiled brat. You know the type. The kid is usually a little bully--disrespectful, sneaky,  and disrespectful.  But mama always takes the kid's side.  People who complain about her son just don't understand little Johnny, who is too special to be expected to behave decently or to comply with the rules of civil behavior that apply to ordinary people.

Without question, the United States government blundered when federal agents arrested Devyani  Khobragade, an Indian diplomat, in front of her child's school.  Federal officials then cuffed her, subjected her to a body cavity search, and threw her in a cell with common criminals.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry should apologize to Ms. Khobragade and the Indian government for this outrageous breech of civility; and Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney who ordered Ms. Khobragade's arrest, should be fired.

Preet Bharara should be fired

But the New York Times simply doesn't get it. "India's reaction to the arrest of one of its diplomats . . . is unworthy of a democratic government," The Times said in an editorial yesterday. In fact, in the Times' opinion, Secretary of State John Kerry should not even have issued his vague statement of regret over the incident.

In today's issue, the Times went further, printing an op ed essay by Anana Bhattacharyya, who lectured the Indians about their  "feudal mindset." Bhattacharyya seems to think the United States did India a favor by humiliating one of its diplomats. "I can only hope that [this] case will make Indians look inward and see that feelings of patriotic fervor aside, India has a serious problem."

Such drivel! The Times is behaving exactly like the doting mother of a spoiled brat, which is what President Obama increasingly resembles.   Since taking office, Obama has lied to the American public, misused the Internal Revenue Service, spied on our allies, and launched drone attacks that have killed innocent civilians indiscriminately.  He has insulted the Catholic Church, and he behaved boorishly at Nelson Mandela's memorial service.

And yet the Times mindlessly defends the Obama administration, like a dotty mama standing up for little Johnny after the principal caught him scrawling graffiti in the school bathroom.

Admittedly the facts of this affair are murky. The United States says Ms. Khobragade committed visa fraud, and the Indian government maintains that Ms. Khobragade's housekeeper tried to blackmail her.

But even if the facts are exactly like the federal prosecutor claims them to be, a civilized government does not conduct a body cavity search on another nation's diplomat based on such a petty charge.

No, Ms. Khobragade deserves an apology. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is too cool to ever say he's sorry.  And the New York Times, Mr. Obama's neurotic enabler, has made matters worse  by interpreting the whole affair as a reflection of the flaws in Indian society.

But I would like Ms. Khobragade and the nation of India to know that at least one humble American is ashamed of the way the American government behaved in this disgraceful affair. So on behalf of myself and decent Americans all over the United States, let me just say this: Ms. Khobragade, we are sorry for the behavior of our government, and we are deeply ashamed.

References

Ananya Bhattacharya. Having a Servant is Not a Right. New York Times, December 21, 2013, p. A19.

Editorial. India's Misplaced Outrage. New York Times, December 20, 2013, p. A26.

American officials insult India by strip-searching an Indian diplomat. Perhaps India should respond in kind

Devyani Khobragade, India's deputy consul general in New York, was arrested outside her child's school a few days ago.  While she was detained, she was handcuffed, strip searched, and thrown in a cell with common criminals. U.S. authorities acknowledge that the strip search included a search of body cavities,  but they stoutly maintained she was afforded special consideration because of her diplomatic status.


Ms. Devyani Khobragade deserves
a personal apology from Secretary
of State John Kerry
photo credit: Mohammed Jaffer AP

What was Ms. Khobragade's offense?  She is accused of underpaying her housekeeper and working her more than 40 hours a week.

A couple of observations.  First, don't you think it is hypocritical of the United States to kill innocent civilians with drone strikes in Pakistan and then strip search an Indian diplomat for overworking her housekeeper?

Second, if a diplomat must submit to a body cavity search based on an accusation that she underpaid her housekeeper, then Washington politicians should make sure they keep their undergarments in good repair.  How many Congresspeople  and senators do you think are underpaying their nannies, lawn care employees and domestic servants?  A few I would venture. Wouldn't it be embarrassing for a Congressman to to reveal  he was wearing tattered boxer shorts after being booked for not paying Social Security taxes on a nanny's salary?

Of course, the Obama administration issued one of its "I'm not really sorry" apologies. Secretary of State Kerry expressed "regret" over the incident, which is kind of like Obama saying he was sorry people found themselves in the situation of not having health insurance. Hey, "my bad."

I predict the Indians will not be satisfied with anything less than a profound personal apology delivered to the Indian Prime Minister and Ms. Khobragade by a senor American official.  I hope Secretary of State John Kerry flies to Mumbai  to deliver this apology himself, and I hope the Indians extend him an American-style welcome by giving him a thorough cavity search at the airport.

References

Gardiner Harris. Outrage in India, and Retaliation, Over a Female Diplomat's Arrest in New York. New York Times, December 18, 2013, p. A13.