Wednesday, June 8, 2011

“I think the one thing that is important from a policy and fairness perspective is that if their coverage can be terminated by UC, then no UC retiree is safe from this kind of treatment, and everyone is at risk of having insurance terminated or drastically modified,”

Nothing says happy(?) staff appreciation day! like this story:

Livermore Lab Retirees May Appeal Benefits Lawsuit Decision

“I think the one thing that is important from a policy and fairness perspective is that if their coverage can be terminated by UC, then no UC retiree is safe from this kind of treatment, and everyone is at risk of having insurance terminated or drastically modified,

lovely...
__

told ya things are great at Cal- and they really want you to know it cuz they published that article again :
Campaign for Berkeley reaches $2 billion milestone, illuminating value of philanthropy's role in funding Cal's future

and, yet, - some at UC are not very happy:

Mad as Hell in California, and Students Should Be, Too By Tom Lutz

see what you think of that...
__

and check this out:
"First, there is the parenthetical phrase, “less than 1% of total enrollment”. Including that phrase in the story makes it seem like the issue should be subject to some sort of percentage cutoff. While the legal case was won, the propaganda case will be lost unless we insist that it does not matter how many students fall into this category: they graduated from California high schools, and they deserve the same chance at a college education here as all their peers.

Second, and reinforcing the idea that the moral point has been lost, there is that continued desire to know how many of the estimated 41,000 beneficiaries are undocumented immigrants. Immigration status is, as the responses from the CSU and community colleges indicate, not even relevant to college admissions. What is relevant is the preparation students bring to the challenge of gaining a college degree. That is what tells us whether the students we admit will go on to form the highly educated workforce that California has depended on.

And that leads me to my conclusion. There aren’t just 41,000 beneficiaries of this decision. There are more than 37 million beneficiaries– the entire population of the state.

We all benefit."


Do you agree? Will a large portion of 37 million Californians agree? and how does it affect the current attempt to woo public funding for UC?
read the full piece:
A Supreme Ruling: more than 41,000 winners by Rosemary Joyce, anthropology prof

No comments:

Post a Comment