Clyburn: Sanders’s plan would kill black colleges
Source: The Hill
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Sunday that Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders’s plan to make public colleges tuition-free would have a deleterious effect on private, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU).
The third-ranking Democrat in the House — who has endorsed Sanders’s primary rival, Hillary Clinton — said such colleges would not be able to compete under the Vermont senator’s plan.
“You’ve got to think about the consequences of things,” Clyburn said in an interview with BuzzFeed News. “[If] you start handing out two years of free college at public institutions are you ready for all the black, private HBCUs to close down? That’s what’s going to happen.
“Tougaloo College in Mississippi will be closed if you can go to Jackson State for free,” he added.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270214-clyburn-sanderss-plan-would-kill-black-colleges
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Yuugal
(2,281 posts)
rpannier
(24,329 posts)They're offering free tuition to students whose families make less than 125k
Stanford also said it will offer free room and board (and tuition) for those families making less than 65k
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I think it is good.
MaeScott
(878 posts)....on Wall Street.
Clyburn/Clinton giving the script they were told to push.
former9thward
(31,970 posts)years ago... The Department of Education runs it now.
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)chances are you have at least free tuition to the UC system (maybe even Berkeley).
It is true that the lower prestige private colleges could get hammered if everything else is equal. I like to look at Bernie's plan as a starting point for discussion. We absolutely know that higher education financing has to change.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)The "plan" is ill thought out.
Response to Yuugal (Reply #1)
PoliticAverse This message was self-deleted by its author.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Private schools would become even less diverse, and even more of a country club for rich kids, as working class students move to public universities.
And similar to the problem Clyburn noted, you could have private all women's colleges being driven out of business too in some cases.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)education to poor and working poor folks who would otherwise not have access to it. And shame on Mr. Clyburn.. using education for an expedient political wedge to gain political advantage...
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... Both in terms of what they have represented historically, and in what they continue to offer.
And what a weird argument. Isn't Bernie's plan intended to use education to gain political advantage!?
Bernistas say the weirdest stuff sometimes....
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)To the students who would have a choice between attending a historical Black college or some other school under this plan? If those schools are relying too heavily on a captive audience, then they will have to adapt to survive, just like everything else. Would you really see attempts to remove economic barriers to higher education for lower income students thwarted just to preserve historically Black colleges?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)good thing no matter how you try to spin it.
Where I live, little private colleges are common. Most of them are associated with churches, though not all of them are conservative.
My wife teaches at a public university, so it probably wouldn't affect here so much, but a good friend teaches history at a fairly expensive private Christian university. It would probably dramatically affect them. There is also a small Chritian colleg just up the road that was the first college in Indiana to admit black students, though it is still majority white by a LOT.. It would probably have trouble surviving.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)charged no tuition for citizens of that state. They did charge out-of-state students.
If things were managed then, they can also be managed today.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)are all state, and free of tuition. Their school standards are high. Those who fail the
finals have to repeat the whole year. The elimination process begins rather early, so
that a high-school graduate is already above average.
Also, not everyone is interested in going on to college. Some choose to go to trade
schools. In Switzerland, after 7 years a youngster who wants to become a secretary,
for instance, can take a three-year course in trade school, at the end of which she
will be able to take dictation in 3 languages (German, French and Italian). This was
long ago. I don't know how things are today.
An auto-mechanic trade-school course also lasts 3 years, after which, they really
know how to repair cars. And they start off earning a living wage right away.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
forest444
(5,902 posts)Clyburn's claim is facile and disingenuous, and exploits the public's tendency to fall for clever - and simplistic - arguments.
The truth is that numerous important countries have rescinded tuition over the years, and their experience was usually similar: enrollment would rise fast enough to warrant the creation of new universities (which of course creates bottleneck problems of its own; but only at first).
The need for new colleges was strongest in the hinterland and/or underprivileged areas of said countries because, as the congressman failed to mention, room and board costs are also considered by students and their parents when choosing a school - as is regional/cultural familiarity and proximity to home.
Nor can existing colleges stretch the number of enrollees too far beyond their current capacity (which takes years to expand), and this makes the need for new schools - or hitherto ignored schools, like the Tougaloo College Clyburn mentioned - all the more prescient for both new students and the bigger schools struggling to take up the slack.
Clyburn also fails to mention acceptance rates, which would continue to limit, as they do now, the number of students that enrolled in any one school. Nor does he mention the obvious fact that many of our astronomically-priced private schools would, by the sheer market force of being surrounded by tuition-free public colleges, see themselves forced to reduce tuition themselves.
There would be bottleneck and strains on the public system, of course; but that's something you solve with the proper funding - which we certainly have the resources for if we would only marshal the political will to do so.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)and student loans. Clyburn is assuming that black students will move to public universities because of the free tuition and he may be correct. But if they do move to public schools then they are still getting an education.
But I can guarantee you that Hillary is not going to do anything that is going to make anything more equal. The black colleges may survive but there are still many young people both white and poc, who will not get any college due to her ideas.
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)He is talking specifically of private HBCUs, and I think he's absolutely right: if John can go to Morehouse for $25K/year in tuition, or Savannah State for $0/year in tuition, which will John attend?
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)LOL.
Because, after all, this is not about black students getting a decent, affordable college education.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
Sanders is so important that if he destroys a lot of schools, we must still praise him.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)or is this about ensuring a protected market for insanely expensive private colleges?
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)jmowreader
(50,552 posts)She's going for DEBT-free education rather than TUITION-free education, and her plan includes $25 billion to do the same thing at nonprofit private HBCUs.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)And how does $25 billion for private HBCUs which serve just 2% of the black US college students pass the Congressional "pragmatic progressive" laugh test? How does Clinton propose to pay for this $25 billion bauble?
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)...to fill the multitrillion-dollar gap between the taxes he intends to levy to pay for his health care plan and what it's going to cost to allow people who haven't been to the doctor in 40 years go to the doctor for free? Or to keep employers who are faced with the reality of having to move their $11 and $12 per hour employees to $15 from firing a third of their staff to balance the books? Or, for that matter, how is he going to use money from "closing estate tax loopholes" for three or four different things - remembering all the time that very few rich people EVER pay estate tax in the first place?
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)And this "better plan" is just a transparent attempt at pandering so she can invent another bullshit wedge issue to divide the 99% by race so she can became President and do the bidding of her Wall Street billionaire buddies and all the corporate profiteers who have handed her and Bill $100+ million in the last few years. Thanks for clearing that up!
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)Bernie Sanders is the one who has absolutely no idea what his plans are going to do to America (because he's using dollar figures for the situation we have now where healthcare and tuition are expensive and people are not getting healthcare and not going to college because of expense, to calculate the costs of plans where those people will go to the doctor and get into college because the taxpayers are funding them), and you're talking about $25 billion? Come on.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)a free ride to any college he or she can get into.
Preventative medicine costs far, far less than emergency medicine. Regulation and negotiation drive costs down. Getting insurance companies and other profiteers out of the healthcare game makes everything more efficient and cost effective.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Simple logic and the example of other developed countries tell us it is very possible--
US Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health
New Report Finds Americans Have Fewer Doctor and Hospital Visits Than People in Other Nations; Outsized Spending Likely a Result of More Technology, Higher Prices For Care and Prescriptions Drugs
New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015— The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.
“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2015/oct/us-spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Bernie supporters have to explain how he pays for everything
SCantiGOP
(13,868 posts)Is Congressman Clyburn lying or is he misinformed? You seem to know more about this than he does.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And his plans have plenty of flaws that are not addressed. Like the fact that states have to contribute a healthy percentage. Which red state will put that in their budget?
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)Just kidding. 
You are correct - they won't. Neither will Chris Christie be compliant in September 2017.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Look at this too, I will pm it to you.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Lower middle class or poor students ---- indiana.
Most of my si longs and I got full tuition paid at IU or Purdue. The Hoosier scholarship was pretty easy to get and covered all my tuition at IU.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)How could answering the question YOU asked be off top unless YOUR post was off topic? This is getting beyond silly.
The fact is that private schools are even now usually more expensive. The reason is that they offer something different of value to.the students who opt to go there. Many have endowments that provide scholarships.
The fact that most of my lower middle class/middle class Lake County Indiana class could get a full tuition ride did not cause private colleges in Indiana to close. It made college a reality for my 8 siblings and me even though my dad was a milkman.
The fact is that NEITHER Clinton ' s or Sander's plan would pass EXACTLY as stated in their position papers. If we get a Democratic Senate and House, the relevant committees will work to create a plan that could pass. If there is no majority, they will still introduce legislation after fleshing out the details. In that case, they might have several bills all with different details. However, all of the bills will be sent to committee ( in the Senate it would be the HELP committee that both Sanders and Clinton were on) and the Republican chair would almost certainly never do much with it.
In 2008, I said that the actual Healthcare bill would be what Congress could pass. The minor differences that were argued constantly on DU would be settled by which could pass. The important thing is that each has the goal to advocate for making college more affordable.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I agree
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)I don't buy what Rep. Clyburn is saying for one second. Even if it were the case, then those colleges must adapt or try to be absorbed into larger schools.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)rather take the less expensive choice , no one is being forced to do anything
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Community College ( or where ever) offers a tuition-free plan? A few "free" schools will not suddenly remove all the physical and distance barriers, or remove the advantages these other schools offer.
Remember - when we had free-flowing VA benefits, and school vouchers all over the place, and funding for student jobs running out our ears, those schools didn't close. That would seem to make you out a liar.
What a worthless contribution you make to this, just something to shoot your mouth off so you can bash President Sanders. A waste of a good elected office and taxpayer money.
No wonder people don't want to pay higher taxes, if this is all they get.
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)Please refer to him by his office of Senator as that is as high as he will ever rise.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)call her madame secretary for she will not achieve the presidency. She will lose in the general. The DNC will also have to get by without my money, my canvassing, my phone calls, and possibly my vote. I do not know if my fingers clasp tight enough to pinch off the enormous stench coming from that filthy uninspiring campaign.
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)Ask yourself something, and this is important: Why is the Republican National Committee working its ass off to put Bernie Sanders on the general election ballot?
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)This is the very reason she won't win. Her supporters blind eye and snide remarks. I would answer the question posed, but my response wouldn't be missed.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Fear mongering.
ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)Sad.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)Another member of the 3rd Way Board of Trustees Attacks Bernie Sanders - Sen James Clyburn
Will the Hillary supports realize 3rd Way is determined to privatize Social Security. So when you post these 3rd Way Hit pieces against Sanders you are only strengthening our resolve
Here is the Hit piece
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Sunday that Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders’s plan to make public colleges tuition-free would have a deleterious effect on private, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU).
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270214-clyburn-sanderss-plan-would-kill-black-colleges
Here is the Truth
http://www.thirdway.org/about/co-chairs/james-clyburn
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article24760444.html
Honorary Co-Chairs
Members of Congress
From Third Way's website:
James Clyburn
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Third_Way_organization
Beowulf
(761 posts)Usually, there's a big difference in cost, so wouldn't students be seeking out Jackson State over Tougaloo anyway? But still, it seems like this could be worked out. It shouldn't have to be an either/or situation. I think Clyburn needs to think about the consequences of what he's saying. Saving private colleges is more important than providing youth debt-free college education.
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)Thanks.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)force them to attempt to get their outrageous tuition and fees under control. It's a disgrace how expensive private colleges have become lately.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
How many buildings and programs are you willing to close so Sanders can make it look like a square peg fits in a round hole?
How many college alumni associations are you going to piss off?
What you want is more important than what they want, I guess.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)"What you want is more important than what they want, I guess."
And we know what you want.
Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)Without grants or scholarships, most are priced out of HBCU's just like any other school.
Where have I heard this argument before?
- $15 and hour will cost jobs.
sarge43
(28,941 posts)That's your argument!?
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)then that means more people will get them, and that would make them less special. I don't know if that's what the person is getting at, but that's how I interpreted it.
I've heard this argument before when discussing lower and/or free tuition for high education. It really is an of mindset that I cannot understand.
sarge43
(28,941 posts)On the other, wouldn't a group want to increase its membership, therefore its influence?
lapfog_1
(29,199 posts)would graduate college under the Sanders plan?
No???
...more big, scare tactics.
No We Can't have any of that free college going on.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)You just switch the burden of payment from one place to another.
Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)Public schools are free for those without the means to pay for private schools, or the property to justify the contribution of property taxes which is local Gov's preferred method of paying for public education.
Are you going to call them leaches now?
karynnj
(59,501 posts)Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)
pacalo
(24,721 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)And what about the people who have to pay for this?
Free schools doesn't mean the schools cost nothing. It means somebody other than the student pays.
Which means older taxpayers. Who may not want to pay for this, you know.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)Have you seen even one of his speeches?
Anyway, here's the plan:
The cost of this $75 billion a year plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/
kennetha
(3,666 posts)Bernie's "plan" is ill thought out.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1234829
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Other countries can do. Why can't we? Oh, I know what. . .the banks will lose their gravy train.
Nyan
(1,192 posts)all the states (except Wisconsin) that have rejected medicare expansion under ACA are the states that once instituted slavery.
What one could infer from that is that the white populace either consciously or unconsciously refuse to have government policies benefit them because they don't want it to benefit their former slaves. In other words, we can't have good government programs "because unlike Scandinavian countries, we have black people and other minorities."
I find it ironic that this elite black politician is rejecting (on behalf of all black people, supposedly) the idea of universal public college program "because we have black people."
I'm sorry. Republican Party has been using divisive tactics for a long time. And now, I see Democratic Party establishment doing the same thing.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I think Morehouse, Spelman and Howard would survive, but other HBCU's not in that top category could be driven out of business.
Although, some HBCU's are public, like Florida A&M, and that school could thrive.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope".
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Bill was given 17.5 million bucks for being an "honorary chancellor" at a for-profit college network, and resigned just prior to her candidacy.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Other schools that might want to participate in a free tuition system should be permitted to join the group. There would probably be certain requirements for the schools.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to go to college without being saddled with debt the rest of their lives?
I don't understand why it is important to save schools that represent the vestiges of slavery and segregation. But then I am not African-American.
Why hold on to traditions that have hurt people?
And think of the many immigrants who would be able to go to college without debts if state schools were tuition-free?
Also, think of the older people, people 40-70 who could return to school and learn skills in order to keep up with the times or perhaps enter a new profession or get a new job.
The concern for Black colleges is legitimate, but I think there has to be a way to reduce any harm that could result for them.
madokie
(51,076 posts)most asinine thing I've read someone say in a while. Actually
geomon666
(7,512 posts)This is why I hate election years.
If the only thing keeping students in those schools was the relative expense of a public university, then they are a crappy institution to begin with. And most (all?) of those schools have good sized endowments to help them cope, should they need to pull out the fainting couches.
desmiller
(747 posts)It seems that the purpose of this fear mongering is to protect the banks. No loans = No Money and No debt = no interest. Simple.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)colleges just closed their doors and went out of business!
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)I keep forgetting that.
Clyburn just lost all credibility to me.
shenmue
(38,506 posts) mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Any decent private US university gets the majority of its students from out of state.
And if most states are so poor, isn't that all the more reason to use Wall Street money to help them pay for their colleges? And how can their residents afford these expensive private schools right now?
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)It's like "don't sew up my wound and put a bandage on it, you'll fuck up my tan."
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)tuition to protect HBCU institutions.
I don't get it.
Can someone explain why we should prevent huge numbers of low income students from getting a college education so a group of other colleges could be preserved?
Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Taxes will have to be raised in order to put this plan in place. The costs of an education at Jackson State shouldn't be all that much higher than Tougaloo College. As the plan comes together it would certainly be conceivable that Jackson State would receive as much Federal aid as TC.
This absolutist claim falls squarely in the "No we can't" camp. You'd think Congressman Clyburn had endorsed HRC or something.
Oh, never mind 
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)just said
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)
Jim Clyburn has criticized Sanders’ plan for free public college by saying it would be a disaster for private HBCUs (historically Black colleges and universities). This got me wondering: how big are private HBCUs? Specifically: what share of Black college students attend a private HBCU?
So, overall, HBCUs serve 8% of Black college students. Private HBCUs serve 2% of Black students. Overall 66% of Black students attend public colleges of one sort or another, and 75% of Black HBCU students attend a public HBCU.
What’s interesting about Clyburn’s take on this is that his argument is an argument against public school tuition subsidies in general. The point is that, when you subsidize public colleges, that puts private colleges at a competitive disadvantage. This will mean those colleges attract fewer students than if public college wasn’t subsidized. This is true regardless of the level of subsidy. Subsidizing public college tuition by 10% gives them an edge over private colleges. So does subsidizing them by 50%, 80%, and (as Sanders proposes) 100%. The more you subsidize them, the bigger the competitive edge they have on price, but there is nothing magically different about going from the level of subsidy they have now to the level of subsidy Sanders proposes. It’s a difference of degree not kind.
So that leaves you kind of scratching your head. Does Clyburn oppose all public school tuition subsidies on the (likely correct grounds) that they put private schools at a disadvantage (and thus private HBCUs at a disadvantage)? And if not, why not?
Source: http://mattbruenig.com/2016/02/21/how-many-black-students-go-to-private-hbcus/
dimple
(56 posts)I think.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Response to w4rma (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)yet Harvard still exits. Please explain why this is so Senator Clyburn.
Subsidized low income homes exist, yet Hillary live in a mansion, why do mansions exist Senator Clyburn?
newthinking
(3,982 posts)in much of the country.
We have been brainwashed into terribly low expectations. Our country is richer than it was 50 years ago yet you would think we were third world.
It is all about priorities and cutting back the greed and theft of an economy and country that belongs to all of us, not just a few.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)It's the same argument opponents of her plan used to try to kill it. It would destroy private kindergarten schools.
It didn't and they both exist side by side. Now everyone reaps the benefits, instead of just people with money. She was later elected to the School Board, Alderman, and the State Legislature. After moving to Florida, she ran for State Senate, and lost to a really crooked Republican, mainly because she got zero support from the Florida Democratic Party.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)educated Black students when the state universities in SC and elsewhere would not even consider admitting them. I think there are other ways to ensure their survival. But, somebody has got to speak up, because Sanders' don't appear concerned.
I think this is one isolated topic out of a larger interview. Most importantly, Clyburn is right that Clinton would be a better nominee.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)sarge43
(28,941 posts)because o/a 12M people were suddenly eligible for free college tuition. That's the GI Bill and 12M is o/a 10% of the US population at the time.
just in case.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)that there are public HBCUs. I know of two in Texas. Texas Southern University and Prairie View A&M. Under Sander's plan these colleges would also be free. So it would only hurt private HBCU.
I did a search and here is a list of HBCUs. http://hbculifestyle.com/list-of-hbcu-schools/
Here is an article that talks about the struggle of public HBCU to survive because of changes to the awarding of PELL grants. It was written two years ago before there was any mention of free public college:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/06/24/public-hbcus-facing-tests-many-fronts-fight-survival
So the Sander's proposal would not be a universal HBCU killer. It would help universities like Texas Southern and Prairie View and hurt universities such as Morehouse and Stillman. I think it would hurt Princeton and Stanford too but people would still want to go there and pay because they are excellent schools. People would still pay to go to Morehouse and Stillman as well.
ellennelle
(614 posts)what an unbelievably twisted line of logic to push on his people!
does he really take them for rubes?
surely he is smart enough to get the core of what he's saying, that making education free would take a lot of students out of the colleges where they have to pay. that we should feel sorry for these private colleges more than we feel for the students???
jesus, who is coaching these people???
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But apparently a lot of people are buying into it. Or at least they're pretending to do so in order to turn other people against Sanders.
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)will become the new high school degree, and real college will start after that. Some colleges will start requiring an associate's degree and two years of remedial coursework to get a 4 year degree. Most people at state schools take more than 4 years to graduate as it is. This could turn out to be the 6 year college plan, and the only way to get a degree in 4 years will be at a private college. This is actually what my children already experienced, one at a state supported school, the other two at private schools.
madville
(7,408 posts)comic book characters would win in a fight. Neither one of them is getting a college tuition plan through this Congress in the next 4-8 years.
They could be talking things the next Democratic President will actually have control over like SCOTUS nominations and war but instead it devolves into racist gotcha games.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)This is nothing but a theoretical debate. Due to the Republican's disenfranchising gerrymandering after the 2010 census, Republicans are guaranteed control of the House for the next four years. They will not allow Medicare for all, free college tuition, a national $15 minimum wage or expanded Social Security to even be debated on the floor of the House. To risk a 7-2 Right leaning Supreme Court, and all that entails, on a wish list that won't see the light of day is an unacceptable risk that I cannot support.
FreedomRain
(413 posts)clearly we will need every college in existence and have to build more. I already used the "dumbest thing on DU" line this week, should have kept that powder dry
Vinca
(50,255 posts)Maybe I'm naïve, but an education at a mixed race college must have some value to Rep. Clyburn. I'm sure it would to the students who couldn't go to college otherwise.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Will all private colleges disappear? No.
What is the point of this statement if there are no facts to support it?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Silly me
Jarqui
(10,122 posts)people don't vote for Sanders. Hillary's got the black vote. She doesn't want to lose it like she did in 2008. In part, this is constituency maintenance.
I agree with the folks posting above that say no college is likely to close down because there will be a surge in enrollment. They'll need every college they can have. They may have to defer some in the early going because there are not enough places for them.
Maybe some of these smaller colleges can get some help if it's truly as Clyburn says and a concern.
The purpose of this is to get young people who cannot afford college a chance at a college education. Are we supposed to give that up to keep a few private college's going? That's nuts. Solve the problem.
trillion
(1,859 posts)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Even Dems don't like it.
Go back to sleep, and let us direct your lives for you.
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)... of the smelly brown nasty. No one ever said colleges would suddenly not be paid. Banksters would just not be allowed to gouge the living shit out of students, and other avenues of payment would be explored. Maybe the greedy presidents of some of the high-end schools could forego the private jets. And when a football coach makes more than all the rest of the faculty combined, you better know you got a problem.
Shame on you, Clyburn. The relentless torrent of lies and innuendoes being spewed by Clinton surrogates is going to backfire BIG time.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)More people may initially choose public colleges, but there will also be more people pursuing advanced degrees in private colleges, included historically black colleges. They may have to expand their advanced degree programs. Every place you can widen the crack in the door to higher education should be taken.
Outdated concept anyways... Let em wither away..
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Why would that happen? If students chose Jackson State over Tougaloo if the tuitions were equal, what would that imply?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)I don't support vouchers and I don't support subsidies for private schooling.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)college. Apparently, your education failed to teach you to do a little research before posting junk like "it is a plan to privatize our schools."
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)others got their education? Clinton's plan includes additional money above that for public schools to help colleges that stood up for Black kids when no one else would. I have no problem with that, and am surprised Sanders' supporters do. Well, I would have been before the junk I've been hearing from them lately.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)A typical Clinton bill. Well, maybe not typical, since Hillary only passed three bills that just name things.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)way the wind blows.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Clinton's bill is a typical neoliberal giveaway of tax money to a few wealthy donors.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)minorities" or some such BS.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)If there is a similarity in how I explain things and how Republicans dumb things down, it's because I actually try to explain things to make them easier to understand, rather than hiding and obfuscating in neoliberal technobabble.
modestybl
(458 posts)Apart from this being utter bullcrap, this strikes me as a TERRIBLE general election message... it tells a whole swath of blue-collar "Reagan Democrats" that your kid can't go to college without huge piles of debt because we've got to keep these elite historical Black Colleges open... keeping us divided, never a good strategy...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)public and private.
It's superior to Sanders' typical tone deafness on these issues. Clyburn is right, but he should have been more specific -- Clinton proposes debt-free college education for all public colleges, including public HBCUs. Plus, those private colleges like Morehouse -- where MLK and others were forced to go because they were not allowed in the public schools -- will also have some funding to help preserve them.
Again, I'd be surprised Sanders' supporters would be against this, but their recent posts prepared me for this crud.
modestybl
(458 posts)... which she is disingenuous about explaining. Never mind that we USED to have free public college, and that of course Sanders' plan includes public HBCU ... and her implying otherwise is just so characteristic of her fundamental dishonesty. The tone-deafness is how OUR side sounds to the people we'll need to defeat a Repub... and HRC is now LOSING to all Repub candidates, except TIED with Trump in National polls.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Beyond toast. Burnt toast.
ananda
(28,856 posts)The lack of logic here is mind boggling.
Black leaders would oppose a fair and just social system
that makes education free and affordable just to make
sure Black colleges stay open and all students continue
to suffer insurmountable debt?
Also, there's not one iota of proof that such a system
would destroy Black colleges.
I worry for this country when Black leaders support people
like Clinton instead of Sanders. Haven't they suffered enough
under rabid corporatism and financial exploitation and loss of
jobs?
Sheesh.
onecaliberal
(32,814 posts)Nihil
(13,508 posts)The people saying bullshit like the OP article aren't poor black folks or
poor white folks: they are rich folks who want to keep getting richer.
Sadly, it really *is* that simple.
Rich Republicans mostly don't care about poor Republicans (black or white or whatever)
or poor Democrats (black or white or whatever).
Rich Democrats mostly don't care about poor Republicans (black or white or whatever)
or poor Democrats (black or white or whatever).
The traditional differences between Republicans and Democrats erode as their wealth
increases until you end up with what you have today: a bunch of rich bastards shitting
on the rest of the world.
(And for the pedants: the same applies in practically every country - only the labels
that the oligarchs profess vary from place to place ... e.g., Conservative vs Labour.
The principle is consistent across all nations: he who has the gold writes the rules.)
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)to those who cannot afford it, because private Black colleges would suffer?
Amazing that people buy this bullshit!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)And that includes African American students in that set.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Best to let EVERYONE suffer than to let private college owners lose money.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Once again, it appears the Democratic Leadership is doing everything in their power to make sure Democrats lose in the fall.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)If you weren't smart enough to get free tuition at Jackson State, you can pay to go to private schools, e.g., Tougaloo. Or Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Not just first time young college students who would benefit from basic college level courses.
Gore1FL
(21,126 posts)
thereismore
(13,326 posts)her feet.
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Is that Mr. Clyburn's position? This is nuts. How could anyone think this makes good policy sense?
This grasping at straws should be embarrassing to Mr. Clyburn.
MichMan
(11,901 posts)Why can't the entire Pell Grant system be enhanced and revised to make college much more affordable instead?
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Admissions departments will drive attendance.
You can't fit 10,000 students in a class if it only accepts 2,500.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)U of Illinois has a minimum act score of 33 for regular admission. Making it free won't effect that.
I wish Clinton supporters would at least think before they speak. The rank and file among them do not think critically enough to reject this utter bullshit.
