If you are passionate about gun control, you're aren't going to like this post

I live in a blue city (Philadelphia) in a red state.  There's an old joke in my home town:  Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between.  Like many jokes and cliches, this one persists because there is a core of truth in it.

And so it may come as no surprise that the Pennsylvania Senate is considering a bill that would allow public school teachers to carry guns.  Of course, the plan has attracted a lot of push back from gun control groups and also some teachers.

But might the legislators, the majority of whom are Republicans from the Keystone State's "Alabama" heartland, be onto something?  After all, even Donald Trump gets it right sometimes.

The Sandy Hook elementary school killer went to the local high school first, but left because he saw a an armed school-resource officer on duty there.

Schools at all levels, from elementary to higher ed, engage in lock-down drills. My personal opinion, based on more than mere speculation, is that these exercises are pretty much worthless.  So are unarmed security personnel at the front door.

There's another old saw that holds a core of truth: one definition of madness is trying the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different outcome.

Einstein is credited with saying that.  He also is credited with urging America to develop an atomic bomb, because he knew the Third Reich was capable of developing one.  Sounds as if he was a realist.

Is it perhaps time we got real about what doesn't work in protecting our children and ourselves from the radicals and the nuts?  Is it time to try something very different?

Are the Supremes better business people than Mr. Trump?

Yesterday, as we all now have heard, the Supreme Court rendered a preliminary ruling on the President's travel ban.  SCOTUS said that travelers from the targeted Muslim countries could enter the US if they have ties here.  One such tie is student or faculty status at an American University.

This decision, which probably prefigures how the Court will come down when it hears the case on its merits in October, was a sound business decision.  Higher education is one of the few remaining industries in which the US ranks number one in the world.  Despite stiff competition from Europe and Australia,  international students still prefer an American educational experience by a wide majority.  A travel ban that disrupts this flow of students (and dollars) into the US might be called dumb.

But, then, t"dumb" has been Uncle Sam's --- and many states' --- approach to higher education during the past two decades or more.  Having created a world-beating higher-education industry in the US, our political leaders seem to have been bent on doing all they can to starve it of funds, regulate it half to death, and in general see just how much stress it can take before it implodes.

Even 20 years ago, colleagues of mine from public university systems around the nation were complaining that, "We used to be state supported.  Then we were only state affiliated.  And now we are merely state located."  Thankfully the funding drought seems to be lifting in many states, although some --- such as Illinois --- continue to leave their public systems panting for fiscal relief.

Meanwhile, back in DC, the Obama Administration orchestrated a regulatory ramp-up that strained the resources of many small and medium sized colleges and universities.

Mr. Trump and his team of billionaires and generals aims to provide regulatory relief across the economy.  And, in fact, news out of the DeVos Department of Ed in recent days indicates implementation of just such an intent.  Unfortunately --- as I have predicted --- so far all the regulatory relief has gone to the for-profit sector of higher education.

Meanwhile, although Trump's travel ban ostensibly affected only a half dozen countries, its chilling effect on international students worldwide seems undeniable.  That's why I say it might be called a dumb business decision.

But perhaps "dumb" is the wrong word.  Anyone who thinks Donald Trump is dumb is being pretty naive.  So if it's not dumb, what is it?  In 1924 Calvin Coolidge said, "The chief business of the American people is business."  There's the answer.  Harking back to those halcyon days before the Great Depression, the Trump Administration has brought to Washington the same philosophy.  That's why the Prez sees nothing wrong with profiting from the international business being drawn into the Trump Hotel.  It's why Betsy DeVos sees nothing wrong with shelving the "gainful employment" regs intended to ensure that students investing federal-loan dollars in for-profit education companies are coming away with valuable skill sets.

Let me suggest that Trump and Company in Washington, like such governors as Walker of Wisconsin, disdain the not-for-profit sector, including public and non-profit universities.  The idea that an industry not organized to maximize its profits could be one of the top economic drivers runs contrary to their fundamental beliefs.  I believe that the rich live with themselves in a world that is mostly poor by persuading one another that they have earned and deserve every dollar they have hoarded.  They cling tenaciously to the notion that market forces must rule, regardless of who gets crushed.  They vociferously and endlessly assert that the profit motive is the best incentive for every sector... including health care, the penal system, policing, and yes, education.  And, if they happen to enhance their own fortunes along the way, well, all the better.

That the public and non-profit realms might be best at delivering universal healthcare and universal education is anathema to that mind set.

The travel ban's potential impact on international-student attendance at US universities was just one small indicator of this blind spot.  Thankfully, SCOTUS seems to be more savvy.

What Kalanick and Trump should tell us about our Entrepreneurial Studies programs

Every business school now has an entrepreneurial studies program, my home institution being no exception.  We focus --- quite appropriately --- on the challenges of starting up an enterprise.  Some programs even provide seed money to seniors to get them launched.  All good stuff... but do we teach them enough about continuity?  And if we did, would it really help?

CEO Travis Kalanick's departure from Uber yesterday is a case on point.  His is the classic tale of a brilliant entrepreneur,  who in his case couldn't get a cab in San Francisco and turned his frustration --- plus the the then-new app craze --- into an international enterprise.  And it is a classic tale of mismanagement, scandal and investor dissatisfaction.

As one who reports on labor and employment issues --- Termination of Employment Bulletin; The Employment Law Answer Book; Employment and Labor Law---  I have been following the Uber story for a long time.  I have reported on the company's tribulations, and expensive settlements, involving class action suits by drivers claiming employee (rather than independent contractor) status.  And I have been a satisfied Uber passenger on more than one occasion in more than one city.

My two contrasting experiences --- as a writer/reporter and as a customer --- are emblematic of the situation leading to Kalanick's ouster.  One commentator is quoted as observing, "Kalanick had become a giant liability to the car-hailing company for a growing number of reasons, from sketchy business practices to troubling lawsuits to a basic management situation that was akin to a toxic goat rodeo."

Once upon a time I personally experienced a similar situation.  While working for a major Philadelphia law firm I defended a major retailer in a wage & hour suit brought by the US Department of Labor.  We settled for $3 million and the company's CFO led a group of us in the leveraged buy-out of the company.  I had skin in the game to the tune of $50,000.  And it was a one-year roller coaster ride, not least because the CFO-turned-CEO was, like Kalanick, a classic entrepreneurial type.  His day-to-day management style was erratic and unpredictable, leading a major investor to exercise its right to buy me and my partners, including the CEO, out a year after we started.  And, trust me, the buy-out came as a big relief to me.

Coming, then, as I do from my reporting on Uber and my own personal experience, I can't help but see the same story unfolding in the White House.  Donald Trump, a consummate entrepreneur, saw an opportunity to win the presidency.  Those who call him dumb are themselves being stupid.  His capture of the presidency was a brilliant coup.

But... now there he is: like Kalanick, and like the CEO in my LBO experience, a bored entrepreneur and a terrible manager.  The parallels are absolutely compelling.  I can only wonder how long it will be until his "board of directors"  (aka the GOP establishment) will push him out.

Meanwhile, let me circle back to my first couple of questions.  Are we doing enough in our business schools' entrepreneurial programs to prepare our budding enterprise-builders to run the enterprises they found?  And can we do enough? This second question derives from my suspicion that the Kalanicks and Trumps of the world may be hard wired.  What makes them brilliant and revolutionary innovators may doom them to be lousy long-term business leaders.

The Elephant in the Living Room

Driving in this morning, I listened to a lot of talk on NPR about the shooting of a Congressman yesterday.  Law makers from the GOP and Democrat parties made essentially the same points:  the rhetoric has become toxic.  We need to be more moderate in our speech.  We need to be more collegial.  Senator Tim Kaine claimed the cause of the shooting was a combination of gun access, mental illness and toxic (that's the new buzz word) language.

Sure, there's something to that.  But is there an underlying, more fundamental cause?  Let me suggest that the word everyone should be looking for is "class."  In America we have been in denial about class for generations.  It isn't supposed to exist.  That's why politicians (such as TIM Kaine) like to be called by their nicknames: Bill and Mike and Chris.  (Although always Donald and not Don or Donny, I note.)

It was a lot easier to maintain that illusion back in my salad days.  As Robert Reich pointed out in The Work of Nations  some 25 years ago, in the 1950s and 1960s, the CEO of a major manufacturing company, after paying his taxes, took home only about 12 times the net pay of the men and women on the assembly line.  A high school graduate with a good job and a good union contract could call him/herself middle class and plan to send the kids to college.

I've mentioned Joe Bageant's 2006 Deer Hunting with Jesus several times in this space in recent weeks.  The author retired from journalism and moved back to his home town in rural Virginia, where he wrote about his friends and neighbors.  For me the most telling chapter involved the Rubber Maid plant that was the town's chief employer.  Joe recalled how, when he was young in the 60s and 70s, good jobs and a good union contract provided a middle-income lifestyle for the Rubber Maid workers.  Then along came Wal-Mart, which demanded that Rubber Maid cut its costs of production by 30 percent.  Out with the union... out with good wages and benefits... in with ongoing fear of losing the plant and the jobs to an offshore operation.

In Joe and my salad days, guys like us had to work hard at failing.  It was just so darn easy to find a good job... even without a college education.  If you were a white boy --- even the son of a coal miner/bricklayer, such as myself --- you really did have to consciously choose to "tune in and drop out," if you wanted to be poor.  Poverty was a lifestyle choice.

Today, the good news is that our society is much more embracing of diversity then when Joe and I were young men.  Women and people of color are much more likely to have an equal chance alongside Joe and my progeny.  The real question --- the elephant in the living room --- is " a real chance at what."

My children and their friends --- college graduates one and all --- feel the challenges acutely.  One young colleague, aged 34, who holds a Ph.D., told me that he will be 60 when his student loans are finally fully paid off.  A young woman, who graduated seven years ago with my daughter and now has an MA from NYU, worked as a shop girl after getting that degree.

Robotics and AI, globalization, the decline of organized labor, the cost of a college education, the gutting of home equity in the Great Recession... all these have contributed to the decline of the great American middle class of the 50s and 60s and the widening gap between rich and poor in the US.

And, as Joe Bageant documented ten years ago and Donald's victory ten years later confirmed, the late, great American middle class is feeling the pain.  Should we be surprised if some of them --- perhaps the mentally ill ones --- lash out violently?  Yesterday's shooter, I hear, was a homeless man and former Occupy activist living out of his van.

If you are worried about easy access to guns by such folks, read Joe Bageant's chapter on firearms; it'll make you worry even more.  If you are worried about mental illness, then rethink healthcare reform; ask what policy changes put so many homeless, mentally challenged people on our streets.  And if you are worried about "toxic" rhetoric, maybe rethink the mean-spirited, insensitive and just-plain-greedy policies that underly that rhetoric.

If the elephant rampages, no one's living room will be safe... not even in America's gated communities.

I predicted it in my recently published article...

... in the SAGE Journal of Industry and Higher Education:

Abstract

The fortunes of the for-profit higher education industry rise and fall with the political tides in the United States. During the 8 years of the George W Bush Administration (Republican), the for-profit sector of US higher education prospered. The following two terms of the Obama Administration (Democrat) resulted in the loss of all the ground gained during Mr Bush’s two terms in office. Indeed, the US Department of Education, led by Secretary Arne Duncan, aggressively attacked the for-profit higher education providers. This attack took two very effective forms: the wielding of ‘gainful employment’ regulations to sever the eligibility of for-profit corporations to receive federal financial aid funding for admitted students, and the withdrawal of authority from the for-profit sector’s accrediting agency. This article argues that, if the past is predictive, the prospects for the for-profit higher education providers are bright under Mr Trump.

The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting this afternoon  that DOE Secretary DeVos just announced that the "gainful employment" regulations, that the Obama Administration fought so hard to put into place and defend against court challenges,  will now be rolled back.  The subsequent news release speaks for itself:

Secretary DeVos Announces Regulatory Reset to Protect Students, Taxpayers, Higher Ed Institutions

U.S. Department of Education sent this bulletin at 06/14/2017 12:06 PM EDT

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 14, 2017 Contact: Press Office (202) 401-1576 or press@ed.gov Secretary DeVos Announces Regulatory Reset to Protect Students, Taxpayers, Higher Ed Institutions Negotiated rulemaking committees to convene on Borrower Defense to Repayment and Gainful Employment to improve regulations Currently approved BDR claims to be discharged this month, claims to continue to be processed Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced the Department’s intention to establish rulemaking committees on Borrower Defense to Repayment (BDR) and Gainful Employment (GE) regulations. The Department intends to develop fair, effective and improved regulations to protect individual borrowers from fraud, ensure accountability across institutions of higher education and protect taxpayers. “My first priority is to protect students,” said Secretary DeVos. “Fraud, especially fraud committed by a school, is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, last year’s rulemaking effort missed an opportunity to get it right. The result is a muddled process that's unfair to students and schools, and puts taxpayers on the hook for significant costs. It's time to take a step back and make sure these rules achieve their purpose: helping harmed students. It’s time for a regulatory reset. It is the Department’s aim, and this Administration’s commitment, to protect students from predatory practices while also providing clear, fair and balanced rules for colleges and universities to follow.” Due to pending litigation challenging the BDR regulations, the Department is postponing the effective date pursuant to section 705 of the Administration Procedures Act. While negotiated rulemaking occurs, the Department will continue to process applications under the current borrower defense rules. “Nearly 16,000 borrower defense claims are currently being processed by the Department, and, as I have said all along, promises made to students under the current rule will be promises kept,” said Secretary DeVos. “We are working with servicers to get these loans discharged as expeditiously as possible. Some borrowers should expect to obtain discharges within the next several weeks.” Postsecondary institutions of all types have raised concerns about the BDR regulations since they were published on Nov. 1, 2016. Colleges and universities are especially concerned about the excessively broad definitions of substantial misrepresentation and breach of contract, the lack of meaningful due process protections for institutions and “financial triggers” under the new rules. As part of the Department’s regulatory review of its regulations, the agency will also convene a second negotiated rulemaking committee on Gainful Employment. As the Department worked on implementing this regulation, it became clear that, as written, it is overly burdensome and confusing for institutions of higher education.  The Department plans to publish its Notice of Intent to Conduct Negotiated Rulemaking on BDR and GE in the Federal Register on June 16, 2017. The Department will conduct public hearings on BDR and GE on July 10, 2017, in Washington, D.C. and July 12, 2017, in Dallas, Texas.  ### The claim that the revised rules --- if they ever emerge --- will be more fair than the ones promulgated by the Obama Administration is in line with the the Administration's claim that more people will be able to obtain affordable health care under the GOP's new health care act than under Obamacare.  The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan agency, by contrast predicts that millions more Americans will have no health insurance next year under the Republican plan.  We have entered a new era of Orwellian Doublespeak.

The Decline in For-Profit Higher Education During the Obama Administration and Its Prospects in the Trump Presidency

That's the title of my new article, which you can access in the JOURNAL OF INDUSTRY AND HIGHER EDUCATION.

Abstract

The fortunes of the for-profit higher education industry rise and fall with the political tides in the United States. During the 8 years of the George W Bush Administration (Republican), the for-profit sector of US higher education prospered. The following two terms of theObama Administration (Democrat) resulted in the loss of all the ground gained during Mr Bush’s two terms in office. Indeed, the US Department of Education, led by Secretary Arne Duncan, aggressively attacked the for-profit higher education providers. This attack took two very effective forms: the wielding of ‘gainful employment’ regulations to sever the eligibility of for-profit corporations to receive federal financial aid funding for admitted students, and the withdrawal of authority from the for-profit sector’s accrediting agency. This article argues that, if the past is predictive, the prospects for the for-profit higher education providers are bright under Mr Trump.

It's easier to kill Dracula than to kill a fraternity.

This story from yesterday's Chronicle of Higher Education is a case on point.  It reports on a rogue fraternity gone wild.  The particular fraternity gained national notoriety when the Huffington Post published what allegedly are strings of emails in which brothers boast of rapes, drunkenness and more.  The article adds that, despite complaints from other students, the university was able to do little more than decry the rogue organization.

In the 1960s I majored in fraternity at my alma mater.  It's fair to say that we were the college's Animal House.  At one point we wore the "triple crown" : academic probation, disciplinary probation, and national-chapter probation.  Everything except double secret probation.

Not long after I graduated, the college began admitting women.  And not so very long after that, the college withdrew recognition of all 11 fraternities. My fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi, lost its house, which was converted to the college's "art house."  But the chapter never died.  Alumni, in addition to loudly voicing their ire about the withdrawal of recognition, continued to work with current brothers to procure a new house.  Eventually, the college caved and Phi Psi recovered its historic venue and came out of the shadows.

American higher education has for decades, if not centuries, been characterized by a love-hate relationship with "Greek Life."  If we administrators are honest, we will admit that fraternities and sororities contribute to recruitment and retention, as well as alumni loyalty... often for a lifetime.  At the same time, they are the loci of outrageous misconduct, alcohol and drug abuse, sexual misconduct, and hazing.

In my day, as a pledge, I suffered a broken nose during hazing.  A fellow pledge faired worse: two broken arms as a consequence of hazing antics.

That hazing remains alive and unwell was driven home starkly by a recent death in a Penn State frat house.  Predictably, PSU --- still reeling from the jail time imposed upon the school's disgraced past president --- has announced tougher rules for the Greeks.  It's a cycle that has been repeated at hundreds of US colleges and universities down the decades.

The Greek system is woven into the fabric of American higher education.  It seems that we can no more separate our colleges and universities from it than Mr. Trump can escape the clutches of his right-wing base.

Apprenticeship programs are enjoying renewed interest in the US

Here's a good article from today's Chronicle of Higher Ed about one entrepreneur who is actively promoting apprenticeships in his state.  His organization is CareerWise Colorado.

As I've noted in this space a few times in the past, Germany can be looked to as a role model for apprenticeship programs.

Although the high-school dropout rate in the US has declined to about six percent, fewer than 70 percent of hight school graduates go on to college immediately after graduation.

The 30 percent who don't go off to college may be prime targets for apprenticeship training.  That's a lot of young women and men.  And the jobs are out there, too.  According to USA Today, this year an estimated 2.5 million so-called "middle skill" jobs will be added to our economy, accounting for 40 percent of all US job growth.  Adds the paper, some energetic young people in these jobs can amass $100,000 in annual income, counting expected overtime opportunities.

Unions used to be the biggest providers of apprenticeships.  With the decline of unionization in the private sector to less than 10 percent of the total workforces, apprenticeship programs sponsored by organized labor have also declined.  Outfits such as CareerWise Colorado are attempting to fill the vacuum.