UC Davis kept indicating that they hoped to solve their dispute with US Bank over the closure of the bank’s Memorial Union branch following seven weeks of closure due to protests. Last week, indications were that negotiations were still ongoing, however that has now changed.
Ms. Morain declined to characterize the matter as a preemptive strike, but that would appear to be the case.
The bank closed its doors on February 28 following nearly seven tumultuous weeks in which the bank would close early 27 times and not open at all three times.
U.S. Bank employees “were effectively imprisoned in the branch,” bank Senior Vice President Daniel Hoke said in his March 1 letter. He noted that employees felt they needed to call campus police to escort them from the branch.
In August 2009, the bank and UC Davis through the UC Regents entered into a “Financial Service Partnership” agreement. “Opened in 2010, the branch was part of a broad partnership between UC Davis and U.S. Bank, which the university hoped would bring needed funds for student activities,” the Aggie reported in January.
“The university received a total of $167,500 from U.S. Bank last year. That is in addition to the $8,333 we receive every month in rent,” said UC Davis spokesperson Claudia Morain. Moreover, the University gets a cut of money depending on the number of bank accounts opened by UC Davis students.
According to the suit, “The Regents entered the Financial Services Agreements in its proprietary capacity. The Bank did not request – and the Regents did not agree – that the Regents would exercise governmental power (such as police power) at the behest of the Bank. The Bank agreed that the Regents has ‘no obligation whatsoever to provide’ security measures. “
Moreover, “The Bank “assumes all responsibility for the protection of the Bank, its agents and invitees from acts of third parties.” The Lease does not obligate the Regents to indemnify the Bank for the costs of providing security.”
On January 13, 2012, the Bank sent, as the Vanguard reported earlier this week, a letter providing details of notice of default.
The Regents in their suit write: “In the Default Notice, the Bank contended that the Regents committed a ‘severe breach’ of the Lease when a group of protesters, including a UC Davis faculty member, conducted a ‘sit-down’ in the lobby of the Branch. The Bank alleged that the Regents were in some fashion responsible for the actions of the protesters from the Branch and that the Bank was ‘forced to employ its own security guard.’ “
They argue: “The Regents do[es] not have the power to control the behavior of individuals who are not its agents or who are not acting within the course and scope of their employment with the Regents. Students are not employees or agents of the Regents, and conducting a ‘sit-down’ at a bank is not within the course and scope of any faculty member’s employment at UC Davis.”
“Although the police tried to dissuade the protesters from continuing their ‘sit-down’ at the Bank, the protesters refused to comply,” they continue, noting that following the events in November 2011, “the police were especially careful to avoid escalating conflict.”
They contend that “the police formed the opinion that trying to physically remove protesters posed an unacceptable risk of emboldening the protesters and others to act violently, or to cause the situation to deteriorate in other ways that would be more difficult for the police to manage.”
The Regents charge: “The Bank asked the Regents to ignore the professional judgment of the police and to order the physical removal of the protesters, no matter the consequences. “
They argue that the Regents entered into the lease not as a government entity, but “in a normal proprietary capacity.” Thus, “The Regents cannot exercise its governmental authority contrary to the professional judgment of the police just to serve its commercial interest with the Bank.”
The Regents also draw a legal distinction between the teach-in that occurred inside the bank branch and the protests outside, arguing, “Although the Regents [are] not responsible for the acts of third parties, after the week of January 13, 2012, there were no more ‘sit-down’ protests inside the Branch, and the alleged default was cured.”
When the students began in February to protest outside of the branch in the hallway, “A number of students attempted to impede the ingress and egress to the Branch. The Bank chose not to send a written notice with respect to the acts of protesters outside the Bank branch on the Branch.”
They add, “As a public employer, the Regents has no ability to curtail the exercise of First Amendment rights by students, faculty, or staff. However, the Regents asked for the Bank’s assistance and collaboration in addressing the problems created by the protesters. The Bank refused to cooperate.”
They cite the lack of willingness to allow the bank employees to cooperate with the police in gathering a case against the protesters.
They add, “The Bank has also failed to follow through on the Regents’ request for a coordinated public relations initiative; refused the Regents’ request to engage in mediation with student protesters; and has refused to exercise any civil remedies against the offending protesters, such as restraining orders or injunctions, that were available to the Bank, which had accepted responsibility under the Lease for security measures at the Premises. “
Spokespersons for the bank have declined to comment, however, we suspect that the bank will file a counter suit.
As the Vanguard reported earlier this week, in correspondence from US Bank’s Senior Corporate Counsel Neil Davis to the UC Regents, dated January 13, 2012, he writes, “As I am sure you are aware, on January 11, 2012, a group of protesters, led by a UC-Davis faculty member, entered the Premises at 12:30 p.m. and conducted a sit-down in our branch lobby. In addition to a disruption of our business at the Premises, this poses a severe security threat.”
He adds that when UC Davis Police were alerted, “they refused to take action.”
Mr. Davis argues that “because the protesters were led by a faculty member of UC-Davis, our landlord, U.S. Bank considers this to be a severe breach of the Lease.”
He adds, “And because Campus Police failed to act, and suggested in the future to keep our doors locked during business hours allowing only one student in at a time to conduct their banking transactions, U.S. Bank was forced to employ its own security guard. The security guard will be in place through, at least, the end of the current school year. Moreover, Campus Police’s indication that they will take no action unless protests turn violent, is a continuing violation of the Covenant of Quiet Possession.”
UC Davis Spokesperson Barry Shiller told the Vanguard that the context of this action is that when the students occupied the Cross Cultural Center, the university was able to use students and school personnel rather than police to convince them to leave after just four days.
“We hoped the situation could be resolved through engagement and education, as occurred earlier in January when the brief occupation of the former Cross Cultural Center ended peacefully and congenially,” Mr. Shiller told the Vanguard. “Based on that, we had reason to hope bank protesters might realize that they could expressively demonstrate their displeasure with the bank’s presence without denying others the ability to enter and exit safely.”
Robert Fineman, from the firm retained by US Bank, wrote Daniel Sharp, representing the UC Regents, a sharply-phrased letter on February 17 in follow up to a February 14 assertion claiming that there was “no action… taken by the Regents to cure the conduct at the Branch.”
He continues, “On both February 15 and 16, protestors led by UC Davis faculty member Professor Clover showed up at the Branch after it had opened for business. Once again, the protestors proceeded to sit in front of the doors to the Branch in the common areas immediately adjacent to the Branch entrance/exit. As has occurred on each day the Branch has opened for business since January 11, 2012 , this human barricade has prevented customers from accessing the Branch and has prevented Branch employees from freely existing and re-entering the Branch without the assistance of a police escort.”
“Additionally, University Police passively observed the situation, but have taken no action to prevent the protestors from creating the human barricade in the common area outside the Branch.”
He noted that the protesters were given flyers notifying them that they were in violation of PC 647c, however, he argued, “Although this notice advises the protestors that they may be prosecuted for their actions, to date no actions have been taken by the University to prevent the daily disruption of business at the Branch which continues to force the Branch to cease operations prior to the end of each business day. Instead, the University continues to permit these illegal actions to continue unabated.”
Five days later, Greg Haworth, from the same bank, wrote Mr. Sharp, “U.S. Bank was again prevented from doing business at its Branch on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 because of the presence of the protestors. The protestors showed up before the branch opened for business. The protestors locked arms and refused to permit U.S. Bank employees to enter the Branch when the request was made to enter. The university police did nothing to give the employees access. As a result, no business was conducted at the Branch. In light of the circumstances, U.S. Bank did not try to open the Branch today.”
“The present situation is not acceptable. U.S. Bank’s use of the Branch has been completely disrupted for more than thirty (30) days. This is not a case of force majeure,” he wrote. “Regents are not helpless to stop the protestors. The student protestors are led by a member of the university’s faculty. The protests take place in the common area controlled by the university.”
“U.S. Bank cannot accept more excuses. Customers and employees need full and unfettered access to the Branch without intimidation,” he added. “U.S. Bank vehemently disagrees with the Regents’ suggestion that it has not been cooperative.”
As we know, less than a week later, on February 28, the bank would finally close its doors.
Next week, on May 10, the 12 bank protesters will be arraigned on misdemeanor charges. They have reportedly been offered 80 hours of community service and probation.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It’s almost certainly correct that the protesters dared the university to arrest them and risk another YouTube-driven fiasco. They were right not to take the dare.
Otherwise what is on my mind is something that I realized about a discussion with “Mr. Toad” in which we both associated the bank agreement with Katehi. While Katehi might well support the bank agreement, the fact is that agreement was approved just before she showed up. It wasn’t her doing, it was Vanderhoef or someone under Vanderhoef. If she had been against it, she would have had to tear up a prior agreement and risk the same expensive problems that the university is having now with US Bank.
Really, the whole US Bank business isn’t about Katehi at all. It’s about the protesters, the bank, the university in general, and the police.
Greg: I think you make a good point here in terms of the USB business being about more than Katehi. To me, it appears that Katehi is the continuation rather than the start of the process toward what they are calling privatization, I think its more complicated than that. It’s also why I caution people in thinking that firing Katehi solves this. The real problem I think is state funding and UC Regent elitism. However, that said, Katehi is a remarkable lightweight in many ways.
I disagree with you in terms of the university’s response to the bank blocking. The records show the bank had to close early 27 days and not open at all three times. Even the university admitted that they did not respond quickly enough.
It is hard to imagine that the university can prevail on this action.
I didn’t say that the university responded quickly enough. I also have no opinion as to whether the university will or will not succeed in its legal skirmish with US Bank. All I said was that university was right not to arrest protesters in a hallway choked with smartphones and thus risk another YouTube-driven fiasco.
As for the relation between the bank blockade and either state funding or the regents, there has been so much nonsense on stilts that it’s hardly worth analyzing any such relation. As I said, there are two kinds of students, those who are here to learn, and those who already know everything. Those who already know everything are wasting their time attending a university.
Describing it as a YouTube driven fiasco seems a bit dismissive. I would like to think that the police are capable of removing people from blocking a business without turning it into a quagmire.
I think your dichotomy is too simple to be true. I think there are people who go to school and are there to get their degree. And there are some people who go to school and end up partying and dropping out. Others who start out as partiers and then grow up. And others who are engaged in the community and political activism.
When I was in undergraduate school I learned as much outside the classroom as I did in it. That’s a good college experience. Of course I was paying a couple hundred each quarter in undergraduate school.
One of the hallmarks of professionalism, an instinct which apparently abandoned Officer Pike according to Kroll-Reynoso, is that professionals refuse to do the impossible. When organized protesters have a faction of public support and they are prepared with video cameras, then it is absolutely impossible for the police to forcibly arrest them without risking a public backlash. Even if it had only been a single loiterer with no public support, no one is entitled to be arrested just to be arrested. If the authorities can accomplish their objectives with ink on paper, then that what they should do. That’s not saying anything about moving quickly or slowly, because the issue here is weeks vs days, not days vs minutes.
As for the students, okay there is a third type, the partiers and slackers who don’t care whether they know enough. I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about the type of student who would rather learn economics from English professors out of the classroom, than from economics professors in the classroom. Students like that may think that they’re learning a lot, but they’re actually only reinforcing emotional instincts. To be clear, they have the right to do what they want with their time, but it’s a waste.
“As I said, there are two kinds of students, those who are here to learn, and those who already know everything. Those who already know everything are wasting their time attending a university.”
I have to agree with David that this is far too simplistic a view. While a trade school education is about learning a skills set for a future livlihood,
In my opinion, a university education should be about much more. It should include exposure to a number of differing ideas and how to critically compare, contrast and judge their relative benefits. It should also optimally include opportunities for introspection and comparison of one’s own firmly held beliefs with those of others. It should provide experiences that allow the individual to see opportunities for how best to function within our society to achieve goals in alignment with our values and how to work collaboratively for the best outcome when our goals and values are in conflict with those of others. I can imagine students who truly want to learn within whatever discipline they have chosen and truly want to stand up for what they believe to be right. I did not find these goals incompatible during the Vietnam Nam war, and I do not find them incompatible now.
medwoman – Excuse me, but I do not teach a “trade school” education. No worthy professor on campus does. Critical thinking and judgment is the whole point of my teaching, my research, and my whole outlook on life. That is exactly what I want in the classroom, sometimes more than the students want it. And that is exactly what’s missing when students pass up the classroom and “learn” at political rallies, where actually they are only told what they want to hear. Political rallies have their place, sometimes, but they are where you go when you have already made up your mind.
“medwoman – Excuse me, but I do not teach a “trade school” education. No worthy professor on campus does. Critical thinking and judgment is the whole point of my teaching, my research, and my whole outlook on life. That is exactly what I want in the classroom, sometimes more than the students want it. And that is exactly what’s missing when students pass up the classroom and “learn” at political rallies, where actually they are only told what they want to hear. Political rallies have their place, sometimes, but they are where you go when you have already made up your mind.”
I apologize for not having made myself clear. I was not implying that any professor is teaching a “trade school education”. As a matter of fact, i was attempting to differentiate teaching at the university from that of a trade school. My only point was that students have / and should have a wide variety of learning experiences at a university. The most important are in the classroom and labs. But unless they are able to take those concepts, combine and integrate them into a complex body of knowledge that is new and unique, then they are missing out on a great deal of what it optimally means to attend a university. In my opinion, this is not done solely within the classroom,but Increasingly by incorporating this analytic way of viewing the world into their lives as a whole.
I completely disagree with your statement ” political rallies have their place, sometimes, but they are where you go when you have already made up your mind.” Having come from a very small town (2000) and a very conservative background, I attended many political rallies out of interest in ideas that were very different from those I had ever been exposed to. While it may be somewhat different today with ubiquitous instantaneous media coverage of events, I would not be so quick to stereotype attendees at political rallies.
medwoman – Okay, I understand that there exist students who might quietly witness a political protest and see a perspective that they haven’t seen before. I once was that student on a few occasions and the scenario makes sense — but only a little sense. All I actually ever saw was sermons that never paid more than lip service to critical thinking. Some of these protests have been right, most have been wrong, but right or wrong they have all been conformist. Rallying with a common voice is the whole point. Above all, there is no way for a crowd of intelligent people to arrive at outright wrong answers, except by groupthink.
And certainly the bank protesters have a lot of things to say that are flat out nonsense. They’re right to be upset about state budget cuts, and after that they and logic part company.
Well, I’ve heard it said a million times that “the best defense is a good offense”. Sounds like the University is certainly being proactive if not downright preemptive in their squabble with U.S. Bank.
David writes regarding the University’s claim,
[i]”They cite the lack of willingness to allow the bank employees to cooperate with the police in gathering a case against the protesters.
They add, “The Bank has also failed to follow through on the Regents’ request for a coordinated public relations initiative; refused the Regents’ request to engage in mediation with student protesters; and has refused to exercise any civil remedies against the offending protesters, such as restraining orders or injunctions, that were available to the Bank, which had accepted responsibility under the Lease for security measures at the Premises. “
It’s not clear weather or not U.S. Bank leases the M.U.area out side the bank’s front doors where student protestors sat while allegedly blocking access to the bank’s lobby. However seated protestors in the bank’s lobby should certainly be the bank’s responsibility and not the University’s.
From what I have read here it sounds as if the lease between U.S. Bank and U.C.Davis absolves the University of any responsibility for providing security for the bank. So why would the bank insist that the University be the sole boggy man when the financial arrangement between the University and the U.S. Bank becomes the subject of a protest?
If what I have read above about U.S. Bank being solely responsible for providing their own security is true, then U. S. Bank should have immediately arrested any protestors blocking access to their business, not their landlord. I’m only just now beginning to understand why alleged blockaders were never arrested by either party.
By the way, I hear that there are other banks lining up to fill the space vacated by U.S. Bank on campus.
[/i]
And let the expensive games begin… so that tuition will be raised even higher to pay for all the legal fees…
Elaine – That’s exactly right. Among the cheekiest things that supporters of the bank protest have said, has been to accuse the university of avoiding liability. As if that’s a bad thing! One way to interpret the bank protest is simply as financial retaliation for taking tuition from currently enrolled students. Never mind anyone else’s tuition in the future, we’re gonna make you pay for taking our tuition.
Which goes hand in hand with the idea that it was “pouring gasoline on the fire” to raise Chief Counsel Drown’s salary from 9 milliRomneys to 11.5 milliRomneys. Now 11.5 milliRomneys is a handsome salary, no argument there, but it’s not the top 1%. It’s also below the market median for chief counsel of an institution the size of UC Davis. I would be the last person to want UC Davis to hire the best-paid lawyer in the country or the best-paid anything in the country. But if below median is still blasted as a cushy-cushy salary that pours gasoline on the fire, then someone must want UC Davis lawyers to be outgunned by US Bank lawyers.
No, clearly major universities get sued left and right all the time. For the sake of saving money, they need the best lawyers that below-median salary can buy, even if 11.5 milliRomneys is still well more than I get paid.
@Greg K: I challenge you to show us one single instance where participation on this forum has led you to change your direction of thinking in any major or even semi-major way. If you can’t do that, then why are you here? Wait, let me guess: You have a material intetest in maintaining the status quo.
Grad Student: “@Greg K: I challenge you to show us one single instance where participation on this forum has led you to change your direction of thinking in any major or even semi-major way. If you can’t do that, then why are you here? Wait, let me guess: You have a material intetest in maintaining the status quo.”
he’s here for the same reason you are. To give his own views on the subject. Which are just as valid as yours or anyone elses.
Grad Student – 91 Octane has it about right. Whether or not I have a material interest in the status quo depends on what you mean by “material” and “status quo”. I have an intellectual interest in part of the status quo: I want UC Davis to remain a great university. I’m doing no more than stating my sincere advice. But my participation in this discussion certainly isn’t selfish. If I were selfish, then I would behave the same way as most selfish faculty: I would stay neutral in political disputes, brazenly get out of duties under the radar, and rack up outside offers to get raises.
I have no vested interest of any kind in the new status quo of state budget cuts. They’re a setback for the university and for my interests at the university.
I have to say that it’s poor form to anonymously question other people’s integrity.
Your accusatory question does make me reflect on one point, though: what I think of the Davis Vanguard’s comments about UC Davis. Certainly I think that David Greenwald’s whole view of the UC administration is propagandistic. It’s also unreasonably oriented towards scandal and overthrow. But I cannot really say that his attention to the university is selfish. No, just as with me, it’s his sincere advice.
Thanks. So your answer then is that you haven’t changed your mind as a result of any interactions with anyone on this forum. Your mind is made up.
That, incidentally, is a mild form of breach of contract. When you get into an intellectual conversation with someone, that implies that you are willing to consider what the other person is saying and change your mind if warranted. You, on the other hand, are deceiving me and others, because your only intent, apparently, is to re-cast what we are saying in ways that we did not intend, in order to obfuscate and hamper our attempts to improve ourselves.
And please don’t evade the issue again by referring to “form”. That’s a transparent evasion. Sorry.
“[i]That, incidentally, is a mild form of breach of contract. When you get into an intellectual conversation with someone, that implies that you are willing to consider what the other person is saying and change your mind if warranted. You, on the other hand, are deceiving me and others, because your only intent, apparently, is to re-cast what we are saying in ways that we did not intend, in order to obfuscate and hamper our attempts to improve ourselves[/i].”
What?
This was quite a robust discussion on the relevant issues until Grad Student set aside his studies and started typing.
Greg, Davis, Medwoman, 91, Elaine, please, carry on the conversation……
The demonstrators–including the professor well-identified as the leader of the pack by newspaper and television reports, the bank’s daily observations, and UCD and law enforcement officials–accomplished their well-publicized objective, to close down the bank.
No amount of speculating what [u]might[/u] have happened if any of the parties had done something different along the way changes the fact. The blockaders are pleased with what they’ve done, so why is there so much effort here to minimize their triumph?
The university and bank need to negotiate this. What’s done is done. And, the students who no longer get the benefits of the bank/UCD contract (cash contributions, banking services, etc.) just have to tell themselves it’s not that big a deal. Time for everyone to move on.
Speculating on why the bank [u]might[/u] have left (beyond the realization that they were doomed to daily harassment of their employees and customers, unrelenting bad publicity, declining business benefits) doesn’t make any sense. And, claiming that UCD could have promptly dragged out the demonstrators and everything would have been fine is just nonsense.
There are lots of losers other than the bank and UCD here. It’s unfortunate that these two parties see any benefit in moving this to the courtroom. The responsible parties will be tied up up in Yolo criminal court; this is the only justice that can be accomplished now that the blockade has done its job.
[quote]””That, incidentally, is a mild form of breach of contract. When you get into an intellectual conversation with someone, that implies that you are willing to consider what the other person is saying and change your mind if warranted.”[/quote]Are you quoting state or federal law here? I know there’s no Constitutional issue involved here.
It’s true that I’ve seen two people have mild forms of conversion on a minor point in [i]Vanguard[/i] intellectual conversations, but they were just being nice and weren’t concerned about potential breach of contract penalties.
I often feel that I learn a lot by researching a topic, even if I don’t necessarily feel converted by the people on the other side of a debate. And I do think that I have learned a lot in the direct sense from some people on the Internet, e.g. Paul Krugman and Nate Silver.
On that note, I was just reading about the plight of CSU. They aren’t allowed nearly as much “privatization” as UC. By that I do not mean actual privatization, but rather the responses to budget cuts and labor market forces at UC that are blasted as “privatization”. CSU has to take budget cuts fully on the chin. So they have more of every kind of problem: admission freezes, course quotas, faculty strikes, and now student hunger strikes. That’s a grim thought, students starving themselves over problems that the administration can’t solve. They don’t even get a reprieve from accusations of “privatization”, even though there is very clearly less of it at CSU than at UC. That’s because the real point of such accusations is to scapegoat and vent fury, and not to guide reforms or judge the system fairly.
UC simply has more luxury to hew to facts that people don’t want to accept. Such as that out-of-state students don’t actually rob in-state students of anything, rather they subsidize in-state students. It used to be the other way around, that out-of-state tuition did not make up for the in-state tax grant, but 5-10 years ago there was a crossing point.
Now Greg is ignoring me as another form of evasion, hoping people will think he’s being intelligent in sending a signal that I’m wrong by not saying anything. If people here don’t know what type of legal issue that breach of contract is, then we’re in trouble. It falls under civil law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract
Greg might be off the hook if I’m anonymous, and the concept of applying this to the internet might be new and unsettled in case law, but other things being equal, what I said is most definitely correct, and Greg is not as smart as he thinks he is.
“One way to interpret the bank protest is simply as financial retaliation for taking tuition from currently enrolled students. Never mind anyone else’s tuition in the future, we’re gonna make you pay for taking our tuition. “
And another way to interpret it is that the protesters were concerned about not only current but also future tuitions and about the public university being coopted in gradually escalating ways from the US Bank logo on ID cards today to what…..the Wells Fargo administrative offices or the Coca Cola student housing services in the future ? For those of you who see this as ridiculous, look no further than the naming of sports venues.
“Such as that out-of-state students don’t actually rob in-state students of anything, rather they subsidize in-state students.”
Not completely true when you consider that what they do take from in state students is availability of slots both in terms of entry into the university and once admitted, spaces in individual classes.
medwoman – Except that in the long term, no they don’t take availability of slots. They fund campus expansion, or they prevent campus contraction, because they pay their own way and then some. After all, CSU has frozen admissions and UC hasn’t. And when I say “long term”, I do not mean 30 years in the future. I mean any time horizon longer than about one year.
Admissions depend on revenue and aren’t a fixed number. This is just not a complicated point. Suppose that you accept two kinds of childbirth patients: In-state patients who pay $2,000 themselves and also have $2,000 in state coverage, and out-of-state patients who pay $8,000 themselves. Then do the out-of-state patients take away slots from the in-state patients, or do they create room for the in-state patients?
[quote]The demonstrators–including the professor well-identified as the leader of the pack by newspaper and television reports, the bank’s daily observations, and UCD and law enforcement officials–accomplished their well-publicized objective, to close down the bank.
No amount of speculating what might have happened if any of the parties had done something different along the way changes the fact. The blockaders are pleased with what they’ve done, so why is there so much effort here to minimize their triumph?
The university and bank need to negotiate this. What’s done is done. And, the students who no longer get the benefits of the bank/UCD contract (cash contributions, banking services, etc.) just have to tell themselves it’s not that big a deal. Time for everyone to move on.
Speculating on why the bank might have left (beyond the realization that they were doomed to daily harassment of their employees and customers, unrelenting bad publicity, declining business benefits) doesn’t make any sense. And, claiming that UCD could have promptly dragged out the demonstrators and everything would have been fine is just nonsense.
There are lots of losers other than the bank and UCD here. It’s unfortunate that these two parties see any benefit in moving this to the courtroom. The responsible parties will be tied up up in Yolo criminal court; this is the only justice that can be accomplished now that the blockade has done its job.[/quote]
Nicely said!
“[i]Now Greg is ignoring me as another form of evasion, hoping people will think he’s being intelligent in sending a signal that I’m wrong by not saying anything. If people here don’t know what type of legal issue that breach of contract is, then we’re in trouble. It falls under civil law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract
Greg might be off the hook if I’m anonymous, and the concept of applying this to the internet might be new and unsettled in case law, but other things being equal, what I said is most definitely correct, and Greg is not as smart as he thinks he is[/i].”
What?
Are you still here?
Just as you have a right to express your “opinions,” everyone else around you has the right to ignore you. DOn’t you have some studying to do? This thread is otherwise a very good discussion on the relevant issues.
“Admissions depend on revenue and aren’t a fixed number. This is just not a complicated point. Suppose that you accept two kinds of childbirth patients: In-state patients who pay $2,000 themselves and also have $2,000 in state coverage, and out-of-state patients who pay $8,000 themselves. Then do the out-of-state patients take away slots from the in-state patients, or do they create room for the in-state patients?”
This is a little more complicated a picture than you are portraying. Let’s take your example. If I as an individual doctor had the ability to accommodate an unlimited number of patient’s you would be correct. But I have more limitations than strictly financial. I am not able to see more than about 20 patients a day regardless of how much they are willing to pay me. The time slots still are not there. If I am able to hire more partners or mid level providers, then we as a group have more capacity. If we are not able to do that for whatever reason, then the
out of staters are indeed taking slots from the in staters.
I saw some of these limitations developing as my daughter had to juggle and compete for classes in order to finish her BA at Cal in four years. She managed this successfully largely because she was a “straight arrow” who knew exactly what she intended to do. My son, three years behind her is not so fortunate and the limitation of classes will cost him in terms of a longer time to completion of his BA. What we have seen both on the community college, state college and UC level is a gradual but progressive reduction in class availability. In
this setting, while the problem may not be long term, it certainly does affect many students who are currently in the system.
medwoman – Exactly that, if your clinic can hire more doctors, then the analogy makes perfect sense. Of course it’s not about how many patients one doctor takes or how many students one professor teaches.
In fact UC has been low-balling student revenue for a long time. It may not look that way to anyone who has to pay tuition, but the tuition increases have not been as big as the state budget cuts. Low-balling the price of something inevitably leads to shortages, just like the lines and rationing caused by gasoline price controls in the 1970s. But you shouldn’t lump together UC with CSU and community colleges. UC has at least some power to escape from price controls; CSU and community colleges hardly have any. I don’t know whether your son attends CSU or UC; at CSU things are a lot worse.
It would be different if California were part of a national cartel of universities that could cut all faculty wages (or increase teaching loads) at the same time. The scenario applies equally to doctors and that is one possible use of universal health insurance. But there is no such cartel. I think you know full well what happens when a hospital (such as the state prison system) tries to control doctors’ wages without market power to back it up.
@Anderson, you’re off the point. If you don’t address the issue, then I can’t respond. No one has refuted my point, which is that if Kuperberg is deliberately deceiving people into thinking that he is intetested in an honest give and take, but instead all he is interested in doing is recasting people’s statements into false frames that they did not intend, then that is definitely a civil wrong, and is actionable.
That has nothing to do with his right to be free from governmental interference in expressing his views and it has everything to do with him committing fraud by falsely enticing me into fake conversations. He is causing me to spend part of *my* life, wasting my time and money doing things based on his deception.
He is free to express his views, but not to defraud me into spending my resources on him. Get it? He can express his views until the cows come home, but if doing so involves fraud I can seek restitution.