U.S. Rep., Yalie Debate Higher Ed. Act

  U.S. Rep., Yalie Debate Higher Ed. Act
Posted by FoM on April 12, 2002 at 21:40:37 PT
By Emily Anthes, Contributing Reporter 
Source: Yale Daily News  
In the wake of Yale's decision to reimburse students for aid lost under the federal Higher Education Act, Yale College Council Rep. Andrew Allison '04 debated U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., on a CNBC segment last night.The "Drug Free Student" provision of the Higher Education Act prohibits students who have been convicted of a drug-related crime from receiving federal financial aid for college.
Yale entered the forefront of the national debate when it joined Swarthmore College and a handful of other schools as the only institutions to agree to reimburse students for any aid lost under that provision, a policy Barr said he opposes.The policy was first reported Friday by the Yale Daily News, and subsequently by the Hartford Courant and The Associated Press early this week.Allison, who wrote the YCC resolution supporting the University's reimbursement of funds and lobbied to gain administrative and student support, said he soon began to receive phone calls from national media organizations asking for interviews and comment.CNBC contacted Allison yesterday morning asking him to appear on the show last night. Allison, who said he was initially told simply that there would also be a representative from "the opposition," said he was surprised to learn he would be arguing against Barr.Allison said he and the YCC were just trying to get the message out to the rest of the country in any way possible."It was a matter of alerting the public to these issues," Allison said. "I didn't expect to change -- Barr's politics."Asked during the interview if Yale was undercutting the federal law, Barr responded that Yale was going even further."They're undercutting the entire value system on which this country is based," Barr said. "We value and reward good behavior.""What Yale is doing is rewarding people for using drugs," Barr continued. "I don't think that's the right message to send from what used to be one of our fine academic institutions."Allison, however, responded to Barr's criticisms by arguing that education was the way to help rehabilitate convicted offenders."We value education, and education as a means to better behavior," he said.Allison pointed out what he said was the inherent economic discrimination of making drug offenders ineligible for financial aid. A clause of the federal act allows students to requalify for aid if they successfully complete a drug rehabilitation program. But public rehab programs often have long waiting lists and private ones can be quite expensive, Allison said."If we're using education to fight the drug war, we should actually educate," Allison said.Allison said that because Yale is financially capable of responding to the legislation it has a responsibility to the rest of the nation to do so. Other schools without as much financial aid money can only hope for a repeal of the legislation, he said."We knew that if Yale were to adopt this policy it would mean more to the rest of the country than to Yale," he said. "Yale would take a leadership role. But I don't think we expected it to hit this big," said Allison, who had been scheduled to appear on CNN this morning before that interview was postponed.The New York Times, Fox News and Crossfire have also picked up the story, Allison said.Yale President Richard Levin said he was surprised at the national media attention."I didn't expect this issue to be a major national issue," Levin said. "But I think we just took an action that we felt was consistent with our principle of providing full need-based financial aid to our students."Source: Yale Daily News (US CT)Author: Emily Anthes, Contributing ReporterPublished: Thursday, April 11, 2002Copyright: 2002 Yale Daily NewsContact: opinion yaledailynews.comWebsite: Articles & Web Site:Student's for Sensible Drug Policy Policy Missteps To Subsidize Aid To Students Goes Own Way On Drug Policy

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help


Comment #19 posted by goneposthole on April 14, 2002 at 07:09:07 PT
post of the day
one for the booksdddd, good onefunnier than hell
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by dddd on April 14, 2002 at 02:49:35 PT
..speakin' of Bob Barr...
,,I met this woman the other day at this birthday party occassion,,and I started talking to her,and she tried to defend Bob Barr,and claimed that he was not bad,or wrong.....She was really rude and pushy,,,so then,,we talked politics some more,,and I was trying to be nice and balanced in my conversational ettiquette,,but she was making it really difficult for me to remain polite,,too much wine or something,,,anyway,,, she ends up going off her rocker,,and yells out;"You're just an old flaky,liberal Hippie!"......I was shocked,and stunned...I yelled back at her;"...I'm a Hippie,and proud of it,,but you are a BITCH FROM HELL!".....It's not like me to say something like that,,a crowd of about twenty people looked on,,as her husband walk up to me...I thought he was gonna try and kick my ass to defend his wifes honor,,,he was a big brute,,,I was getting ready to duck his fist,,,,,,and he looked me in the eye,,and he said;"Right on!....It's about time someone told her!"............the wife stormed out of the room,,and the husband shook my hand........I decided to go home after that......dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Dan B on April 13, 2002 at 15:20:46 PT:
E_Johnson: Part II
What I was reacting to in this woman from my class was the idea that all women who are addictied need to have their children removed from their homes, and that (and here is the crucial point) they don't even care about their children, so it wouldn't matter to them anyway. This line of "reasoning" is flat-out baloney (I would use a stronger word, but I'm trying to respect the rules here). The vast majority of mothers, addicted or not, would do anything to keep and protect their children. If the perception is that reporting one's abuse while pregnant can get one's child taken away, I can fully understand why drug-addicted mothers do not seek help for their addictions even if they are aware they are pregnant. To say that addicted mothers do not care about their children is bigotry, plain and simply. It says that addicts are less human than the rest of us and should be treated accordingly. It is exactly the kind of reasoning employed against Jews in Germany during the holocaust. So, yes, when confronted with this lame excuse for reasoning, I called it what it was: bigotry. I hope this clears up my message.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Dan B on April 13, 2002 at 15:11:01 PT:
Sorry--I didn't explain what I was talking about very well.My point was that our society has grilled it into its young population (and much of its adult population) that the best way to handle drug addiction is to lock people up in prison and take away their children if they have children. And I'm not just talking about true addicts; I'm talking about the woman in Idaho--a friend of my sister--who had her child taken away because a personal use amount of cannabis was found in her possession, and there are many like her all across the country. Any wonder that many addicts are afraid to tell their doctors they have a problem if they are addicted? What "best solution" can they expect from their doctors? Is incarceration really the best plan? Is removing the children from their families always the best option?I understand that the situation you described happens more than some of us might realize, but my point to this girl was that prison should not be the first alternative, and removing the children should also not be the first alternative. That mother should be given the option of treatment--even if it means a temporary placement of the child in a caring home, preferably with a family member. If the parent refuses to get help--even if offered free of charge (remember that most people can't get into public treatment facilities because they have huge backlogs, often years long, and most people who would seek out public treatment cannot afford private treatment--but government agencies speak of these people as "refusing treatment"), that is when the state must consider permanently removing the child from the home. The point is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to drug addiction, particularly where children are involved.What I was talking about with this girl, though, was when a pregnant woman wants to get help for her addiction from her doctor, and her doctor reports the mother to the state, who then incarcerates the mother and sends the child to permanent foster care as soon as it is born. And my point is that if the state were truly interested in the welfare of the child, it would provide treatment-oriented homes for truly addicted mothers-to-be and establish a kind of halfway-house system in which these mothers can learn to function in a healthy environment without drugs. These facilities would be concerned with mothers who are addicted to hard drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. They would not be places to send cannabis users, as cannabis users can often control their habits, and if they need any help at all they can often get it on an outpatient basis.I hope I cleared up my position on the matter. I should have said that I meant mothers-to-be who wanted help with their addictions. Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Patrick on April 13, 2002 at 13:33:50 PT
You describe a station that may be more common than most of us realize. Personally, I am not sure what I would do if I in fact had any influence on the situation presented by you. I can presume that the likes of Bob Barr, Asa Hutchinson, General Ashcroft, Walters and Joyce would take the kid and arrest the mother and throw her in jail. If she held a gun at any moment in the process they would have a sniper sink a round into her head. And can imagine that Dan B. wouldn't do that. But that is my guess from what I have read and heard. In any case, it seems the current situation ends up...Mother 0 State 1Kid? Where is the dad? Where are other family members beside the accidentally killed grandparents? Where is our local government and our medical community at in offering assistance to the hopelessly addicted in our communities? Are they are out scouting out new prison facilities in the above named anti's districts? Do treatment centers can get as much of our tax money as law enforcement?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by aocp on April 13, 2002 at 13:13:09 PT
No sweat, me boyo. Laughter is essential for fun and such is my life's pursuit. Maybe that's why i love my cannabis so much. Anyway, a salopard (although i may have misspelled it ... i'm working from phonetics) is French for a bastard. Although, i'd just as soon call barr and his ilk a salope or vache, which are French for bitch (or fattened cow, if you want to get to the nitty gritty).
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by E_Johnson on April 13, 2002 at 13:03:40 PT
Dan B what woudl you do?
Had I been on the show, I don't think I could have kept my cool at Andrew Allison did. Heck, I got upset today at a student who expressed her support for a system that takes children away from drug-addicted mothers, even when I said that it would be far more beneficial to society to help these women break their addictions and let them have their children. A child is not a doll that can be owned like a piece of property.I had a friend once who dumped her baby on her parents and used their credit card to buy stuff for the baby, then returned the baby stuff to the store for cash and used the cash to buy cocaine so that she could stay out for days at a time with her coke friends.Her kid didn't see her for three or four days at a time. Every last dime she could scam out of anyone went for coke.So now imagine that her parents who took care of her baby happened to die in a car accident.What would YOU recommend happen to that child?Suppose the mother decided her lifestyle was just fine and didn't need to change at all?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by E_Johnson on April 13, 2002 at 12:54:40 PT
Maybe we should thank Souder and Bush for this
This Higher Education Act has served nicely as a major Drug War wakeup call to academia.I think the real reason why Clinton didn't enforce it was because he was smart enough to realize this what would happen.Clinton probably realized that if he actively enforced the bill that he willingly signed of his own free will, it would cause the Democrats some political trouble in liberal academia.The Ivory Tower would start to rumble.And here we see finally that it has. Eyes are being opened, questions are being asked.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Patrick on April 13, 2002 at 12:52:09 PT
Thanks for the compliment and a good laugh!…but help me out here. What is a salopard? What ever it is, it fit in the same thought with castrate and bob barr.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by E_Johnson on April 13, 2002 at 12:47:22 PT
Intellectuals don't know what country they're in
Yale President Richard Levin said he was surprised at the national media attention.There is a DRUG WAR being waged.Why do you think they call it a WAR?I see this all around me from academic types -- they do not have a clue about the War on Drugs. Most of them are surprised to hear that there are actual jail sentences for marijuana. A lot of them -- seriously -- have NEVER heard of civil asset forfeiture.One professor at my university very stupidly hinted at a party that he was growing his own pot at home. I told him, aren't you worried about losing that very nice home you just bought? He had no clue that that growing marijuana was a felony. He had no clue about the law at all. He had never been to the NORML web site. He hadn't peered out of his Ivory Tower for long enough to see that bloody war was raging all around him and that he could actually be injured.I see scientists who sign agreements to propagandize and inform on their own employees as part of the Drug Free Workplace Act and they don't even know that's what they have agreed to do. I signed what? It said what?Then they don't take it seriosuly because they imagine that nobody is ever going to hold them accountable for following through on what they agreed in writing to do.You'd be surpised at the scientific geniuses who are routinely signing these Drug Free Workplace agreements with the federal government that they never bother to read and have no intention of following through on.Oooh I'm so surprised at the national media attention. It's good that they are taking steps now that this bloody destructive and expensive war is finally visible from way up there in that big Ivory Tower.I agree with Richard Cowan that the two word expalantion for marijuana prohibition is bad journalism, but the Ivory Tower syndrome has a lot to do with it, too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by DdC on April 13, 2002 at 12:22:08 PT
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge
because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you, that you will be no priest to Me for I desired mercy and not sacrifice." (Hosea 4:6, 6:6)[I}They're undercutting the entire value system on which this country is based," Barr said.The Elkhorn Manifesto 
Cannabis Hemp: The Invisible Prohibition Revealed COUNTRY 'TIS OF THY PEOPLE YOU'RE DYING 
NOW THAT THE BUFFALO'S GONE "Another weapon I discovered early was the power of the printed word to sway souls to me. The newspaper was soon my gun, my flag- a thing with a soul that could mirror my own."
Bob Barr
xCIA-Lawyer pimpBushit Cheneynagans & Oil!
OPEC Dick Kangaroo Environmental Network Links 
Corporate Predators... Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment & Linx"There is a point at which the law becomes immoral and unethical. That point is reached when it becomes a cloak for the cowardice that dares not stand up against blatant violations of justice. A state that supresses all freedom of
speech, and which by imposing the most terrible punishments, treats each and every attempt at criticism, however morally justified, and every suggestion for improvement as plotting to high treason, is a state that breaks an unwritten
- Kurt Huber [The head of White Rose], killed by the Nazis in 1943. 
Wod Junkie Mongers
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by aocp on April 13, 2002 at 10:49:51 PT
excellent Patrick
pat sez: My take on his stance is that Bob Barr actually endorses education programs for pedophiles, rapists, thieves and killers.b/c moron mcbarr sed this: "What Yale is doing is rewarding people for using drugs," Barr continued. "I don't think that's the right message to send from what used to be one of our fine academic institutions."You're well-versed in playing the omission game, my friend. Just as barr can say that all Yale is doing is "rewarding" people for using drugs (what a pile of shite), we can spout back that he is sanctioning the educational pursuits of serious violators like rapists, murderers, and your average, everyday thug. Castrate this salopard. After all, by not including booze and tobacco under the csa, isn't he really sanctioning the abuse of these substances? Sure looks that way under "close" observation.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Patrick on April 13, 2002 at 10:16:23 PT
Yale and Higher Education
When I think of Americas institutions of higherlearning, places like Yale, Harvard, and MIT come to my mind as I suspect they do to most Americans. I for one am grateful that Yale and other institutions are taking this course away from denying education assistance to citizens for a drug conviction. It doesn't send a pro-drug message to the people, it sends a learning and compassionate meaning of the truth message. Truth be known Bob Barr, it's a fricken crime against humanity to arrest someone for their personal consumption choices in the first place. Bob Barr is like an American Milosevick. Hopefully, he will be one of the first skins on the wall in the international courts of humanity. My take on his stance is that Bob Barr actually endorses education programs for pedophiles, rapists, thieves and killers. His level of discrimination puts him in the same league as these hardened criminals. After all, the legislation he so proudly supports allows these dregs of society continued access to federal aid. Let us get Mr. Barr to comment on why he would endorse access to federal education money for the murderers in society while vehemently fighting a kid that gets busted for a joint from ever obtaining the very assistance he needs to higher learning and understanding his role in society? This situation reminds of the alleged French terrorist Moussaoui prisoner that we hold in custody. Recently he is requesting a computer and unmonitored access to the outside world, a television, tables and chairs, and not to be searched. He is in jail right? Not to be searched in jail? Right? Morons like Bob Barr would probably grant this guy's request instantly and solely because, hey, Mr. Moussaoui was not caught with the dreaded marijuana weed cigarettes that continue erode our moral institutions. Moron would be a compliment to his ilk.I wish we could attend congressional sessions like ballgames and yell and heckle at "unuseful idiots" like Bob Barr. I would like to sit high up in the Galley or Rotunda or whatever the bleachers of Congress are called and yell…Barr You Suck! And I wish I could have seen this debate. Hopefully someone can find a transcript and post a link soon. Now I know why you post such excellent commentary Dan B. I did not know that you were a teacher. My hats off to you! Way Cool!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by p4me on April 13, 2002 at 09:23:07 PT
Who is we paleface?
"They're undercutting the entire value system on which this country is based," Barr said. "We value and reward
   good behavior."Barr needs to get a farm in Georgia and raise plants and animals and get out of politics. Maybe the voters in Georgia will give him an education. And who is this we? Do they have a website. What rewards do you get for good behavior? I think I deserve some rewards. Do they have a list of members at this we website and why do these we people think they are so important. Because they give rewards. Well, give me a couple of rewards and maybe I to will think you or the we people are pretty special people.The whole premise of a WOD minus T&A is stupid to start with, so why go on?I do not think the behavior of the federal government is anywhere near exemplary concerning marijuana. Actually it is an insanity, you crazy bastards. I guess there are plenty of people that read Cnews that have read Jack Herrer's book "The Emperor Has No Clothes" or similar title with the idea that it was honorable to kill yourself before even thinking of troubling the Emperor much less embarrass the Emperor. I cannot believe more Americans are not standing up and saying to Busch or the Republican core that pulls his strings, "Hey there pal, you are no Emperor."Whatever you do, don't smoke. VAAI
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Rainbow on April 13, 2002 at 08:59:21 PT
Nor any college
I betcha Barr does not have a college education and probably thinks those who do are all pinheads without any common sense. You know the school of hard knocks and only a certain few can clam.I imagine he had great disrespect for Yale even before he was asked to be on the program.It is like him. he is a bigot and I bet racist too.Rainbow
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by goneposthole on April 13, 2002 at 04:03:19 PT
We reward Congressman Barr
by paying his highly inflated salary. He has become a fine 'useful idiot'. If he only had a brain; he is acting like a scarecrow. One can't really expect much more."...from what used to be one of our fine academic institutions."- Bob BarrIt is obvious he is not a graduate of Yale.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dan B on April 13, 2002 at 00:15:30 PT:
Thanks, FoM
I often wonder if what I say might be causing more damage than good, so it is always good for me to have good feedback from someone like yourself, whom I respect. I know I have a lot to learn when it comes to debating and dealing with people, and comments like yours help a great deal. (I'm much better at dealing with people in writing than in person; I'm actually quite shy in person, until I get to know you). Anyway . . . thanks!Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on April 12, 2002 at 22:35:29 PT
That was a great post. I know you are a good teacher. It makes me smile when I read what you said. What is a good teacher? A good teacher is a person who can take a student and without breaking their spirit teach them to use common sense and think before they speak. Reason it out. Take the belief to it's furthest point and after you do then and only then decide how you feel and then speak. That is the greatest gift a teacher can give and I see you will be a great teacher. You'll get better and better and become very wise I think.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dan B on April 12, 2002 at 22:13:02 PT:
I saw the debate . . .
. . . and Andrew Allison did a fine job of holding his own, and then some, against Bob Barr. Barr came off as the arrogant, hard-headed, egomaniacal idiot that he is. To be honest, I couldn't stand to watch too much of it; it made my blood boil to see Barr acting out his belief that he has the right to dictate other people's life decisions to them (in fact, this is the center of his belief system, and that is the real reason why he is angry at any opposition to his pet draconian policies). There was no truth to anything Barr said, as is evidenced by the quotations of him above.Had I been on the show, I don't think I could have kept my cool at Andrew Allison did. Heck, I got upset today at a student who expressed her support for a system that takes children away from drug-addicted mothers, even when I said that it would be far more beneficial to society to help these women break their addictions and let them have their children. When I asked how she would feel if her child were taken away from her, she actually said, "yes, but they don't care; they're addicts!" I told her that was a bigoted response because it was (but she couldn't see it that way). Anyway, I feel like I lost my cool then, and in this case most of the rest of the class was either silent or defending my position on the matter. I can't imagine what it would be like to have to defend one's position on this matter before a live television audience and arguing against a U. S. congressman (even if it is Bob Barr).And, that's about it.Dan B 
[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment