First off the title of this thread isn’t the same as the article linked to. The title of the linke to article is “Eye-popping power grab.” That doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence that this is going to be a straight-reported piece.
As others have pointed out the first line is quite questionable. It says:
President Obama’s Department of Education, where Secretary Arne Duncan appointed a longtime homosexual activist who was part of the sometimes-violent Act Up organization to head his “safe schools” office, now is proposing to force colleges and universities to submit to a political agenda, according to critics.
By describing Act Up as “sometimes-violent” it could lead one to associate Arne Duncan with that violence. Of course the article makes no specific reference to any violence nor does it imply that Duncan is violent, but the descriptor is a throwaway line that adds nothing and only detracts. The article also does not mention that Duncan could be quite qualified to head whatever group he’s been chosen to lead. Maybe he’s also an educator or has had years and years of experience as an adminstrator in educational institutions. Of course none of that matters only that he’s an activist and belongs to Act UP.
Then the rest of the article is just a bunch of quotes from people known to be opposed to the bill telling us why it’s bad and what they claim the bill says. But, even then they aren’t entirely sure what’s being proposed and they admit it, too.
“Although details are sketchy…”
There are some comments that go by unchallenged, left to stand out there as if they are fact.
Accreditation, now established by relatively independent educational councils, already is a life-or-death rating that requires institutions to meet high educational standards.
Not every institution that purports to be higher educational is accredited and among accreditation organizations not every one carries the same weight. Some accreditation groups are more prestigious and more thorough in their evaluations, others are not. Perhaps what the DOE is trying to do is pick up where the normal accreditation procedures fails.
They pointed out that all colleges already are licensed by one or many states and are subject to state fraud and consumer-protection laws.
It’s only been recently that Attorney Generals in different states have started to go after some of those trade schools that predominantly advertise on TV promising what sounds like too-hard-to-believe salaries and what not. Perhaps the DOE is trying to toughen the regulation of groups like that other diploma mills that promise certificates and degrees for little more than a donation.
So, no this isn’t really a news article if you think both sides should be represented fairly. It’s a one sided piece, where the people opposed tell you why they’re opposed and that opinion is allowed to color the rest of the piece. This could be a horrible proposal, but not enough information is given to allow us to make up our minds.
ChadS
idk…
