Have you seen his academic proposals?
The plan Sanders proposed in Congress calls for providing “an assurance that not later than five years after the date of enactment of this act, not less than 75 percent of instruction at public institutions of higher education in the state is provided by tenured or tenure-track faculty.” This use of federal funds to restore tenure represents one of the many policies that one does not find in Clinton’s proposal.
Well, that would staunch the hemorrhaging of qualified faculty into low-paying adjunct positions. I approve, emphatically. There’s also this delightful requirement for where federal money goes.
Sanders also wants to make sure that more money ends up in the classroom: “a state that receives a grant under this section shall use any remaining grant funds and matching funds required under this section to increase the quality of instruction and student support services by carrying out the following: A) Expanding academic course offerings to students. (B) Increasing the number and percentage of full-time instructional faculty. (C) Providing all faculty with professional supports to help students succeed, such as professional development opportunities, office space and shared governance in the institution. (D) Compensating part-time faculty for work done outside of the classroom relating to instruction, such as holding office hours….”
Spend the money on education? Shocking. And then you get the bit where he tells us what you may not spend the money on.
In perhaps his most radical and needed proposal, Sanders pushes these institutions to return to their core missions: “A state that receives a grant under this section may not use grant funds or matching funds required under this section (A) for the construction of nonacademic facilities, such as student centers or stadiums; (B) for merit-based student financial aid; or (C) to pay the salaries or benefits of school administrators.” Sanders’s plan would thus decrease the cost of making public higher education free by decreasing the costs associated with administration, athletics and merit-based aid that goes mostly to the wealthiest students.
Oh, swoon. Make it so, please.
And before you start telling me that Sanders doesn’t stand a chance of getting the nomination, I know. But I will continue to support him in the hope that his policies might be advanced beyond his campaign. I’ll also suggest that Clinton would win me over if she adopted some of these ideas.
Given Clinton’s history of cynical pandering during elections followed by solid support for right-wing positions while in office, I wouldn’t trust any promise she makes during this campaign.
@#1, Jake Harban
You’re exaggerating. She’s promising to invade a bunch more small, defenseless countries and to try to gin up a hot war with Russia. I have complete confidence she’ll try to keep those promises.
And the chance of getting that education bill through Congress?
Don’t worry. She won’t.
tomh @ 3
None perhaps, but then you use its defeat against those who voted against it. You keep bringing it up to keep the issue fresh in The American public’s mind. You keep bringing it up until you win.
What we don’t do is pass a half-assed plan just so your government is “doing something.” We should be shooting for quality of legislation passed, not quantity.
@ #4
You talk as though the American public wants to spend money on education – they don’t. Those who vote against it are gaining favor with their constituents. A Democratic president’s main value will be in preventing the Republican agenda from becoming law.
@#5, tomh
IIRC, when the issue is polled without mentioning political parties, the American public wants to spend a great deal more on education than mainstream consensus agrees is politically feasible. (And no, I don’t have a source for that off the top of my head, so go ahead and disbelieve it if you so desire.) In fact, that seems to be the case with most issues: Americans are much further left when polled on issues, rather than party lines, than most people believe.
Ooooh, too bad, then. Clinton has said already that she won’t fight any major battles with the Republicans if she’s elected, so unless the Democrats take Congress as well she’s going to rubber-stamp everything, and that Republican Agenda you’re so terrified of will go through. Too bad there weren’t any other candidates available… oh, wait.
You think I’m against Sanders? I’d be perfectly happy with Sanders, or with any Democrat, for that matter And no matter how much frenzied rhetoric Sanders’ followers spout, Clinton is not going to rubber stamp the Republican agenda. There are thousands of Republican bills pending in Congress on abortion, climate change, immigration, health care, and just about every other issue that actually affects people. No Democratic president, including Clinton, is going to rubber stamp any of it. You just sound silly when you say that.
@#7, tomh
At this point, much though I hate to admit it, I think the Democrats have basically selected Clinton.
Yeah, it would be as ridiculous as not objecting to Scalia’s confirmation… oh, wait, the Democrats all okayed him when he was nominated. Well, maybe as ridiculous as voting to invade with Iraq when the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee had issued a report to everyone in the Senate saying there was no justification! Oh, wait, Clinton did exactly that. Well, maybe it’s as ridiculous as ignoring the disaster which was Iraq and then pushing for the military to destroy the government of another middle-eastern country, creating more refugees and letting ISIS spread into another country! Oh, wait, Clinton did that, too — it was Libya, and she sabotaged the attempt to settle diplomatically, ensuring the country’s government was destroyed. Well, perhaps it would be as ridiculous as thinking the TPP was a great idea after every other free trade agreement of its type turned out to be an abject failure! Oh, wait, Clinton did that, too.
See, the thing is, Clinton’s “evolved” views and policies are often very nice, but throughout her career she has taken the wrong side on every major issue when it was actually being debated. The “evolved” views are her walking back her failures after the damage has already been done.
(And, come to think of it: Hillary Clinton is against doing anything serious about climate change. She’s been doing her best to release the fossil fuel industry from any sort of regulatory action since before she was Secretary of State.)
True, but if Sanders gets a substantial percentage of the vote in the remaining contests, it will alert Clinton that she needs to pay attention to the agenda of the people on the left if she wants to get elected in the general. Though since the Republicans now have the lovely choice between Trump and Cruz, the only way I’d vote for the Republican is if I could do so from Mars and maybe she’s counting on that attitude to keep the left in line.
Frankly, though, even if we got Sanders…Sanders is saying that he favors continued occupation of Afghanistan. He’s not exactly enthused about gun control. He’s raised some $180 million for his campaign and that didn’t all come from students sending him $5 apiece. He’s Obama: the hope that would fizzle if it ever came to be realized. I’m just as happy having some of his ideas incorporated into the campaign rather than watching him blow it.
@tomh #4: In that case the public has to be told that they want to spend money on education.
I don’t disbelieve you, but I’m not sure what to do with that information. It’s not like we can run the election without mentioning political parties. More spending on education, a return to the 90% tax bracket for incomes over a certain amount, universal health care, breaking up or nationalizing of “too big to fail” companies…these are all things that are in the interest of the vast majority of US-Americans. Heck, most US-Americans would probably support them if presented with them as issues without parties or personalities attached. Yet a majority or near majority of US-American voters vote for the Republicans every time. What attracts them to the Republicans? This is not a rhetorical question. I flat out have no idea.
here is something I received and wondered if there would be a chance to pass it on.
uncke frogy
“What chance does this have to get through congress” seems like a shitty way to do business. If we’re just going to trash any plan republicans don’t like, why even bother running democrats anymore?
It’s obvious the republicans are going to use their new power to stonewall the president on literally every issue and shut down the government if you do something they don’t like. As such, why even bother voting for a democrat, by that logic?
The American public believes in spending money on education. There is a reason that when voter turnout is higher Americans tend to elect liberals and when turnout is lower Americans tend to elect conservatives.
From The Atlantic:
I admit I am not sure of the margin of error on this poll, but it is a winnable issue. I hate how the left loves to give up before even starting. Even if you lose on the first attempt, try again. Politics is about playing the long game.
Would you all like a moist towelette?
The only problem I have with Bernies proposals are that “money is fungible” and “admins are weasels”.
Now, if you wanted to go with a “nuclear option” for fixing US universities, it would include something like “spend >75% of your budget on ‘instruction’, or lose your tax exemption”
Then who does our research? Pharma?
There’s one thing I don’t get. Sanders wants professors to have “professional development opportunities.” However, in many, many universities, faculty development, particularly training in teaching, is provided by administrators like the people who work in places generally named something like Centers for Teaching and Learning.* But he would disallow funding for those administrators. He also presumably wants students to have better educational experiences, but many of the support services students need to be successful in school are housed in student centers, which are also disallowed. (Also, many of those support services are provided by… administrators.) This bill seems to have a very narrow view of how education works with little recognition of how multi-dimensional the needs of many students are.
Disclosure: I know this because I am interested in promoting evidence-based scientific teaching and was investigating careers that involve improving science education.
dianne @ # 9: … if Sanders gets a substantial percentage of the vote in the remaining contests, it will alert Clinton that she needs to pay attention to the agenda of the people on the left …
Yeah, but…
As Glen Ford pointed out in March, the Democratic Party leadership and the Clintons in particular will feel a strong pull to the right in hopes of snagging votes from Trump/Cruz-disaffected Republicans. And – especially the way pollsters count these things – there are more of them than there are of us.
This Australian continues to sadden, as he sees Hillary edge out the only reasonable candidate you have.
@20: This isn’t a popular view around here, but I think Clinton is a perfectly respectable Republican candidate. If she were the Republican nominee and Sanders the Democratic nominee, I’d be reasonably pleased with the options for the general election. The problem is that the US is so far to the right that Clinton is seen as a liberal. Not that Australian politics is all that lovely at the moment…the whole world seems to be in a regressive phase.
dianne @ 9
Ah! But Hillary doesn’t need to do anything as politically ” risky” as appease left wing voters. The guilt trip is now the standard means of ensuring party loyalty among Democrats. All you need do is evoke the scary, scary, scary possibility of a Trump or Cruz victory and they will fall back in line. What are the left going to do? Vote Green Party? Stay at home? From what I hear that’s just as bad as voting for a Republican.
“Politics is about playing the long game.”
I’m sure attitude is great if you are the upper class professionals, Soylent-slurping Tech-sector hipsters, and Hollywood “Limousine liberal” celebrities who now get to call the shots in the Democratic patty. They’re already nice and comfy thanks to their great incomes,backed up by stock options and royalty checks, to wait for the slow, incremental change they prefer.
Meanwhile, the poor–whom the Democrats have abandoned–can’t afford to wait decades or generations for a minimum wage hike or a repaired social safety net. They need help NOW.
Sorry, the second half of my last comment was directed at throwawaygradstudent @ 14.
PZ says: “…But I will continue to support him in the hope that his policies might be advanced beyond his campaign…”
I agree, I even joined a political party for the first time in 42 years just so I could vote FOR someone I wanted in our closed primary (Oregon) as opposed to voting against someone in the election.
I’m old enough to remember news stories about the Socialist mayor of Burlington, and thought wow wouldn’t he be something on the national stage! Well he’s got a much longer track record now and as far as I can tell I approve of the path that he’s chosen. Hillary seems better (vastly) than the Republican offerings, and her qualifications for the job are second to none, but she has done many things over the years that I have hated. First she was for the TPP now she’s not, she voted for war and now says it was a mistake… The list goes on.
So I’m going to stay in the Democratic party at least until after the election, since I’ll be voting for the Democratic nominee, but I really hope it’s Bernie.
#21
But that’s exactly it – she’s good… for a Republican.
@ #25
That’s all very cute, but you have to deal with reality. Cruz is a typical Republican, Clinton a typical Democrat. That’s the sad reality.
Even if you got a requirement like #1 passed, I’m not seeing universities ramping up their tenure track faculty so much as slashing classes and increasing class size. That would not be evenly distributed across the school, either – the humanities would have the deepest cuts, as always.
On the bright side, it would mean fewer grad students pulled into precarious teaching positions for years on end. They’d complete their degrees and research, run into an ultra-competitive faculty job market, and then move on.
@Akira McKenzie
I feel comfortable in saying it is “scary,scary, scary”. Unless you like the idea of a President Cruz or Trump (now almost certainly Trump) stacking the Supreme Court with conservative justices who will gut the NLRA, destroy women’s reproductive rights, and enshrine every pro-corporate practice out there into constitutional law for the next two decades.
Hilary Clinton is a death merchant. She will chose a wall street cabinet. She will continue the Obama forever war policy. Is Trump any better? Looks like another death merchant.