New Article: Chad Klitzman, College Student Homelessness: A Hidden Epidemic, 51 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Prob. 587 (2018). Abstract below:
This Note examines a surprising obstacle for an increasing number of college students: homelessness. After first offering an overview of legislation in the education field dealing specifically with the education of those experiencing homelessness, this Note then offers insights into how and why people experiencing homelessness tackle both the world of higher education and their respective institutions’ capacities to service their needs both in and out of the classroom. This exploration occurs largely through interview testimony conducted by the author. Many institutions lack the resources needed to service all of a students’ needs (food, clothing, etc.). After exploring the malleability of the higher education and social services systems, this Note argues that certain policy changes — legislation, community work, and change at the institutional level — would be beneficial in combatting this growing homelessness epidemic.
New Book: Omari Scott Simmons, Potential on the Periphery: College Access from the Ground Up (2018). Overview below:
Even high-performing students sometimes need assistance to transform their high school achievement into a higher education outcome that matches their potential, especially when those students come from vulnerable backgrounds. Without intervention, many of these students, lost in the transition between secondary school and higher education, would not attend selective colleges that provide greater opportunities. Potential on the Periphery profiles the Simmons Memorial Foundation (SMF), a grassroots non-profit organization co-founded by author Omari Scott Simmons, that promotes college access for students in North Carolina and Delaware. Simmons discusses how the organization has helped students secure admission and succeed in college, using this example to contextualize the broader realm of existing education practice, academic theory, and public policy. Using data gleaned from interviews with past student participants in the programs run by the SMF, Simmons illuminates the underlying factors thwarting student achievement, such as inadequate information about college options, limited opportunities for social capital acquisition, financial pressures, self-doubt, and political weakness. Simmons then identifies policy solutions and pragmatic strategies that college access organizations can adopt to address these factors.
News Coverage: Sarah Holder, How Corporate Tax Incentives Rob Public School Budgets, CityLab.com, Dec. 11, 2018.
A new Good Jobs First study shows that corporate tax incentives—like those given for Amazon HQ2—have diverted at least $1.8 billion from public schools.
New Report: Jennifer Berry Hawes, Seanna Adcox, Paul Bowers, Thad Moore, & Glenn Smith, Minimally Adequate (Part Two): No accident of history, The Post and Courier.
Echoes of segregation still permeate SC’s education system, placing black students in peril.
Posted in Blog Posts, Children, Criminalization of Poverty, Education, Inequality, Legal Academia, Measuring Poverty, Race, Rural Issues, Socio-Economic Rights, Teaching Poverty Law, Urban Issues
Wendy Anne Bach, Hope, JOTWELL (November 9, 2018) (reviewing Amna Akbar, Toward a Radical Imagination of Law, 93 NYU L. Rev.405 (2018)).
New Article: David B. Oppenheimer, Dr. King’s Dream of Affirmative Action, U.C. Berkeley Public Law Research Paper (2017). Abstract below:
President Trump and Attorney General Sessions have decided to challenge affirmative action policies in higher education as a form of discrimination against white people. We should expect them to soon be citing Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech as evidence that Dr. King would be supporting their position if he were still alive. We should also expect them to propose that class-based affirmative action replace race-based affirmative action, and again cite Dr. King, as a supporter of remedies for poverty, regardless of race. Indeed, the contemporary debate about affirmative action increasingly pits those who support race-based affirmative action against those calling for class-based affirmative action, which is frequently described as a “color-blind” alternative. And in support of this alternative to race-conscious affirmative action, its proponents often invoke Dr. King as a supporter of color-blind affirmative action.
The truth is more complicated, and infinitely more interesting and instructive. While Dr. King dreamed of a time when racism – and thus race – would be irrelevant, he was an active supporter of both kinds of affirmative action – race-based and class-based. As a supporter of race-conscious affirmative action, he spent much of the last six years of his life actively promoting it, including the use of racial quotas in employment. Specifically, from 1962-68 Dr. King orchestrated and implemented “Operation Breadbasket,” a civil rights boycott campaign that demanded racial quotas through the employment of Black American workers in proportion to their number in a workforce, neighborhood or city. With regard to class-based affirmative action Dr. King supported a massive war on poverty. In advocating for special benefits for poor Americans he sometimes used color-blind language and pointed out that it would benefit poor whites as well as poor Blacks, while at other times he justified it as an example of the kind of reparations to which Black Americans were entitled under the equitable remedy of restitution for unpaid wages. To those who invoke Dr. King as a supporter of color-blindness and an opponent of race-conscious affirmative action, and to those who advocate race-conscious affirmative action over class-based affirmative action, nearly fifty years after his murder Dr. King’s voice continues to send us an important message: we don’t need to choose one approach over the other; we can and should do both.
New Article: Paul Campos, The Economics of American Higher Education in the New Gilded Age, 2018 Utah L. Rev. 867. Abstract below:
Student debt is a function of three factors: the cost of higher education, the extent to which that cost is subsidized through sources other than students and their families, and the percentage of nonsubsidized revenue that is supplied via loans rather than out-of-pocket payments.
The first factor is a product of how much money colleges and universities choose to spend. The second is determined by total value of the many sources of subsidization upon which higher education draws. The third is a function of the relative wealth or poverty of the people who make up the student bodies at American higher education institutions.
This Article will focus on the first two factors, while addressing the increasingly common claim that, in recent years, higher education in America has been “defunded.”