Well, technically Inside Higher Ed and Slate started it. Still, Gawker is not an education publication and they don't really cover politics—This marks a crossing from "a challenge for the state" to (well, to steal a word from the article) lunacy. Our state is once again making decisions so questionable, nonArizonans think it's hilarious. 

From the Gawker article Arizona Completely Abandons Its Community Colleges:

Community colleges are the most democratic forms of higher education, and, you could argue, the most important. Don't tell that to the state of Arizona.

The trend in America is towards acceptance of the fact that there should be more public funding and support for community colleges, which educate nearly half of our nation's undergrads during any given year, and tend to be much more accessible to working people and minorities than four-year colleges are. It is just common sense for states to direct funds to their community colleges to help make them as open as possible. It is an obvious public good.

With that in mind, consider what the brilliant loons who run state politics in Arizona are doing right now: they have cut state subsidies for two community college districts that serve the state's three most populous counties down to zero dollars. Zero. Inside Higher Ed notes that just five years ago, these two districts were getting a combined $70 million from the state; now, they're scheduled to get nada.

Sigh. I'll let you know when the Daily Show inevitably meets Doug Ducey.

This gets a little English-teacher, but it's important. As a general rule, you want to avoid the passive voice when you're writing. Not, "The ball was hit into center field," but "Jim Smith hit the ball into center field." The ball didn't get there by itself. Usually, the passive voice is bad writing.

But the passive voice is a favorite with politicians and others in the limelight when they screw up. When you're caught, always say, "Mistakes were made" rather than copping to it yourself. The passive voice says no one is to blame. Somehow, that mistake just fell from the heavens like summer rain.

So, to the story at hand. A group of Sigma Alpha Epsilon frat boys at University of Oklahoma were joyously singing a song on the bus which said, in essence, it's better to lynch an African American than to let him join the fraternity ("There will never be a ni**** in SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he'll never sign with me"). Two of them were expelled, and one of them, Parker Rice, issued an apology. But that doesn't end the problem, even if more of the students apologize or are expelled. This isn't simply about Rice or the other frat boys on the bus. It's about the wider culture that accepts underlying racism as a part of our lives, then when it's exposed, condemns the specific actors and moves on without addressing the larger problem that runs like a cancer through our society.

Listen to the passive voice in one part of Rice's apology: "Yes, the song was taught to us." Who taught it to them? Rice didn't say, nor did he say whether the song is sung regularly at the University of Oklahoma chapter, whether it's sung by other chapters, whether it's one of a number of racist songs, chants, jokes and slogans which are part of the fraternity's culture—and whether, as some African American students at the university have said, this is part of the pervasive racist culture they are forced to deal with daily. Ignore those questions and you end up clucking your tongue at the bad behavior of a few drunken frat boys and ignoring the larger issue.

Or, as Gawker eloquently put it "Turning Good Song Into Shitty Mess Will Cost Pharrell, Thicke $7 Million." Sounds like a fair tax to me. 

A jury in California ruled "Blurred Lines" was just too much of a Marvin Gaye ripoff to go unpunished, so now Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams owe $7.3 million to the Gaye family. 

Also, shoutout to Gawker for reminding me about the time Thicke tried to stop the world from blaming him for the misogynistic mess that is Blurred lines:

Thicke: To be honest, that's the only part where — I was high on vicodin and alcohol when I showed up at the studio. So my recollection is when we made the song, I thought I wanted — I — I wanted to be more involved than I actually was by the time, nine months later, it became a huge hit and I wanted credit. So I started kind of convincing myself that I was a little more part of it than I was and I — because I didn't want him — I wanted some credit for this big hit. But the reality is, is that Pharrell had the beat and he wrote almost every single part of the song."

Vicodin won't won't get you out of this one, bud. 

In the meantime, I'll just be over here listening to these parodies, pretending the bullshit not-so-original never happened: 


Way better, right?

Full disclosure. I'm so enraged by the budget Ducey and his cronies are trying to strong-arm through the legislature, hoping they can pass it before too many Republicans defect, I don't have the composure to write a careful, fact-laden post about the budget. The proposed budget is awful. It's immoral. It works against the best interests of our children and our state. If you want details, sorry, you'll have to go elsewhere.

If you're also outraged, live in Pima County and want to do something, register your complaint by calling or emailing Governor Ducey. Most likely if you're from around here, your legislators are as outraged as you are, so calling or emailing them won't do much good. The phone number is (602) 542-4331. Here's the page where you email his office.  A few words will suffice, but if you'd like help framing your message, go to the Call to Action page on the website of the newly formed group, Arizona Stands UP. You'll find a short, basic script you can either follow or use as a starting point. (Another full disclosure: I'm working with Arizona Stands UP). Helpful hint for the phone shy: if you want to call but don't want to talk directly with someone, call after hours and leave a voice message.

If you live in Pinal County or other Republican-heavy areas around the state, you can contact your legislators and urge them to vote against the budget.

Yes, Border Patrol agents are very much allowed to roam a bus or train station and check people's IDs and immigration status, even if the location isn't an official checkpoint or border. As long as the place is within 100 miles of the border, it's game, which I did not know until I posted something quick about it yesterday, and many of you sent a lot of information my way. Thank you.

The New York Times wrote an article about it in 2010, focusing on Amtrak stations in northern border towns, a few miles away from Canada, where (after 9/11) it became routine for passengers to see armed Border Patrol agents interrogating people, "fueled by Congressional antiterrorism spending and an expanding definition of border jurisdiction," the article says. 

It's also a tactic to combat human and drug smuggling, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials. They say it's been effective.

All of that is understandable. However, why are only certain people checked and not all? And by certain, I mean people of color with "foreign-sounding" names and accents.

A small group of Scholarships A-Z (an advocacy group mostly made up of undocumented students) members headed back to Tucson last night after attending a retreat with the Arizona Dream Act Coalition in Phoenix this weekend.

When they reached the Greyhound Bus Station on Congress Street, they were pretty unhappy to see Border Patrol agents escorted inside the bus by Greyhound staff. According to Francisco Salcido, who was on that bus with Scholarships A-Z, they interrogated four passengers native to Guatemala.

The agents did not bother any one else on the bus.

Apparently, the agents quoted some 1940s law (???) to justify their presence on the bus, which was headed to El Paso, Texas, according to Salcido.

Question: Since when is the Border Patrol allowed to interrogate bus passengers about their immigration status when not in an international border or passing through a BP checkpoint? 

Will this become routine? It is widely known that migrant men, women and children, many recently released from immigration detention, can be found at the Greyhound station, where they hope to take a bus, oftentimes across the country, to reunite with family and/or friends while they wait for their hearings with ICE, etc.

If anyone has more info, please let me know, while I reach out to Greyhound and BP.

Here's the thing about adjunct faculty and working graduate students who are teaching assistants: they save the University of Arizona good money.

Last week, I reported that merely about 25 percent of the UA's budget expenditures goes toward instruction: wages to TAs, adjunct staff, and others at the forefront of students' education, who oftentimes work equally as much and as hard as an actual professor whose salary could be near or in the six digits.

These groups are stronger than ever, especially after news of more budget cuts coming to the UA (could be about $22 million if Gov. Doug Ducey's wish is granted), demanding the UA administration transparency to know where the hell the remaining 75 percent of the money is going. 

Classrooms feel these budget cuts the most, so why not include adjunct, TAs, or undergrads trying to make ends meet, in the conversations of how the shortfall absorption plays out within the institution?

In the meantime, the Arizona Board of Regents approves bonuses for UA President Ann Weaver Hart, who's salary package is already near the $500,000 realm, as thanks for her "accomplishments." Last year, she got a $40,000 bonus. ABOR is also put in a difficult position, where they propose a budget for the universities, but the state Legislature has the last word on the cuts...It's just a mess.

This is exactly the reason I ignore all envelopes I get from the UA asking me to donate money as a former student, because it doesn't end up in the classrooms. A lot of it ends up in big, fat salaries for the administration, and they couldn't be more detached from the reality of adjunct, grads and undergrads.

Tomorrow is National Adjunct Walkout Day, a form of protest that's been greatly promoted by the Service Employees International Union—a group fighting for better wages, benefits, among other demands in academic jobs—and the UA adjunct is officially participating, as well as graduate students and all other allies.

From the event's Facebook page:

We know the University of Arizona greatly values its students and recognizes the direct link between student learning outcomes and teachers’ working conditions. Let’s come together to re-commit to education and all Wildcats.

Please join your fellow faculty, staff, students, and community members and don’t forget to wear red to show your support!

The event is happening from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Alumni Plaza, near the UA Mall.

The state and the UA have to meditate on the priorities...is it education or is it administrative pay or is it a nice REC Center? 

Also, here is a list of all UA salaries. Have fun. 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't remember "Raising Taxes" being one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War, Famine, Pestilence and Death are more traditionally mentioned. But an AZ Capitol Times article warns in its headline, K-12 funding suit could bring fiscal doomsday scenario. So, maybe the prospect of raising taxes in Arizona to pay the state's bills really is that dire.

The topic is the deadbeat dads and moms Republican legislators who just don't want to pay the child support education funding they owe, by law. It's $337 million a year, plus $1.3 billion to make up for their short-changing our children since 2009. Admittedly, they have a legitimate problem right now. The state is having a hell of a time figuring out how to cover its current shortfall even if it doesn't make its legally mandated education payment. And Governor Ducey ran on a No New Taxes Cut Taxes Even More pledge. What's a conservative gonna do?

Ducey wants the legislature to make a deal with the plaintiffs who are demanding the full $337 million, hoping the lege can get away with paying pennies on the dollar. At this point, the plaintiffs aren't interested, though that may change. But Republican Rep. David Livingston doesn't like the idea of compromise. He says the Republican legislators should just refuse to pay up.

“The real question is does a court system want to have a constitutional battle over this? They can tell us we are required to pay that. But I don’t believe legally they can force us to do that."

Don Peters, the lawyer representing the school districts, doesn't agree.

The courts have ways of enforcing such decisions, [Peters] said, including holding state officials in contempt, imposing fines or even putting parts of state government into receivership. He said he doubted that the Legislature would actually take such an action.

There's an easy, or at least an obvious, solution. Raise taxes. Tim Steller made the case for a tax hike in a recent column in The Star, showing the state budget is at the lowest percentage of state residents' income it's been in 35 years. Raise that percentage a bit by getting rid of some of the more ridiculous tax exemptions and raising the income tax rate on those who can best afford it—yes, tax the rich, who are doing very well in these days of growing income inequality—and the state can pay its bills, with maybe a little left over to, say, fix a pothole or two.

But Republicans won't have it—or not enough of them, anyway. If it only took a simple majority to raise taxes, it's possible that a few renegade Republicans could join with Democrats and pass a tax hike. But in Arizona, it takes a two-thirds majority in the legislature to pass a tax increase, meaning that one-third-plus-one representatives or senators can block any tax bill that comes their way. Arizona voters passed the supermajority referendum a few decades ago. If we want the state to regain its fiscal sanity, voters need to pass a new referendum to get rid of it. Then getting legislators to pass a tax hike would be only very difficult, not impossible.

At first, I thought this email was to inform me that it's terrible more female university students are joining websites to connect with sugar daddies—men, usually way older who may or may not be married, who'll pay for your stuff in exchange for your "company"—but then I kept reading, and realized the email was more of a "GOOD NEWS! Here's a great option to pay for school and get rid of debt!"

The email was sent to me by a representative from the site seekingarrangement.com. She said that with Arizona's unemployment rate being higher than the national average, how the hell else are students, particularly women, going to get by while getting a higher education or applying for jobs?

From the email:

To combat the cost of college and for networking opportunities, many Arizona college students are turning to the Sugar lifestyle. The number of students joining the world’s largest Sugar Daddy dating site, SeekingArrangement.com grew by 42 percent overall. At ASU, that number grew 55.43 percent in 2014, with 403 new sign-ups. At the University of Arizona, it grew by 32.35 percent, with 99 new sign-ups.

Today, SeekingArrangement releases its annual ranking of the Fastest Growing Sugar Baby Schools. ASU ranks second out of 50 schools, while the University of Arizona comes in at number 28.

ASU ranking so high doesn't surprise me, because they are like totally on the Playboy list of like best party schools evurrrr.

Anyway, no, Seeking Arrangement spokesperson, I am not going to say nice things about your site, which only fuels the stereotype that women can't get by unless they have a rich man on their side and DEFINITELY promotes the idea that we can be degraded as long as you gives us a big, fat check at the end of it all. Yes, unemployment is high still and salaries low, and most of us had to get loans to go to school because our father isn't Donald Trump or Gov. Doug Ducey, so stop with the bullshit that, unless you have a sugar daddy, there is no way in hell you'll survive in this world during and post college. 

There are plenty of hard-working people who are still struggling but stay away from the type of activities the site promotes.

From the email:

Fifty-five percent of college students in Arizona graduate with student loan debt. The allure of this lifestyle is deeply rooted in financial gain, as the average Sugar Baby receives $3,000 in monthly allowances.

Do what you please, but that website up there is just sad.

Yesterday I wrote a post condemning Ducey's decision to take money donated to help living post-9/11 veterans and use it to keep cemeteries for veterans running. My headline was, Vets Join Arizona's "Budget Balanced on the Backs of" List. A line from the post:

Let this be a wake-up call to people who think these sons of bitches hold anything—other than cutting taxes for corporations—sacred.

I sent it to Chelo Grubb, the Weekly's web editor, for her to put on The Range. A little while later, she sent me an email saying Ducey had backed down, so my post was on hold. Consider this a replacement for that post and a retraction of the above unpublished quote.

Contrary to my assertion, Ducey & Co. do consider something sacred other than corporate tax cuts: their heads, which were nearly bit off by veterans groups and Republican legislators. Parents and educators can yell all they want about Republicans withholding funding from schools. No problem. Courts can even tell the legislature its cuts are illegal to the tune of $330 million. Republicans appeal the decision, and Ducey talks tough but does nothing. College students and their parents can raise a fuss over regular increases in college tuition because state funding for universities keeps getting cut. Ducey says students need to pay their fair share of the cost of college. The governor can brush off those complaints with a quick swipe of his hand. But he learned an important lesson from his latest attempt at a funding sweep. Don't mess with vets.

Ducey's change of heart shouldn't be the end of this story about the donated money. It says on the Arizona Department of Veterans' Services web page, the money "directly impacts the lives of Arizona's heroes," and that's what it should do. But it's not happening. Ted Vogt, Ducey's chief of operations, said the original plan to sweep the fund wasn't such a big deal (a word of advice to Ted: Never use a phrase like "not a big deal" when referring to veterans) because the fund has $5 million in its coffers. He failed to mention the reason for the unused balance. The advisory committee hasn't decided how to spend the money—because, I guess, they figure Arizona's veterans are doing just fine. The $5 million unused balance is a scandal which was brought to light by the hubbub over Ducey's proposed sweep. The governor's next move should be to make sure the committee does its job and spends the donated funds to offer veterans much needed, and much deserved, help.