A song in honor of MLK Day.
Send me an e-mail.
A song in honor of MLK Day.
Send me an e-mail.

![]() |
| Photo by Cristina Arrigoni |
Willie Nile has been making music for more than three decades, but not continuously.
| Photo by Lucas Noonan |
Nile then disappeared. There were some legal issues, and Nile – who is playing the Light of Day benefit shows in Asbury Park on Friday and Saturday – says he felt it was time to talk away. His wife was pregnant and it was no longer fun.
Send me an e-mail.
I want to repeat something I said in a post yesterday, because of the harsh reaction that The New York Times has received in some quarters for its decision not to reprint the Charlie Hebdo cartoons:
I support — and we all should support — any publication that chooses to reprint the cartoons as a show of solidarity. I would encourage outlets to do it if doing so is within their editorial mission. However, free expression requires that we acknowledge that the choice must be left up to each outlet — that free expression includes the right to determine what one expresses, when and how.
Here is what Dean Baquet of the Times told the paper’s public editor:
Mr. Baquet told me that he started out the day Wednesday convinced that The Times should publish the images, both because of their newsworthiness and out of a sense of solidarity with the slain journalists and the right of free expression.He said he had spent “about half of my day” on the question, seeking out the views of senior editors and reaching out to reporters and editors in some of The Times’s international bureaus. They told him they would not feel endangered if The Times reproduced the images, he told me, but he remained concerned about staff safety.“I sought out a lot of views, and I changed my mind twice,” he said. “It had to be my decision alone.”Ultimately, he decided against it, he said, because he had to consider foremost the sensibilities of Times readers, especially its Muslim readers. To many of them, he said, depictions of the prophet Muhammad are sacrilegious; those that are meant to mock even more so. “We have a standard that is long held and that serves us well: that there is a line between gratuitous insult and satire. Most of these are gratuitous insult.”“At what point does news value override our standards?” Mr. Baquet asked. “You would have to show the most incendiary images” from the newspaper; and that was something he deemed unacceptable.
The Times’ editors have been called “cowards” (by journalist and professor Marc Cooper) and “wimpy” (by cartoonist Ted Rall), with the implication being that the Times — and other outlets — were required to cede any editorial discretion to the larger solidarity movement.
Wimpy US editors refusing to reprint #CharlieHebdo cartoons. http://t.co/VUwy68rNXu
— Ted Rall (@TedRall) January 8, 2015
I respect both Cooper and Rall immensely, but I think this line of argument is absurd. It also is a fallacy — an ad hominem attack, or name-calling — and does nothing to shift the debate or add to it.
Free expression, as I said, cuts in more than one direction. We need to support the publications that publish the cartoons, even encourage others to do so. But we also need to respect the decisions made by those editors who choose not to run the cartoons — that is, after all, the other side of the free-speech debate, as Glenn Greenwald tweets:
When did it become true that to defend someone’s free speech rights, one has to publish & even embrace their ideas? That apply in all cases?
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 8, 2015
Editors must have the right to publish or not publish what they want or think is important, as free of outside influence as possible — whether the influence comes from government, big business or the crowd. That is how free speech should work.
Send me an e-mail.
President Barack Obama wants to “make community college tuition-free for millions of students,” program that in my experience teaching community college students could have long-term positive effects both on students and the institutions that serve them.
I say this not knowing the details, aside from what The New York Times has reported:
The proposal would cover half-time and full-time students who maintain a 2.5 grade point average — about a C-plus — and who “make steady progress toward completing a program,” White House officials said. It would apply to colleges that offered credit toward a four-year degree or occupational-training programs that award degrees in high-demand fields. The federal government would cover three-quarters of the average cost of community college for those students, and states that choose to participate would cover the remainder. If all states participate, the administration estimates, the program could cover as many as nine million students, saving them each an average of $3,800 a year.
There are questions, of course: Aside from the college GPA, what other qualifications would students need to meet? What happens if a state opts out? Will there be limitations on subject matter or majors?
The impact of a program like this — depending on the details, of course — could be dramatic, with millions of students attending hundreds of institutions. As the Times writes:
About 7.7 million Americans attend community college for credit, of whom 3.1 million attend full time, according to the American Association of Community Colleges, relying on 2012 data. Over all, the federal government provides about $9.1 billion to community colleges, or about 16 percent of the total revenue the colleges receive. Tuition from students provides $16.7 billion a year, or nearly 30 percent of revenue.
The nation’s 1,100 community colleges are the most affordable sector of higher education, with tuition and fees for full-time, in-state students typically less than the maximum federal Pell Grant award of $5,730 a year. Those grants help students in financial need. But there are often other expenses — including housing, books and transportation — that can make the total annual cost far higher.
My experience with community college students has been mixed, but mostly positive. Yes, there are some who obviously are enrolled only to get their aid check and rarely attend classes. But others, the majority, really, are using community college to change the trajectory of their lives. Adults returning to school, for instance, have decided that their job prospects are limited unless they can get a degree, while many younger students attend because the cost of a four-year school is just too high.
And many work full-time while attending school, struggling to cover their regular expenses while also meeting tuition costs and paying for books. If this program can remove tuition costs from their expense ledger, it could give them some breathing room. It also could allow more students to save money in preparation for transfer to four-year schools, potentially lessening the debt they carry down the road.
Critics will say that this is too expensive, but that assumes that the only cost we care about is the cost of government spending. The money is being spent now, but it is being covered by loans creating a dangerous amount of college debt that limits student opportunity, worsens wealth inequality, and could damage the economy when it bursts. We also need to acknowledge that the modern middle class was created, at least in part, by expanding access to college through heavy subsidies (the GI Bill, direct aid both to students and schools).
As for this program, as the cliche goes, the devil is in the details. But there is no doubt that we need to be talking about the cost of college (tuition levels) and who ultimately pays the cost.
Send me an e-mail.