Previously: Sen. Ed Emery (r): if you want Medicaid move to another state (May 19, 2014)

In the Missouri Constitution, in not one, but two places:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

Senator Ed Emery (r) on higher education yesterday, via Facebook:

Ed Emery

[….]

“Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.” – Harvard University Original Mission Statement, 1636

During this legislative session, as seen with passing both the student transfer bill and the Common Core bill, education was a top priority for the General Assembly. As the graduation season is upon us, many students will be preparing to head to college this fall.

During the session, we heard a higher education bill, which included performance funding – meaning that starting in 2016, a certain amount of state funding – based on performance – will be distributed, holding these schools accountable for the quality of education they provide. It is common for parents to be unaware of what their child is learning when they are away from home, but it is crucial that parents stay involved. In a recent report published by Phyllis Schlafly, she discusses the drastic shift on college campuses and the breakdown of traditional values among students. Schlafly makes some startling observations and passionate admonitions which are summarized below.

Before you send your child off to college, think for a moment about the quality of education you are getting for the $20,000-$50,000 a year. To get a glimpse into what your child will be learning, visit a university bookstore and browse through the required text books. Many of the history books give a one-sided perspective of the United States being a bully that is exploiting third-world nations and paints the Founders as racist slave owning elites who only declared their independence to preserve their own wealth and social status. Many text books describe big government as the only humane way in which a country can be ruled and claim that it is the duty of the government to provide for everyone, rather than protect their lives, liberty and property.

The problem is the way this information is being taught. If a student takes a history class in which they learn about Marxism, they may study and fulfill all of the requirements to pass without ever being challenged to think critically about the topic. For example, students learn about the ideas of Socialism and the basis on which it is built, but they seldom learn of the instances throughout history where this ideology has been tried and failed, from the pilgrims to Zimbabwe to the USSR. Schlafly’s research points out that at Columbia Teachers College, students learn that non-Socialist societies are the root cause of all violence.

Today on many campuses, students are given the opportunity to take a variety of classes including those on gender studies, many of which teach that the traditional roles of male and female are learned behaviors which can be changed if the person so chooses. In Schlafly’s report, she talks about a course at the University of Missouri-St. Louis that uses a textbook entitled Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions. She states that this textbook explains to students that heterosexuality only exists because of socially imposed stereotypes and homophobia, and has nothing to do with nature or morality. It teaches students that the oppression of minority groups is one of many ways for the majority to keep its special privileges. Frequently those expressing their own belief in traditional values are condemned as being ignorant or unaccepting. Even at the simplest levels, students are kept from expressing traditional ideas.

The outcry for “equality,” as opposed to exceptionalism on college campuses, has created a gross double standard. To teach traditional values or concepts is considered politically incorrect and students who want to live by these values find themselves persecuted. In Schlafly’s article, she describes a situation at Rollins College in Florida which recently ruled that Christian student clubs, who require student officers to be Christian, are in violation of the school’s “non-discrimination policy” and will not receive any university funds allotted to student organizations. Many often forget that most universities were founded as Christian learning institutions. Harvard’s original motto was “Truth for Christ and the Church,” and Yale University was originally founded to train Christian ministers. As you can see, today’s universities have exponentially strayed from this idea.

For many students, college can be a time in which their faith and values are tested. It is important as parents to help your student select a college carefully and to arm them with the tools they need to remain strong in their beliefs and values. Education forms the future. We cannot leave the future of Missouri or this great nation in the hands of the amoral education elite. Parents must take charge, and that requires involvement-not just in K-12, but in every institution that either forms or conforms the minds of our children.

“Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.” – Harvard University Original Mission Statement, 1636

Uh, you do know that Harvard University was and still is a private, not state, institution, right?

“….During the session, we heard a higher education bill, which included performance funding – meaning that starting in 2016, a certain amount of state funding – based on performance – will be distributed, holding these schools accountable for the quality of education they provide. It is common for parents to be unaware of what their child is learning when they are away from home, but it is crucial that parents stay involved….” [emphasis added]

Uh, once an individual is eighteen years of age or older (achieving the legal age of majority) parents have no right to be involved:

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.

FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children’s education records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level. Students to whom the rights have transferred are “eligible students.”

[emphasis added]

And:

[…..]

Section 99.31(a)(8)  Prior Consent Not Required for Disclosures to Parents of a Dependent Student

The Secretary clarifies that educational agencies and institutions may disclose education records to the parents of a dependent student, as defined in section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, without the student’s consent. An educational agency or institution may disclose education records to either parent of a dependent student, regardless of which parent claims the student as a dependent.

[….]

[emphasis added]

The language is permissive, not mandatory.

“…Schlafly’s research points out that at Columbia Teachers College, students learn that non-Socialist societies are the root cause of all violence…”

Uh, the Teachers College, Columbia University is a private institution:

Columbia University was founded in 1754 as King’s College by royal charter of King George II of England. It is the oldest institution of higher learning in the state of New York and the fifth oldest in the United States.

Controversy preceded the founding of the College, with various groups competing to determine its location and religious affiliation. Advocates of New York City met with success on the first point, while the Anglicans prevailed on the latter. However, all constituencies agreed to commit themselves to principles of religious liberty in establishing the policies of the College….

“…In Schlafly’s article, she describes a situation at Rollins College in Florida which recently ruled that Christian student clubs, who require student officers to be Christian, are in violation of the school’s “non-discrimination policy” and will not receive any university funds allotted to student organizations….”

Rollins College?:

Founded in 1885 by New England Congregationalists who sought to bring their style of liberal arts education to the Florida frontier, Rollins is a four-year, coeducational institution and the first recognized college in Florida.

Uh, Rollins College is a private institution.

That “performance funding” thing in Missouri, from SB 492 [pdf]?:

[….]

….Each public four-year institution, each community college, and the state technical college shall utilize the five institutional performance measures it has submitted to, and that were approved by, the coordinating board for higher education as of the effective date of this act, for performance funding under sections 163.191, 173.1540, and 178.638.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Performance funding in SB 492 applies to public institutions in Missouri.

“….Many often forget that most universities were founded as Christian learning institutions….As you can see, today’s universities have exponentially strayed from this idea…”

Not according to the Missouri Constitution as it applies to public institutions in the state. Unless, of course, one has difficulties with reading comprehension and critical thinking.

Gee, the University of Missouri, St. Louis has a course that uses a textbook that Phyllis Schlafly and Senator Emery (r) don’t like. Apparently that qualifies the institution and its entire curriculum as enablers of heresy. Except it is a public institution, not one operated as an instrument of “Christian learning”.

“…We cannot leave the future of Missouri or this great nation in the hands of the amoral education elite…”

That says it all, doesn’t it?

Yesterday, via Twitter:

Ryan Conway ‏@RyanConwayMO

I’m getting pretty damn sick of public universities taking a position on #HB253. Mind your own business! 6:57 PM – 27 Aug 13

Because people in public higher education have no business participating in any public dialogue, that’s why!

Because Texas Governor Rick Perry (r) knows as much about Missouri as he does about running for president, that’s why!

The short list of people authorized to mind our business?:

Immediate past president of the St. Charles Young Republicans and current Young Republican national committeeman from Missouri.

Figures.

Previously:

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

Bill signing Kabuki (July 12, 2013)

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.” (July 19, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): probably not gonna sustain the Governor’s veto of HB 253 (August 19, 2013)

Sec. of State Jason Kander (D) to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r): You forgot about that Medicaid thing? (August 23, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) to UCM on HB 253: I don’t care, I’d rather be the new Speaker Pro Tem (August 24, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): your constituents know what you’re doing to them (August 26, 2013)

A little over five years ago:

Chris Koster in Independence, MO (March 30, 2008)

…In 2001 general revenue to higher education in the state of Missouri was nine hundred and sixty million dollars. 2001. In 2008. We’re now in the 2008 budget cycle, general revenue to higher education in the state of Missouri is nine hundred and thirty six million dollars. A reduction of twenty four million dollars despite the fact that we’ve gone forward by seven years. We fell back in nominal terms, nominal dollar terms by twenty four million dollars. In real dollar terms, which mean you put, you pump a higher ed inflator through there which is about, I dunno, say eight percent, um, we are seven hundred and twenty five million dollars behind where we were in 2001 in higher education.

The reality is, I mean, we can pretend it’s otherwise, but Missouri is the 46th lowest taxing state in the country. We are never going to catch up to the high water mark that Bob Holden hit in 2001. It’s just never gonna happen. We can try. And we should try. But it’s never gonna happen. I mean, it’s, once you fall behind by a billion dollars in a twenty billion dollar budget, we can all pretend it can happen, but it can’t happen.

Let me give you one other statistic. Because this is so fascinating, hardly anybody really recognizes this about the state budget. We take in two hundred seventy million dollars more each year then we did the last year. So, know you start to understand the consequences of falling a billion dollars behind. We only take in two hundred seventy million dollars more this year then we did last year. Of that two hundred and seventy million dollars, two hundred and forty million is immediately taken up by mandates. That means inflation in pharmaceuticals, inflation in Medicaid, the heating costs that it keeps, that it takes to warm the Capitol during the winter. Two hundred and forty of the two hundred and seventy is immediately gone. That means in any given year we’ve got about thirty million dollars in discretionary money to change the course of history with. Now you understand the consequences of falling a billion dollars behind in just the higher education budget, much less the k-12 budget. When you’ve only got thirty million dollars how can we ever catch up in higher education? Of the thirty million dollars we only, this year in tax credits to wealthy corporations we will give away something like sixty million dollars. So every single penny that did not go to inflation went to big business. Every single penny of it….

The republican way is perpetual austerity for the 99%. God forbid that corporations and the top 1% ever have to think about the public good and invest in, you know, civilization. Revenue is always out for republicans. Because why should Mississippi be last when Missouri could occupy that space? Just asking.

Senator David Pearce (r-21) at the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors meeting on campus in Warrensburg on April 19, 2013.

On Friday morning Senator David Pearce (r-21) spoke on SB 437, a bill which he sponsored, at the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors meeting on campus in Warrensburg. The bill, in its present form, reallocates the fixed funding pie toward community colleges and (as near as we can tell) the University of Missouri system and away from the remaining four year institutions in the state. The 21st Senate District includes the University of Central Missouri, one of the four year institutions adversely affected by this bill.

Senator David Pearce (r-21): [….]

And, uh, first up, Senate Bill 437. And that’s a bill that, that I’m sponsoring. Um, it’s one that has, uh, received quite a bit of discussion and I will say, some controversy. Senate Bill 437, uh, basically creates a distribution model for higher education funding. It’s taken the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Education and tried to come up with a long range funding formula for higher education. Um, it’s, this bill is number two on the Senate calendar, on the perfection calendar. And, hope to get to it on Tuesday or Wednesday and have a, a good discussion on that.

Um, I was just on the radio and I, and I said that, uh, in higher education we have limped along for decades because when it comes to funding it’s across the board increase or across the board decrease, regardless of how well your university is doing. We have thirteen unique institutions and we can do better. And, uh, Senate Bill 437 tries to create a, a model for that. Let me just give you one example of something that happened in our appropriations committee this week, which I did not like, which, I think, explains why we need a formula. We were going through the appropriations process and a, a senator, a colleague, a friend of mine, uh, put an amendment for one point three million dollars for Missouri State. Out of the blue. And, um, we had somewhat agreed among ourselves that we would just take the recommendations and, and move from there. And so, that’s the way funding has been in higher ed for decades. It’s who’s got the political strength, who’s at the table, universities fighting against each other. And that’s the wrong way to fund higher education. So that was a perfect example of why we need a formula. Because I don’t want to be put in the unenviable position of being chairman of the Senate Education Committee and have to fight against Missouri State on the floor. That doesn’t do anybody any good. And so, if we can come up with a found, uh, uh, funding formula that, uh, treats all the universities the same based on performance I think that’s the way to go.

Uh, right now we have, uh, complete support from the community colleges, uh, but we’re having some trouble from the four years. And, uh, I have tasked the, the presidents of the university to give me some language by the end of today, amendments that they can live with, the ways that they want to see the bill change as it goes through the process so we’ll be ready to discuss it next week.

So that’s, that’s a tough bill. Um, but yet we’re gonna go forward and we’re gonna get [inaudible] and I’d love to see it pass the Senate this, this week and head on over to the House.

[….]

Um, obviously, uh, if you’ve been in my office you’ve seen my shrine to UCM. Uh, so it’s UCM and others, but it’s also important, in my capacity that, that  I look at statewide implications as well. Because, uh, higher education is important for the entire state. So, with that I’d be glad to take any questions you might have.

University of Central Missouri Board of Governors President Marvin Wright.

University of Central Missouri Board President Marvin Wright: Senator, we, uh, you know, as a board, appreciate everything that you do and attempt to do for the University of Central Missouri. It, uh, is in your district and, and, uh, I know we lean on you from time to time for assistance and help. And we appreciate, uh, the assistance that we do get, and also from Denny in the House.

Uh, the current status, I was glad to hear you say that you’ve requested some amendments.

Senator Pearce (r): Um, hm.

Marvin Wright: And I have no idea what those amendments are going to be.  Uh, I, I do know that, that the, the board is, is concerned. Uh, and the unknown always bothers everybody, you know. And we’re no different, no matter how old we are. We never get used to it, unknown. But, the, the one, one of the points in the, in the legislation, uh, is with respect to the, the percentages of the monies that are going to community colleges as opposed to four year institutions. And as I understand it, uh, the community colleges, uh, stand to gain some fourteen percent, uh, in appropriations. And that obviously means there has to be reduction. That reduction is in four year institutions. And that four year institutions would include the University of Central Missouri. And, you know, I, I would like to know how, how do you view this as being of assistance to the University of Central Missouri? Because, obviously, we’re part of the State of Missouri and part of the higher education,  and, uh, being going through a process, our faculty, staff and everybody else of budget reductions, that type of thing. And, uh, this bothers us, uh, this reduction. And, and I, I’d like to know what about that is something that, that, that we as a board could feel comfortable with?

Senator Pearce (r): It’s a work in progress. And, um, when we first proposed the bill we put in language to deduct half of the local contribution for community colleges. So, we basically were reducing their local effort. Obviously, their, their operating levies for the community colleges. I mean, community colleges do have another funding source that four years don’t. And so, what we tried to do was to, uh, cut that in half so there wouldn’t be a, a wide swing in overall contributions from community colleges to four years.

Um, I’ll be honest, uh, community colleges have probably more political input and more grassroots support in the legislature than four years do. Um, and that was something that community colleges felt that they could not live with, not necessarily because it gave them more money, but because they felt that if we deducted half the local match that they could never, ever have another operating levy increase. Because the local folks would feel that the state was penalizing them for not, um, supporting it and not, uh, taking advantage of the entire local match. And so, that decision was made, uh, in committee, uh, by seven to three vote to, uh, basically not deduct half their match. What that does, it, uh, goes from fifteen percent of the overall pie for community colleges up to twenty percent. Now if I was sitting in front of the State Fair Community College Board of Governors right now they would, they would be thrilled. Because, um, their main talking point is that, uh, they educate forty-two percent of higher education students but yet only get fifteen percent. And so these are very, very tough decisions that we had to, to talk about when it comes to overall funding for higher education.

Marvin Wright: I think you can understand what our concern is.

Senator Pearce (r): Right.

Marvin Wright: Uh, I think this institution and it’s faculty and staff do a tremendous job of educating people.

Senator Pearce (r): And, and.

Marvin Wright: And those who’ve graduated from here, I assume you would agree that it does a fine job of, [Senator Pearce: [laugh]] of educating people.

Senator Pearce (r): Right.

Marvin Wright: And it’s, it’s one that, that frankly, it’s disturbing to us that, uh, these people are tightening their belts around here and yet we’re faced with the fact that, that, uh, there’s going to be a reduction, basically, based on the percentages. And we’re, we’re just at a loss. I understand politics.

Senator Pearce (r): Um, hm.

Marvin Wright: I, that’s a misnomer. I, I’m sorry. I don’t, I don’t understand it. I from time to time pick up a glimpse of what happens in it. And, and this is one of those things that, that obviously I, I think that we would, we would love to see, if you want to give us a chance to smile like the State Fair board is smiling now, uh, for that part of this legislation to some way be modified so that we as an institution realize some benefit from what we’ve been trying to do and what these people have tried to do.

Senator Pearce (r) : Well, there are many benefits for performance funding and there are a lot of disadvantages with the status quo. Um, I don’t feel that that is in the long term best interest of UCM and so, I think going this route is the best route. Uh, and if you’re a university that is excelling and, uh, uh, accomplishing the things that you as a board had set out I don’t think you have a thing to worry about. Uh, and, certainly, I, I, any amendments and things like that that you want to, to have, uh, brought forward we’ll certainly take a look at those. Uh, but we are gonna, uh, debate the bill on the floor next week.

Marvin Wright: Okay. Now you have people you say that are gonna be submitting amendments to you today?

Senator Pearce (r):  Well, um, I’ve had, I visited with, uh, Dr. Troy Paino [president of Truman State University] and he was representing all three universities. And I made it very clear to him that I would like to have amendments, uh, brought to our office by the end of today, uh, on, uh, on how they could make the bill better. You know, to me, it’s very easy to just sit back and say, no, we don’t like it. And, uh, I think we can do better than that. And so, if there are ways that we can do that I’d like to hear that.

Marvin Wright: Well, good. I, I, I do hope that there’s some way that some change can be made which will, you know, acknowledge this institution and, and not put us at a disadvantage.

Senator Pearce (r):  We can see that performance funding, uh, currently in the budget is, is a good thing. I mean, because, obviously, by performance funding the university will be getting more money than if they did just an across the board increase.

Marvin Wright: Anybody else on the board got any questions or observations about? Yes.

University of Central Missouri Board of Governors member Gus Wetzel.

Gus Wetzel: Senator, on this performance funding [inaudible] to me it’s a great idea, it’s a productive idea, it’s a healthy idea. And, of course, we, on this, uh, board and the faculty and, and all the representatives here, we’re committed to it. But, it seems to me you made a statement earlier that, uh, the political, uh, environment pushed the two year schools to be considered on this, and another statement we talk about the political environment of, of another institution that asks for x amount of money to come into the formula for their funding for this year, and that was added. It seems to me that if, if the bill passes that each year the, the non performing schools will go, or the lesser performing schools, or those that are performing that have special needs that are not living up to the criteria of other institutions will have that same political clout that can you come before you and, and the, uh, state, and, uh, you know, if, if their voice is loud enough, it’ll be modified, it’ll go that way.

Senator Pearce (r): Um, hmm. You’re exactly right. Um, currently there are three universities that, um, according to the model are over funded. Um, some of my colleagues think that we should just indiscriminately close two colleges right now. But the political implications won’t allow that to happen. Um, and so, right now, in the bill there is something called a stop loss provision that a university could never receive, um, anything less than ninety-eight percent of their current budget. So, they could, it would never be, uh, like a ten or fifteen or twenty percent decrease in that. But you’re right. I mean, you can never divorce the politics from this process. But I think a, a performance funding helps in that direction.

[….]

Ah, instead of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, it’s reallocating the deck chairs.  

“…I mean, community colleges do have another funding source that four years don’t. And so, what we tried to do was to, uh, cut that in half so there wouldn’t be a, a wide swing in overall contributions from community colleges to four years…”

Ah, originally, austerity for everyone.

The four year institutions have two revenue sources – state support, which has dropped significantly in the past decade, and student tuition. The General Assembly, in it’s infinite wisdom, created an unsustainable funding stream – they cut state appropriations and effectively removed tuition increases (by statute) as a way to make up for those lost state appropriations. What a great scam! There’s no political pressure on the General Assembly from parents and students to increase state appropriations because tuition increases are taken out of the mix. Problem solved!  

“…Um, and that was something that community colleges felt that they could not live with, not necessarily because it gave them more money, but because they felt that if we deducted half the local match that they could never, ever have another operating levy increase. Because the local folks would feel that the state was penalizing them for not, um, supporting it and not, uh, taking advantage of the entire local match…”

But, republicans have made any possibility of increasing revenue so toxic as a standard of public policy that austerity is the only answer. Problem solved!

“…Because, um, their [community college] main talking point is that, uh, they educate forty-two percent of higher education students but yet only get fifteen percent. And so these are very, very tough decisions that we had to, to talk about when it comes to overall funding for higher education…”

Uh, community colleges provide unaccredited two year degrees, four year institutions provide much more than that. Let’s compare, I dunno, training versus education. There’s a value proposition in there somewhere, right? My God, do these people have enough brains to remember how to breathe? Just asking.

Here’s something really rich in the bill language (Senate Committee Substitute) [pdf] – the “peer state” calculation will be based on per capita personal income:

….the group of ten states comprised of the five states next higher than Missouri and the five states next lower than Missouri, based on rank-ordering of all states according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis based on the 2011 midyear population estimates of the census data for the per capita personal income….

Uh, what happens when Missouri finally arrives at last place? Just asking.

Also in the same version of the bill:

….The joint committee shall submit a written report, with any recommendations for legislative action or action by the coordinating board for higher education, the department of higher education, or the institutions, to the secretary of the senate, the chief clerk of the house of representatives, and the coordinating board for higher education.

Yeah, good luck with that.

“…Because I don’t want to be put in the unenviable position of being chairman of the Senate Education Committee and have to fight against Missouri State on the floor. That doesn’t do anybody any good…”

We thought elections were supposed to have consequences. Evidently not in the 21st Senate District.

“…Um, I’ll be honest, uh, community colleges have probably more political input and more grassroots support in the legislature than four years do…”

Missouri State and community colleges are allowed political influence. Is anyone else?

Cue the banjos. A bill, introduced yesterday in the General Assembly:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 291

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES BRATTIN (Sponsor), KOENIG AND BAHR (Co-sponsors).

0506L.01I      D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapters 170 and 174, RSMo, by adding thereto two new sections relating to standard science instruction.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapters 170 and 174, RSMo, are amended by adding thereto two new sections, to be known as sections 170.018 and 174.890, to read as follows:

           170.018. 1. This section shall be known as, and may be cited as, the “Missouri Standard Science Act”….

[….]

(a) The origin of life on earth is inferred to be the result of intelligence directed design and construction. There are no plausible mechanisms or present-day experiments to prove the naturalistic origin of the first independent living organism;

           (b) All original species on earth are inferred to be the result of intelligence directed design and construction. There are no significant mechanisms or present-day experiments to prove the naturalistic development of earth’s species from microscopic organisms

[….]

3. All science taught in Missouri public elementary and secondary schools, including material concerning physics, chemistry, biology, health, physiology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, ecology, climatology, or other science topics shall be standard science. All standard science course materials and instruction shall meet the following criteria:

[….]

(c) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design.

[….]

174.890. 1. Notwithstanding any other law, any introductory science course taught at any public institution of higher education in this state, including material concerning physics, chemistry, biology, health, physiology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, ecology, climatology, or other science topics, shall be standard science. All standard science course materials and instruction shall meet the following criteria:

[….]

(b) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught. If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth’s biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course;

           (c) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught…

[….]

[emphasis in original]

They need to add teaching the Gish Gallop in debate classes:

Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it….

…is so that some people have something to watch on television on a fall Saturday afternoon.

In today’s Kansas City Star:

Breaking up the Big 12 is a Powers play

…because Texas president Bill Powers, a Cal graduate, would rather be associated with the academic powerhouses of the West Coast.

This according to some close to the situation.

OK, just wanted to know where it stood. One man’s academic ambition wrecks multiple schools’ athletics. Check.

But finally, some sense may have entered the dialogue….

Evidently not.

I read this on a Chad Livengood’s (Springfield News-Leader) Twitter post and thought, “Huh?”:

Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder says there’s “rumors” that @JayNixon is forcing universities into Caring for Missourians, though he has no proof. about 15 hours ago from web

Surely, he really didn’t say that?:

Kinder says universities pressued [sic]

Nixon’s office denies MSU, others forced into health pledges.

Chad Livengood • News-Leader • June 9, 2009

…But Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder asserted Monday that Nixon pressured university leaders into signing the identical form letters, which MSU officials denied was the case.

Kinder, a Republican, admitted his information was based on “rumors” and “third hand reports.”

“I have no proof of that or firsthand knowledge,” Kinder said. “What I’m seeking is to heighten the profile of this issue and discussion, so that we can have an honest discussion with all the cards on the table…”

Yes, apparently he did say that. Honest discussion? Yeah, right.

As if, given their budgets, any higher education institution in the State of Missouri will turn down money whatever strings are attached?:

Chris Koster in Independence, MO [March 25, 2008]

…We are in a budget situation in the state of Missouri that, I’m just going on so long, I really apologize, but I’m gonna make one more point…In 2001 general revenue to higher education in the state of Missouri was nine hundred and sixty million dollars. 2001. In 2008. We’re now in the 2008 budget cycle, general revenue to higher education in the state of Missouri is nine hundred and thirty six million dollars. A reduction of twenty four million dollars despite the fact that we’ve gone forward by seven years. We fell back in nominal terms, nominal dollar terms by twenty four million dollars. In real dollar terms, which mean you put, you pump a higher ed inflator through there which is about, I dunno, say eight percent, um, we are seven hundred and twenty five million dollars behind where we were in 2001 in higher education.

The reality is, I mean, we can pretend it’s otherwise, but Missouri is the 46th lowest taxing state in the country. We are never going to catch up to the high water mark that Bob Holden hit in 2001. It’s just never gonna happen. We can try. And we should try. But it’s never gonna happen. I mean, it’s, once you fall behind by a billion dollars in a twenty billion dollar budget, we can all pretend it can happen, but it can’t happen.

Let me give you one other statistic. Because this is so fascinating, hardly anybody really recognizes this about the state budget. We take in two hundred seventy million dollars more each year then we did the last year. So, know you start to understand the consequences of falling a billion dollars behind. We only take in two hundred seventy million dollars more this year then we did last year. Of that two hundred and seventy million dollars, two hundred and forty million is immediately taken up by mandates. That means inflation in pharmaceuticals, inflation in Medicaid, the heating costs that it keeps, that it takes to warm the Capitol during the winter. Two hundred and forty of the two hundred and seventy is immediately gone. That means in any given year we’ve got about thirty million dollars in discretionary money to change the course of history with. Now you understand the consequences of falling a billion dollars behind in just the higher education budget, much less the k-12 budget. When you’ve only got thirty million dollars how can we ever catch up in higher education? Of the thirty million dollars we only, this year in tax credits to wealthy corporations we will give away something like sixty million dollars. So every single penny that did not go to inflation went to big business. Every single penny of it…

[emphasis added]

We covered the Caring for Missouri[ans] press conference with Governor Jay Nixon at the University of Missouri-Kansas City:

Governor Jay Nixon (D): “Caring for Missourians” at the School of Nursing, UMKC

Governor Jay Nixon (D): “Caring for Missourians” press conference in Kansas City – May 28, 2009

The folks at the university were quite happy to get those resources.

As for those commitment letters from the universities to the Governor promising that the funds would be used as intended? Peter Kinder has a problem with that?

On Thursday Governor Jay Nixon (D) visited the School of Nursing at the University of Missouri-Kansas City for the launch of Caring for Missourians, a new program that “will train more than nine hundred additional Missouri students to enter high-demand, critical-need health care fields.”

Our previous coverage: Governor Jay Nixon (D): “Caring for Missourians” at the School of Nursing, UMKC

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) at the School of Nursing at the University of Missouri – Kansas City.

After Governor Nixon’s announcement statement there was an opportunity for the media to ask the Governor questions:

…Governor Jay Nixon: …That being said, I’ll take your questions, the press [garbled].

Michael Mahoney, KMBC: Governor, one of the big problems you’re not addressing with this is the fact that in many small Missouri towns, as you well know, hospitals are probably the main employer and they don’t have the resources to hire anybody else. Nurses, doctors, or anything. How do you address that?

Governor Nixon: The demand for these jobs is out there.  Clearly [crosstalk]…

Michael Mahoney:  Is it? [crosstalk]

Governor Nixon: …and obviously [crosstalk]…

Michael Mahoney: But they don’t have the money for it. [crosstalk]

Governor Nixon: …obviously this year I would have wished that the, that the legislature would have gone ahead with our expansion of health care that we laid out at no cost to Missouri taxpayers that would have put a hundred fifty million in additional dollars in.

We think the jobs are there. We know, I know that jobs are going unfilled now. And that, that, that has been told to me direct straight up by administrator after administrator in hospitals and clinics across the state…

…Sure we need to do more for health care. But if we don’t have the basic backbone of professional services, trained workers, we will never be able to, to move forward in health care. And making sure we have this base done now is vitally important. I also think, not only at the state level, our efforts in health care are far from complete, but also at the national level. We sit here today on the precipice of a national debate about where we’re goin’ on health care. That is clearly gonna move this state and this country forward. Wherever that process ends in the coming months in Washington it will clearly expand access to health care, provide additional resources. We want to be the best positioned state in the country to have trained workers to provide those services. This provision will help us do that.

Michael Mahoney: Does this legislation have, have any requirement that the nurses, the dentists, the dental hygienists, all these people that are gonna benefit from the, this program will have to stay in Missouri and begin their, at least begin their careers here?

Governor Nixon:  No, it doesn’t. We, we want Missouri, we would like for ’em to, and every student I’ve seen here, as I’ve shook their hand, most of them who’ve been traveling with me here today, I’ve asked them to, to make sure and stay in Missouri if they can. But, ultimately, I think what we want is a, is a, is a magnet for education here. I mean, we’re talkin’ about building excellence. I mean, I don’t think we should be afraid to have students coming in from other parts of the country. To come and get the best education they can get in America right here in Kansas City.  So, this is not merely a, a program to just solve Missouri’s needs this is a, this is a definition of excellence that, that we want to have so that those, the higher education, especially in the health care area here at UMKC begins to get in broader recognition across the country as to the quality of that. That will help the Chancellor, Deans, and others attract other private funding, attract other ways that we can, we can move this forward. And so consequently, no, there is not a requirement that, that this be one for one right into our communities. We obviously, there’s a much better chance folks that come to school here working in Missouri than there are if they’re in school in Colorado or in California or somewhere else. Clearly. But as far as requiring it, requiring to do it, no, we didn’t. I think our goal here is to raise the bar, to, to shine this, this apple, not, not merely to, to service just the State of Missouri.

Question: Are there any incentives to going to work in these rural places? That’s part of the problem, too, is, is you graduate and you want to go to Chicago, you want to go to St. Louis. People don’t want to go to these places.

Governor Nixon:  Well one of the things that the institutions are helping us on is outreach into these communities for students. And I thought it was interesting to hear, hear the Dean talk about this. I mean, these students that they’re turning away come from Missouri towns. I mean, when you, when you, you’re much more likely to go back to your area. All the studies clearly show if someone is, is from Sedalia or Warrensburg or Joplin they’re much more likely to go back to those communities to practice or to work. And so recruiting, and that’s one of the things they’ve committed in this program, the university system, as well as our two year and four year institutions, is to beef up their recruitment of their students where the need is the greatest. That will increase the likelihood, plus we’re gonna work on the back side with those communities, to put programs together for loan forgiveness, for assisting them in, in transitioning to a professional career. Those projects are not done yet, but when we beef up the education part of this and we recruit heavily students from those areas we are convinced that that will help us on the back side getting much higher percentage of those students returning to those communities where they’re needed.

Question: The money that’s appropriated, to these different schools, is that gonna go strictly for facilities and classrooms, or is there gonna be any money available for scholarships or anything like that for students?

Governor Nixon:  This is the education side of it. And this, this money goes to the institutions, not, not for the, the scholarship part, although I, I would say that I think that higher education institutions this year with the historic agreement we were able to reach that said this year which we would not raise tuition, we would not raise academic fees, you know there’s, you know, I, I just looking at the Kansas City Star last weekend we saw on the front page there that Kansas is in the middle of trying to negotiate raising tuition for all their students six point five per cent. I, as a Missouri Tiger it was good to see a Jayhawk and “raising tuition” on the front page of the paper compared to a Tiger and tuition staying the same.  The point I make is, that the higher education institutions, I have found, one of our shared principles is to, is to keep the cost down for students as best we can. The only way to really do that is to provide the support for higher education so that they don’t have to shift across. And that’s what this, this is beginning to do right, right here. No, this doesn’t contain scholarships. No, this doesn’t. But, here in Missouri, for this year, we have frozen tuition, with frozen academic fee increases.  Colleges and, and institutions have joined with me in that. And, and because of that, one reason, we’re able now to find the resources to expand some of these programs. And this is just, I, I point out, and I know it’s a long answer to a short question, sorry about that, but I. This is just the beginning. I mean, we’re, we’re in a transitionary time in which we make th
e connector in our economy, between education, especially higher education, and our economy. I mean, we look back on this in a few years and we see that we’re attracting students from all over the place, when every student who graduates from this nursing school goes directly to a job, when every pharmacist goes directly to a job, we will have made the, the inter-coupling connection between education and economy as tight as you can do it. And I think this is a great place for Missouri to launch this program and, and I look forward to working with the Chancellor, the nursing school, the pharmacy school, the med school, the dental school and all those to continue to expand this opportunity. While at the same time not forgetting the question you asked, how do we help students not graduate with just a huge load of debt? How, how do we help them from, from getting out of here and having, you know, a hundred thousand dollars they owe, so that the first thing they do with the dollar they make? You know, we made a hard push this year and we got to it, one point to both the House and Senate, my, my Missouri Promise, which would have been a pathway to a four year undergraduate degree debt free. Disappointed it was left out of the education bill. But, best I can tell, the Constitution requires the legislature come back again next year. And I will be there, too.

One more quick question.

Question: With a lot of this money being [garbled] one time use and with universities and places [garbled] some of the other issues, what’s the reaction as you’ve visited other places with how this program is gonna be realistically.

Governor Nixon:  Well, first of all, all funding from the state is one time. The legislature meets every year. They do the budget every year. So, I mean, those that’ve said it’s one time, I mean, everything is one time. The legislature could, could, and, you know, could vote not to do a lot of things that they’ve done in the past. I mean, I could, I could, I have a constitutional power to, to limit budgets in, in a way that I think is appropriate.

So, what we see this as a building block. We see this as a test, it, and, and if we perform in, in a way that I know this institution and its affiliated health organizations do, I think we will have a very strong case to continue to move, move forward with this, this next year.

So, we’ve had a very good response from folks across the state. This is one of those rare agreements in which every public four year institution in the State of Missouri and every two year institution, public institution, in the State of Missouri higher education is in the game. And, and we will look forward to developing the metrics that can prove, to these members of the legislature and to the public, that these are dollars well spent., that these are, that this is investment that’s paying off, and when we do I’m confident that we’ll be able to continue the funds.

Thank, I, I want to, my last thank you here is not, is not to the press or to the folks in the suits or the Deans or anybody else like that.  But my last thank you, real quickly here, is, is to the incredible students that are here in this institution. The one thing that we haven’t talked about here, because it’s a given, that we shouldn’t ever forget, is the quality of the students and the quality of the education here. This is ground zero for the beginning of us moving forward. But that’s not possible without high quality students being committed to a very competitive degree. This is not easy work. Nursing students, pharmacy students, medical students, dental students compete like crazy to get here and once they’re here, compete like crazy to get their degree. This is a very rigorous program. And as Governor of the State of Missouri, I thank you all for setting health care as your career and look forward to having you take care of the citizens of Missouri in the next few years.

Thank you very much. [applause]

State Representative Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) posts via Twitter on occasion:

Now getting ready to meet with the University of Central Missouri Faculty Senate to discuss Higher Ed legislation and funding…10:48 AM Apr 24th from web

What, no mention of conceal carry on campus and HB 668?

Our previous coverage of Denny Hoskins’ not so good very bad times in Jefferson City this session:

Denny, Denny, Denny…brush up on the first rule of holes

Denny, Denny, Denny…brush up on the first rule of holes, part 2

Missouri House news

Some more information on HB668 and Campus Conceal-Carry

Denny Hoskins (r): “Mr. University President, tear down those signs…”

Doing the Jeff City Shuffle

I wonder if he’s angling for a plane ride?

Our previous coverage of the Missouri General Assembly’s assault on higher education and the woeful adventures of Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) as he continues to stumble about blindly in Jefferson City to the detriment of his constituents:

Denny, Denny, Denny…brush up on the first rule of holes

Denny, Denny, Denny…brush up on the first rule of holes, part 2

Missouri House news

Some more information on HB668 and Campus Conceal-Carry

Yesterday’s Warrensburg Daily Star Journal did a very good job of covering Hoskins’ inability to find the voting button when conceal-carry came up for a vote on the House floor.

4/10/2009 10:01:00 AM

Guns on campus bill advances

Jack Miles

Editor

Part 1 of 2

Warrensburg – Toting hidden pistols on the University of Central Missouri campus could become law under legislation that won first-round House approval Wednesday.

Rep. Denny Hoskins missed the vote…

Go. Read the whole thing.

There was also a blistering lead editorial in the same edition of the paper.

Go. Read the whole thing.

At first Denny Hoskins claimed he wasn’t aware of the issue and that it wouldn’t come up. Then he claimed that he hadn’t decided on his position on this issue. Then he said he needed to consult with the university community (They said, “Are you @!$#%& crazy?”). Then he said he missed the vote because he was reading constituent e-mails (Why, oh why, do republicans always seem to have eighteen minute gaps? Here’s some history.). Then, in the money quote, he said he would have voted for it:

“…I’ve talked to Public Safety at UCM, I’ve talked to university officials and I’ve talked to a member of the Faculty Senate, but most importantly I’ve talked with many of my constituents and I support the amendment…”

Thickness of this magnitude thankfully only comes along rarely in each generation. Unfortunately we seem to have a statistically improbable concentration in the current Missouri General Assembly. Uh, those folks at the university are among that grouping of your constituents you putz.

Other university presidents consider this a really really bad idea:

Concealed weapons on campus bad idea, Missouri university leaders say

UM president Gary Forsee opposes weapons on campus:

…Forsee says guns put school ‘in harm’s way.’

By Terry Ganey

Friday, April 10, 2009

…University of Missouri System President Gary Forsee said having guns on campus “increases the risk that our university family could be put in harm’s way.”

“Concealed weapons also would expose our university law enforcement officers to increased risk of injury and force them to worry about the increased presence of handguns when responding to serious incidents on campus,” Forsee said. “Missouri’s college students should be allowed to learn and exchange ideas in an environment free from the threat of concealed guns. It is hard to imagine that such a proposal could gain support given the magnitude of gun-related tragedies experienced on college campuses across the country…”

So, Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) as a freshman legislator refuses to take a public stand, makes a show of talking to the constituents in his district, miraculously misses a vote, and then asserts that he would have voted for it. A political incompetent of this scope and breadth can only be propped up by one thing. I wonder who provides it?