Benson won’t offer his position on ASSET, after opposing Metro’s reduced tuition rate in June

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



In an article summarizing a hearing Tuesday before the State Legislature’s Joint Budget Committee, EdNews Colorado reported CU President Bruce Benson’s latest thinking on state legislation that would create a reduced tuition rate for undocumented students in Colorado.

EDNews: [Benson] said formally supporting such legislation is up to the Board of Regents, and “the regents are kind of split on these things.” Benson added that charging undocumented students high tuition “just doesn’t make any sense” but added “I’m not going to tell you exactly how I feel.”

But Benson, who was the Republican nominee for governor in 1994, did tell the Denver Post in June exactly how he felt about Metropolitan State University’s decision earlier this year to reduce its tuition rate for undocumented students.

Benson told The Denver Post at the time he was opposed to Metro’s action on behalf of undocumented students because state lawmakers had already “took a vote” and decided against establishing an optional lower rate. Therefore Metro had no business setting its own policy.

State legislators on the JBC grilled Metro officials Tuesday, as they’d done in the Spring, about its reduced tuition rate for undocumented students.

EdNews reported:

“The actions you took broke federal law and broke state law” [Rep. Cheri Gerou] said, adding that Metro had violated correct processes in taking its action.

“I actually respectfully disagree with ‘violating process,’” responded Metro President Steve Jordan, adding, “I disagree with Rep. Gerou’s interpretation of federal law…”

Gerou replied, “Thank you gentlemen. I don’t agree with you, but that doesn’t really matter.” Referring to the issue’s prospects in the 2013 legislative session, she said, “I think we’re going to do something about that. … We need to make sure these students are successful. I don’t want to set them up for failure.”

EdNews should have pointed out that Gerou, a Republican, struck a more conciliatory tone this week than she did in June, when she said Metro’s decision could affect the University’s future funding from the legislature. And she said in June that the tuition issue was more of a federal problem than a state one.

A group of 10 Republicans, including House Majority Leader Amy Stephens, subsequently sent a letter to Gov. John Hickenlooper informing him that “several state legislators have already begun drafting legislation to overturn the Metro State action and reaffirm legislative authority over tuition classifications.”

The status of this draft legislation, as well as Gerou’s specific thoughts on ASSET should have been reported by EdNews.

35 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. lyjtrpcnf says:

    And high debt upon graduation, we are going to encourage people to take tens of thousands of dollars in loans out to get a degree that will not let them legally work even if they have it?

    And this is supposed to somehow be in their interest?  Seriously?  

  2. GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:

    That’s sort of a statist view. How about letting folks decide for themselves what’s good for them? Shouldn’t they take responsibility for their decisions? That too librul for you?

  3. lyjtrpcnf says:

    We are talking about spending the “state’s money” , so to that extent, sure its “statist”.  But by that view, everything involving public money would be “statist” too, right?

    Doesn’t address the question though: how is this in the interest of people to take out huge loans for a degree they can’t legally use for employment?  

  4. GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:

    You are so fucking clueless on so many levels.

    We are talking about a certain (undocumented) segment of Colorado’s in-state students paying a higher fee than other in-state students, right? That’s a subsidy in which universe?  

    Ok, you’ve got this question burning a hole in your hairpiece:

    …how is this in the interest of people to take out huge loans for a degree they can’t legally use for employment?

    I can answer with two questions of my own: Who says they’re taking out loans? And:

    Are you intimating that attending college is only for the purpose of becoming a good little worker bee? I want every single young person in Colorado, who wishes, to go to college however, whenever, whyever. It’s in my best interest. My personal piggy, selfish, grubby fisted little best interest. Whether they end up pulling in 250 grand the year after graduation or not. Whether they even graduate or not. Formal education is, in itself, a good for our society. And attending college is an expansive experience valuable both to the individual and to the rest of us far beyond the implication of mere “book learning.”

    But the answer you really need is this: It’s none of your fucking business what these kids think is in their interest. It’s their lives. It’s their interest. Whatever may make them happy or whatever may turn out to be a mistake–it’s their decision. The state is here not to put impediments to living but to facilitate living, however we choose. However those students choose.

    So relax. I don’t know you, but I imagine you’ve enough to look after in your interest, you don’t need to assume the burden of worrying about theirs. Peace.

  5. lyjtrpcnf says:

    And you wonder why ColoradoPols has such a bad reputation when you respond to a serious point with “you are so fucking clueless”

    In any event, you raise two unpersuasive counters and one ridiculous conclusion:

    First you argue that there is no evidence these students are taking out loans.  Tuition at UCBoulder is by the credit hour per the bursar’s page:

    http://bursar.colorado.edu/wp-

    Assuming 15 credit hours for 8 semesters and no increase in costs for tuition over four years (you need 120 credit hours to graduate CU Boulder with an Arts/Sciences degree – http://www.colorado.edu/ArtsSc… ), an incoming instate student is looking at spending about $40,000 on tuition alone.  Of course you have to also factor in room/board and books (let’s say $20,000 over four years).

    So that is $60,000 in cash.  Do you seriously believe that the majority of undocumented children are able to pay that kind of money without loans? Seriously?

    Your second argument is that university education is some sort of a mystical experience where one learns about life in general and not how to be a worker bee.  Before we break out the drum set for kumbaya, you need to address a very basic question: if university education isn’t about making the students more valuable workers for society, why is society subsidizing it?  And before you say “to make people better members of society” or lead a “more valuable life” – lots of things help teach that which don’t cost an arm and a leg.

    And to your conclusion, you say this: “It’s none of your fucking business what these kids think is in their interest. It’s their lives. It’s their interest.” – except you got a problem: the kids are asking for gov’t subsidy in the form of lower tuition rates.  When you ask for a subsidy on the basis (per your second argument) of leading a more valuable life, the subsidy giver (here the taxpayers) can and should fairly inquire whether your life will in fact be enriched by said subsidy.  

  6. GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:

    You wonder. Are they slow headed? Are their political instincts corrupted? Do they know that what they say betrays what they believe? Does what they say really reflect what their gut says?

    Until they prove they’re an outright chckenshit shill, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Anyway, Gray, thanks for the backup. Love you, dood. And a very merry Christmas “in Mountains”.

    –Larry “on Prairie”  

  7. Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

    and you can take a hike…dipshit.

  8. lyjtrpcnf says:

    Is not a substantive argument.  Try again.  

  9. Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

     

    should fairly inquire whether your life will in fact be enriched by said subsidy.

    Elliot Fladen

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of mans’ oldest exercises in moral philosophy, that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

    John Kenneth Galbraith

    Anything else?…dipshit.

  10. lyjtrpcnf says:

    Once again, “dipshit” is not an argument.  In fact, your Galbraith quote isn’t one either.  

    It appears you are trying to use Galbraith to argue that I’m looking for a “moral justification for selfishness.”  Whether selfishness is a virtue or a vice may be a very interesting discussion.  But it isn’t the discussion on point here.

    Instead the discussion on point here is whether in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants is good policy.  You have repeatedly quibbled (on scant justification) on the notion that it is bad policy.  I pointed out such tuition risks placing undocumented students in serious debt by encouraging them to receive a university degree at high cost that they can’t legally use for employment.  You have yet to put forward any coherent response to that argument.  

  11. Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

    that you have brought some new POV or some elegant reasoning to the same old right wing bullshit.

    why is society subsidizing it?

    Because..as Larry points out, society benefits from an educated populace. Which one of those “people” you don’t care to subsidize is going to go on to create a cure for cancer that may save your life? You are, without question, one of the most insipid trolls we have experienced in years.

    You demand that we respond to your vapid arguments and then discount, beforehand, the arguments you know we are going to make. Do you somehow think this approach makes you any less wrong than the dozens of free-market greed heads who have trod this ground long before you showed up?

    Your contention that you are right, and that no argument put in place by those who disagree can touch your logic, is what gives you away.

    That you cannot grasp the ineffectiveness of your strategy is the condition that places the term “dipshit” in the lexicon of of epithets that come to mind when I read your posts.

    But, continue professor. We are entertained by your preposterousness.

  12. lyjtrpcnf says:

    Yet you never state what it means.  Is the only way to be educated through a formal education system?  And for that matter, what is the ideal amount of education?  And in what topics? And how do you even measure said ideal amount?  Less cliches and more substance DukeCo1.  

  13. Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

     

    encouraging them to receive a university degree at high cost that they can’t legally use for employment.

    is the basis of your argument. Employment is not the only reason people choose to get educated. Your contention that employment as the end result should provide a calculus to defend your selfish position is wrong.

    Deflection is a typical tactic of “dipshits”.

    You are not nearly as clever as you think.  

  14. lyjtrpcnf says:

    If it’s to learn about life and themselves, is a university the most cost-efficient or even the only place where people can learn such things?  If it is something else, do you mind stating what you think it is?  

    And sorry if asking such questions constitutes being a “dipshit” (using your word of the day again) /sarcasm

  15. Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

    you do not state “why” people get a university education

    You are the one trying to prove a point.

  16. AristotleAristotle says:

    Elliot, the value of college education is self evident. Dukeco1 has no obligation to prove it.

  17. lyjtrpcnf says:

    Tell that to all the unemployed college grads who can’t get their debt discharged in bankruptcy.

    It seems you have an interesting view of what “self-evident” means ;-)

  18. Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

    You need to come to grips with your assertion that “Dream Acters” presumably should not be awarded in-state tuition because they will have trouble paying for college loans.

    And high debt upon graduation, we are going to encourage people to take tens of thousands of dollars in loans out to get a degree that will not let them legally work even if they have it?

    And this is supposed to somehow be in their interest?  Seriously?

    That you even need to have this explained to you doesn’t give you a head start. Perhaps they are going to take their degrees and go somewhere they are wanted, and prosper there? Wouldn’t it be better if they could work here? There are many perhaps’s, but you seem to want to conflate all of this with your(?) difficulty getting a job.

    First you tell us not to answer you with truthful answers you do not accept, and, countering with this sort of obvious misdirection,  

    Is the only way to be educated through a formal education system?

    you want us to continue to play a little game whereby you throw out deflection at every turn…

    as I said in the other thread…

    Merry Christmas, Elliot.

    and Felice Navidad to your wife.  :)

  19. AristotleAristotle says:

    How many deep-in-debt graduates do you know, anyway? None?

  20. lyjtrpcnf says:

    I’m simply trying to cut-off, before you can argue them, escape arguments you might have.

    Your latest argument seems to concede that the purpose of education is at least in part to obtain gainful employment, yet you then raise the argument that such employment could be obtained out of country.  While out of country employment is of course a possibility, if somebody is a DREAMer, it seems very unlikely that they will depart to work out of country for a variety of reasons (little ties to outside countries, little ability to return to US, and giving up on any prospect of receiving an immigration status if the laws are reformed).  Even if they were willing to do that, you have provided no evidence that many of the degrees covered under in-state tuition will even aid them in achieving greater job prospects in a foreign country.  

    But let’s assume you can come up with such evidence – we are still stuck at this point: you are advocating then subsidizing the education of people who aren’t citizens or even legal residents so that they can then work in a foreign country.  It seems difficult to see why in that scenario (nonlegal residents seeking education here to work abroad) the state would have an interest in spending scarce tax dollars on subsidizing an expensive college education for said individuals. Moreover – and I’ve pointed this out to national dream organizers like Erika Andiola and Gaby Pacheco – supporting something like in-state tuition may undermine the argument for immigration reform (this last subpoint is one Wayne Laugesen and I strongly disagree with each other on).

    And I don’t think these are small points either.  We both know (or I assume you know) that this very issue is going to be debated in the next few months here in Colorado.  While I generally am very pro-immigrant (I’ve caused the Tancredoites in the GOP much indigestion – see here for a quick example:

    http://www.peoplespresscollect

    ), I think this particular question of what is the best use of public moneys is one that won’t come out in your favor.  

    Anyway thanks for the holiday wishes.  My written spanish is atrocious so I’ll just say Merry Christmas right back at you.

  21. lyjtrpcnf says:

    Was deeply in debt at graduation.  The theory was that we would make the money back at major firms, but the recession took care of that in many cases.

    And that is Stanford we are talking about.  People from other schools, who had to pay just as much in tuition without the same OCI (on campus interview) opportunities, are really struggling.  This has been extensively written about.  The premier law gossip blog – Abovethelaw has this piece that you can look into to start:

    http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01

    And you want to get people who can’t even legally work to take on that debt?  Seems like a bad idea.  

  22. AristotleAristotle says:

    You’re quite the dodger.

    How many of your classmates would prefer NOT to have that education, now that they have it?

    Anyway, with taxes set to go up on those who aren’t, you know, the people you’re describing (namely, gainfully employed people making money hand over fist – yes, there are still a lot of those people today), seems like your last statement is both false as well as disingenuous (I never said that).

    You’re not really capable of honest debate, are you? It involves addressing WHAT IS SAY. It doesn’t involve addressing what you WISH I said.

  23. lyjtrpcnf says:

    Of my close friendship group, I know I enjoyed my education, my best friend enjoyed it and has been very successful, my ex-fiance regrets it, and her best friend thinks it was the worst mistake of her life.  Given that I went to Stanford and am working in Colorado there aren’t many of my classmate close by to take a poll beyond what I listed above.

    As for not being capable of honest debate, I’ve repeatedly answered your questions and tangents in a respectful manner.  I unfortunately cannot say the same about you at this time.

  24. AristotleAristotle says:

    Having the education? The sense of accomplishment that comes with earning a degree? Or just the debt that came with it? Those are distinctly different.

    As far as your honesty goes, perhaps it’s something else that leads you to ignore the questions being directly posed? I don’t give smart people the benefit of the doubt; you certainly comprehend what I ask and what I argue.

  25. lyjtrpcnf says:

    My ex regrets having the degree.  I don’t think she took out debt to go to law school.  

    My sense from talking to her is that her best friend regrets everything.  

    As I said though, I enjoyed Stanford Law as did my best friend.  

    My point through all of this (which you are distracting from through this meaningless polling requests) is that many students are having trouble with debt who went to university and graduate school.  This really isn’t all that controversial of a point.  What is amazing is that you aren’t really pondering its implications for this debate.  That failure to ponder speaks volumes.  

  26. AristotleAristotle says:

    Namely, the idea that every student in debt would rather have not gotten the education in the first place. I’m sure plenty regret getting certain degrees that have not helped them, but that’s not what you were implying.

    Anyway, the debate over the larger implications wasn’t one I had entered. I’m acting as a judge here, not as a debater.

  27. lyjtrpcnf says:

    I don’t think I did.  

  28. AristotleAristotle says:

    Aristotle:

    “Elliot, the value of college education is self evident. Dukeco1 has no obligation to prove it.”

    Elliot:”

    Oh really?

    Tell that to all the unemployed college grads who can’t get their debt discharged in bankruptcy.”

    So, you said “all” instead of “every.”

  29. lyjtrpcnf says:

    “all THE UNEMPLOYED COLLEGE GRADS WHO CAN’T GET THEIR DEBT DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY” (emphasis added through all caps)

    Not all college grads are unemployed. And not all unemployed college grads have been unemployed so long that they need to discharge their student loan debt in bankruptcy.

    So to repeat:

    # of all college grads > # of unemployed college grads > # of unemployed college grads who seek to get their student loan debt discharged in bankruptcy.  

  30. lyjtrpcnf says:

    (student loan debt is almost impossible to get discharged in bankruptcy)

  31. AristotleAristotle says:

    I didn’t miss that at all. Those are the same people I was talking about. Those people may hate debt (why not? Everyone does), but that doesn’t mean any of them regret having an education.

    I think I’m starting to grasp something about you. What I originally took for intellectual dishonesty, is actually a near anal obsession with pedantry. It makes discussing anything with you difficult.

  32. AristotleAristotle says:

    … even if they’re unemployed, most people who get an education don’t regret having it, regardless of the debt incurred. Some might (particularly if you mean graduate degrees that did not prove helpful in the world of employment), but obviously it’s hard to find work when people still believe that we should be austere, ignoring how that has kept Europe mired in recession.

  33. lyjtrpcnf says:

    When you make sweeping statements about what I supposedly said but then I point out that your sweeping statements aren’t right in a major way.

    Pedantry would be if I bugged you about the percentage of some state’s debt to GDP ratio being 57.8% as opposed to being 57.4%.  Or something like that.

    Getting to your other point – even assuming you are right about most people not regretting the decision, you may be talking generally about the following:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.