Students in the summer offering of my Introduction to American Politics course were assigned to write their final paper on one of three contemporary political debates in the United States – immigration reform, college affordability, and transgender bathroom policy. You can find the discussion about immigration here and on college affordability here.

This week, my students discuss transgender restroom policy. When students in the class were asked in a survey whether people who are transgender should be allowed to use the public bathrooms of the gender they identify with or should they have to use the public bathrooms of the gender they were born as, 60% said they should be allowed to use the public bathrooms of the gender then identify with, 23% said they should be allowed to use the public bathrooms of the gender they were born as, and 17% reported not knowing.  As you’ll see from the commentary below, there is much more nuance than these numbers suggest.

A Middle Ground: Undue Hardship Analysis 

Response 1, Jennifer P. 

Much debate has arose regarding transgender students using restrooms and locker rooms. The middle ground approach differentiates between public restrooms and school locker rooms, where there’s unavoidable public nudity (Park, 2015). This contrast is consistent with public opinion in three swing states: Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. According to the Quinnipiac University Poll, voters in two of the three states support transgendered people having the right to use public restrooms consistent with their gender identity, but all three states oppose mandating public schools to extend the same right to transgender students in locker rooms (Brown, 2016).

The U.S Departments of Education (ED) and Justice (DOJ) recently issued a joint letter stating they now treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX. They define gender identity as “an individual’s internal sense of gender” regardless of education records or identification documents indicating a different sex (Gupta, 2016), and discrimination based on students’ transgender status can preclude schools from receiving federal funding (Gupta, 2016 page 2). Ten states, including Ohio, are in opposition to these executive agencies over transgender students’ use of locker rooms. Even further, a lawsuit has been filed and these states claim that the federal agencies have overstepped their boundaries by attempting to rephrase the term “sex” to include “gender identity” under federal civil rights laws (Bydalek, 2016).

The two main issues at play in this debate are the separation of powers and federalism. The states argue that the executive agencies have violated separation of powers by usurping Congress’ authority to legislate in this area. The lawsuit alleges their actions “impose new obligations without Congressional authorization” and “effectively amended the relevant statutory language via unilateral administrative action” (Bydalek, 2016 page 21). In addition, their threat to withhold federal funding raises questions of federalism. The lawsuit alleges, “Congress may use its spending power to create incentives for [entities] to act in accordance with federal policies. But when ‘pressure turns into compulsion,’ the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism” (Bydalek, 2016 page 30).

The solution to this issue does not lend itself to a one size fits all approach, but transgendered students should be given reasonable accommodations similar to the process under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as the middle ground approach suggested (Park, 2015). Granting access to facilities is only the beginning, but safeguarding all students’ privacy interests is the harder part. The “significant guidance” issued by ED and DOJ only says “a school may make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy,” but cannot require transgender students to use them (Gupta, 2016 page 3). However, one student should not be able to require a school to completely remodel a locker room at significant cost to the school just to accommodate that student’s privacy. The ADA requires employers and employees to go through an undue hardship analysis (U.S. DOJ, 2008), and it could be adopted to this issue. Therefore, the transgender student should be able to request an accommodation, such as shower curtains, and the school can either provide those that are reasonable or alternatively prove that the student’s suggestion creates an undue financial hardship.

Another benefit of using the reasonable accommodation and undue hardship analysis is that the issue of federal funding could be used as an incentive instead of a threat. The media often highlights unfunded mandates in the context of education, but the ED and DOJ letter amounts to a defunded mandate. According to the lawsuit, direct federal funding “amounts to 9.3% of the average State’s total revenue for public elementary and secondary schools, or $1,128 per pupil” (Bydalek, 2016 page 16). The potential loss of this money would be devastating to a school. Instead of threatening the loss of money, ED and DOJ should encourage additional dollars to be available for the schools to provide reasonable accommodations to transgender students.

Transgender students’ use of locker rooms is a great example of how one issue involves the interplay of many themes, as evidenced here by the separation of powers, federalism, and the right to privacy.

Upholding Rights and Ensuring Privacy

Response 2, Illya S. 

Without a doubt one of the main issues of contention leading up to the current presidential election has been that of transgender students in locker rooms. Every now and again the issue is brought into the public spotlight when stories such as the one at Fremd High School in Palatine, Illinois emerge. Parents and students sued the United States Department of Education after they passed Title IX as well as the local school district for its modern implementation. These groups saw Title IX’s attempts to eliminate discrimination based on sex as an unlawful attempt to force people born to one sex to use lockers rooms that they thought weren’t meant for their sex (Eldeib & Rhodes, 2016).   Continue reading Debate, Week 3: Transgender Students in High School Locker Rooms →

Students in the summer offering of my Introduction to American Politics course were assigned to write their final paper on one of three contemporary political debates in the United States – immigration reform, college affordability, and transgender bathroom policy. For the next two weeks, I will post a few especially good responses from my students on each issue. You can find the discussion about immigration here.

This week, my students discuss whether or not college should be free in the United States. When students in the class were asked in a survey whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that tuition should free at all public colleges and universities throughout America, 34% agreed that tuition should be free, 60% disagreed, and 6% reported not knowing.  As you’ll see from the commentary below, there is much more nuance than these numbers suggest.

Free Higher Education is Not Feasible

Response 1, Andrea H. 

A popular topic of debate surrounding the 2016 presidential election has been the affordability and accessibility of higher education in the United States. The attempted push toward free college tuition at public universities and colleges has sparked a national interest that seems unlikely to end any time soon. This hot topic has led to demand, especially from younger citizens, to know a candidate’s stance on the matter. Though one candidate’s stance on free college can set them apart from other candidates, the idea of free higher education in the United States is not a feasible ambition.

Free public college in America almost sounds too good to be true, and that’s because it is. Implementing free tuition for any student attending a public university would have many negative implications. First, money for the university has to come from somewhere­­— mainly, taxpayers. The financial burden of higher education would ultimately be dispersed throughout society via increased income taxation (Jackson, 2016). Second, making the choice to financially invest in an education likely incentivizes students to be successful through college in order to materialize their investment; whereas, free college could lead to a “no-loss” mindset if failure ensues. In fact, the majority of the European countries with free college don’t graduate over 50% of their students, while the United States is currently ranked fifth out of nineteen countries in this category according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Kelly, 2016b). Another pitfall associated with the idea of free college is the impact the colleges will face. Free tuition for students would also likely compromise the resources and education of those in attendance. Schools will be unable to generate funds, likely leading to a lesser quality education than would be received in present day (Kelly, 2016a). Similarly, if enrollment totals are increased, a college diploma could become devalued and essentially meaningless if anyone and everyone has the opportunity to go to college. Overall, free college tuition has substantial negative consequences on society as a whole and public college institutions.

However, many citizens are still vastly in favor of free college tuition. With ever-rising tuition prices and students graduating with copious amounts of debt, it is easy to see where the support stems from despite the inherent problems with the concept. Tuition should be made more affordable, but free tuition for all is not the answer. Those in support of free tuition argue that free higher education should be a right for all students graduating high school, even those who struggled, since it usually leads to a more stable life (Page & Clawson, 2015). However, performance in high school is often a solid indicator of how one will perform in college, and a person who struggles in high school will not likely succeed through the rigors of college without help. Also, if everyone has access to higher education, enrollment would become unregulated and over-capacitate public schools – further leading to education of a lower-quality to accommodate the influx of students going to college just because they can. In turn, if the majority of the population holds a college degree, their over-abundance would become much like a high school diploma is viewed now, where there is little value placed on having one.

One alternative to free public college tuition for all is Tennessee’s Promise Program, where students gain free community college tuition if they maintain a 2.5 GPA and are at least half-time students. The White House has offered $100 million to support tuition-free community college programs like this across the country (Morris, 2016). Programs like these could be the happy middle ground between today’s college tuition and totally free tuition for four-year universities, and would possibly be a better alternative for those who are not academically qualified for four-year universities.

College tuition is a large point of interest for young citizens, especially those considering furthering their education. Candidates have seemed to voice their support and plans for free public college tuition, but have not stated and shared the negative implications it could potentially have on society as a whole. Overall, the undesirable effects free tuition would place on society outweigh the benefits.

College Affordability as a National Standard

Response 2, Jesse H. 

In the 2016 presidential election, one of the hot topics has been affordable college education. One side of the argument states that higher education prices need to be cut so that lower income students have access to these schools allowing America’s future high school graduates to stay academically competitive on an international level. The other side argues that cutting prices will not actually provide greater opportunities to the lower class, but will instead perpetuate inequality due to an already biased society towards higher income communities.  Continue reading Debate, Week 2: Should College be Free? →

Students in the summer offering of my Introduction to American Politics course were assigned to write their final paper on one of three contemporary political debates in the United States – immigration reform, college affordability, and transgender bathroom policy. For the next three weeks, I will post a few especially good responses from my students on each issue.

This week, my students discuss whether and not immigration is a problem in the United States. When students in the class were asked in a survey about their opinion on government policy towards unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States, 9% agreed that they should be sent back to their home countries, 14% approved of a guest worker program that would allow them to remain, 60% agreed that they should be allowed to remain if they met certain requirements, 14% agreed that they should be allowed to remain without penalty, and 3% reported not knowing.  As you’ll see from the commentary below, there is much more nuance than these numbers suggest.

Immigrants Commit Less Crime and Boost the Economy

Response 1, Alex C.*

Immigration is something that our country has dealt with since its inception.   Ever since the United States came to be, it has been seen as a land of opportunity for those less fortunate. Potential immigrants saw a chance to start a new and better life in the United States. However, many immigrants met resistance when they tried to make the journey to the states because of some misconceptions. Immigration is in fact a good thing for our country because immigrants are not actually more likely to commit crime and they provide the economy a boost through innovation and hard work.

There are many different opinions on immigration and immigration reform in the United States. Jan Ting (2015) that immigration may be one cause of unemployment., and that the solution to unemployment is reduced immigration (Ting, 2015). Marco Saavedra (2015), on the other hand, was college educated and his parents owned a small business that created jobs and were active in their community. However, they were still viewed as the problem to most Americans because of their immigrant status. Anne-Marie Nuñez (2015) argues that immigrants perform better in educational outcomes than their native-born classmates – “it is immigrants who significantly sustain the population of the U.S. work force” (Nuñez, 2015, p. 5). Sassen (1989) argues that immigration reform has largely failed and that the immigrants are filling valuable rolls in the United States job market. Finally, Donato (2008) emphasizes that more research needed to be done. There is a lot of information out there concerning immigration, but not every scenario and outcome has been explored.

The stereotype that immigrants are coming to the United States and committing crime is largely untrue. Ewing, Martinez, and Rumbaut (2015) argued that immigrants actually commit less crime and are incarcerated at a lesser rate than native-born Americans. Even though the percentage of immigrants grew substantially from 1990 to 2013, the violent crime rate and the property crime rate both fell by over forty percent (Ewing, Martinez & Rumbaut, 2015). They posited that this was due to the fact that immigrants were coming to the United States for a better life (Ewing, Martinez & Rumbaut, 2015). Immigrants must risk a lot when they come to a new country and leave their old lives behind. It would be foolish of them to throw it all away and commit crimes especially since they run the risk of being deported.  Continue reading Debate, Week 1: Is Immigration Really a Problem in the United States? →

Students in my summer course were given the opportunity to complete a candidate statement for extra credit where they were asked to write a 300-400 word statement about which candidate they supported and why. They were required to focus on two to three policy issues on which they agreed with the candidate on.

Out of the students in the class, 49% supported Hillary Clinton, 20% supported Donald Trump, 17% supported Gary Johnson, and 14% supported other candidates. Every few days, I will post some of their statements to this website in order to a) highlight their work and b) to provide some context on how today’s college students feel about the 2016 presidential candidates.

Here’s the schedule for the postings (in alphabetical order by candidate):

• Hillary Clinton (8/8)
• Gary Johnson (8/10)
• Donald Trump (8/12)

Today, we will hear from a student who personally supports Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson.

Response 1, Alex C.*

Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate. The Libertarian Party believes that individual rights are the most important (Libertarian Party, 2016). I support Gary Johnson for multiple reasons such as his position on gun control, same sex marriage, and abortion.

In terms of gun control, Johnson was quoted as saying, “if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns” (On the Issues, 2011). This quote aligns with my beliefs because criminals will always be willing to break the law but if guns are illegal it keeps them out of the hands of law abiding citizens who would use them for self-defense. He points out the fact that tragedies such as the shooting in Orlando, Florida happened in a gun-free zone (Page, 2016). If law abiding citizens had been allowed to carry legally in these places, they may have been able lessen the tragedy by stopping the shooter sooner.

On the topic of same sex marriage, Johnson says “I support gay unions … government ought to get out of the marriage business” (On the Issues, 2011). I think that everyone should be allowed to have the same rights. He also expresses that different religions have the right to believe in anything they choose, but it is not the government’s role to interfere when it comes to peoples’ rights (Ballotpedia, 2011). I agree that people have the right to believe in whatever they choose, but their beliefs should not infringe on the rights of others.

Finally, Johnson supports a woman’s right to choose abortion up until a certain point (On the Issues, 2011). This belief aligns closely with my beliefs on same sex marriage. I think that people have the right to believe and practice anything they want. However, these beliefs should not take away the rights of others. When it comes to an individual’s body, we should not be able to regulate how they treat it.

Even though Johnson is a member of a third party, he takes issue stances that I support. Though he does not have a serious chance of winning, I will vote for him because his beliefs align closely with mine. I think it is good to have options in politics, and Johnson is a good one.

What about you? Why (or why not) do you support Gary Johnson?

*Responses shared with written permission from the authors. Replication in any form, without permission from the author, is prohibited.

“Gary Johnson” by Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Continue reading Why We Support Gary Johnson →

Students in my summer course were given the opportunity to complete a candidate statement for extra credit where they were asked to write a 300-400 word statement about which candidate they supported and why. They were required to focus on two to three policy issues on which they agreed with the candidate on.

Out of the students in the class, 49% supported Hillary Clinton, 20% supported Donald Trump, 17% supported Gary Johnson, and 14% supported other candidates. Every few days, I will post some of their statements to this website in order to a) highlight their work and b) to provide some context on how today’s college students feel about the 2016 presidential candidates.

Here’s the schedule for the postings (in alphabetical order by candidate):

• Hillary Clinton (8/8)
• Gary Johnson (8/10)
• Donald Trump (8/12)

Today, we will hear from two students who personally support Hillary Clinton.

Response 1, Martin M.*

I support Hillary Rodham Clinton because she supports equality and the rights of LGBT Americans. As Secretary of State, she declared on the global stage that gay rights are human rights, and she made it easier for transgender Americans to change the gender listed on their passports. On the campaign trail, she has vowed, to work with Congress to pass the Equality Act, which would ensure full federal equality for LGBT Americans. I support Hillary Clinton’s position on this issue because as a young gay adult, I have witnessed discrimination against myself and other fellow LGBT Americans. I think that the movement for LGBT rights has come a long way but there are still things to be done like passing anti-discrimination laws on both the state and federal level in order to stop LGBT Americans from losing their jobs, losing their homes, and facing harassment just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

I also support Hillary Clinton because she supports increasing gun control. She has been a longtime advocate for multiple gun safety regulations that aim at addressing the various problems of gun violence in the United States. Specifically, she wants to strengthen and expand background checks to more gun sales, which would close the gun show and internet sales loopholes. She also wants to take on the gun lobby by holding them accountable for irresponsible actions. In addition, she supports laws that would make it a crime to buy a gun for a person already prohibited from owning one. Finally, she supports legislation that keeps military-style weapons off the streets. I support Hillary Clinton’s position on this issue because the only way to reduce the critically high number of mass shootings and instances of gun violence is to have greater control over who obtains guns and what types of guns they can get.

Finally, I support Hillary Clinton because she supports criminal justice reform. As President, she wants to strengthen bonds of trust between communities and police, end mass incarceration, and promote successful re-entry to society by individuals who were incarcerated. I support Hillary Clinton’s position on this issue because I think that the fact that the United States has 25% of the world’s incarcerated population showcases that our criminal justice system needs to be reformed in order to ensure that the United States is truly the land of the free.

Response 2, Illya S.* 

For the 2016 presidential election, I am supporting Hillary Clinton. Not only does she have vast leadership experience from having been in roles such as Secretary of State as well as a New York Senator but several of her policy positions also affirm with my ideology. Two of these policy positions in particular have to do with the issues of foreign policy and access to higher education.

In terms of foreign policy, Clinton plans on mitigating the threat caused by ISIS with three separate courses of action (Hillary Clinton 2016). First of all, she would destroy the terrorists groups’ strongholds in Iraq and Syria, which would require supporting local Arab and Kurdish troops, utilizing diplomacy, and strengthening the air campaign. In addition, Clinton hopes to work closely with our allies in order to disrupt and break up terrorist networks. This would include cooperating with intelligence agencies from Europe and monitoring online activity for security reasons. And lastly, Clinton wants to tighten defense in America through community building, restrictions on gun ownership, and training law enforcement in how to better deal with terror threats and situations (Hillary Clinton 2016). I support this because the measures she wants to take seem like they have the capability of being effective in fighting the threat that ISIS poses while keeping in mind the importance of privacy and respecting different communities in this country.

Clinton believes that through making college debt-free it will be more accessible to everyone (Hillary Clinton 2016). Her proposed plan would allow students whose families earn less than 125,000 a year to not pay tuition at public institutions by the year 2021, and, starting immediately, students from families earning less than 85,000 will not need to pay tuition. Additionally, all community colleges will be made tuition free, and historically minority colleges will be funded to promote the further education of minority populations. State governments will also need to do their part in controlling tuition. Lastly, Clinton plans on supporting students who are already parents themselves. I consider these plans to be very inclusive and fair to a large segment of the population that is struggling to keep up with the costs of post-secondary education (Hillary Clinton 2016). In making education more affordable, it is more accessible for all.

Read Take 1 here.

What about you? Why (or why not) do you support Hillary Clinton?

*Responses shared with written permission from the authors. Replication in any form, without permission from the author, is prohibited.

Continue reading Why We Support Hillary Clinton (Take 2) →