Show me the Money
The discussion below regarding the markup on textbooks sold here at Boalt to fund the BHSA had me thinking for quite some time. I must confess, at the time of this writing, I have more questions than answers. But these are my general thoughts. And I must warn, I am likely to get a wee bit technical given my more than passive interest in student group funding. [Quick refresher: Boalt does not release textbook information in advance, forcing us to buy books at the bookstore. So the bookstore sells textbooks at a markup, which funds the student groups here.]
Just from a subjective/normative perspective, I am almost completely opposed to the use of textbook markup to support BHSA. More accurately, I am opposed to the school having policies that force us to use the bookstore so that they can get the extra money for BHSA. There is a fundamental sense of fairness that the school is violating. Call it hyperbole, but I feel like I'm a member of the Communist Party or something (no vote, just join). None of this is to suggest anything negative about the BHSA or all the other student groups. I don't intend this to be a post that criticizes them and likewise I don't want any comments about how great they are...I'm taking that as a given, and I believe it to boot. But, the school has decided to fund those groups in a way that has NO student decision in the matter to the best of my knowledge. This is problematic.
Throughout the University of California, Student Bar Associations (the equivalents of BHSA), and other student associations, are funded through mandatory fees approved by referenda. The problem with Boalt's procedure is that it avoids the label of a mandatory fee, and avoids any University regulation as such. See UC Policy 80.00 et seq (compulsory contributions) and 90.00 et seq (voluntary contributions). These policies exist largely to comply with SCOTUS rulings on viewpoint neutrality and other First Amendment issues with respect to the use of student fees. See, e.g., Rosenberger v. Univ. of VA, 515 U.S. 819; Board of Regents v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217; and this excerpt from a Justice Stevens concurrence as quoted on the VC is also worthwhile. The gist of these cases is that as long as the funds are distributed without any regard to the viewpoints expressed by the organizations, then they are generally presumed valid, even if compulsory. But they require some sort of a referendum procedure to ensure fairness (I haven't shephardized Southworth to really know the precise requirements here). That's where the UC policies come in. I'm not making some sort of a Constitutional argument here, but it is the best way to ensure that all student views are respected, and our funds are taken and used according to rules and regs previously established. Whenever there is a policy that circumvents other clearly laid out policies and favors sneakiness over openness, I'm suspect. Glasnost I say.
In the end, I think this is also in BHSA's own self interest. Hypothetically, let's assume the current take is $10,000. And assuming a student body of 1000, that's about $10 a student (doubt it, but it's a hypo). Even a referendum for $11 in compulsory student fees will of course generate more funds. It's easy to play around with fake numbers, but combine this with advance notice of textbooks (allowing us to bargain hunt) and you can see how it will lead to a far better result for both the BHSA and the student body here. Compulsory fees can also be raised with future referenda should the need arise. I'm also not opposed to part of those fees funding student services such as the bookstore, etc.
Although I think the Uni is not obligated to have any form of a refund procedure, I think the policies do allow individual campuses to establish one. I think it's fair to have one if someone disagrees with how those moneys are spent. I doubt more than a handful of Boalties will exercise that options, but still, it's better than the current IRS wage garnishing scheme the school's running.
Just from a subjective/normative perspective, I am almost completely opposed to the use of textbook markup to support BHSA. More accurately, I am opposed to the school having policies that force us to use the bookstore so that they can get the extra money for BHSA. There is a fundamental sense of fairness that the school is violating. Call it hyperbole, but I feel like I'm a member of the Communist Party or something (no vote, just join). None of this is to suggest anything negative about the BHSA or all the other student groups. I don't intend this to be a post that criticizes them and likewise I don't want any comments about how great they are...I'm taking that as a given, and I believe it to boot. But, the school has decided to fund those groups in a way that has NO student decision in the matter to the best of my knowledge. This is problematic.
Throughout the University of California, Student Bar Associations (the equivalents of BHSA), and other student associations, are funded through mandatory fees approved by referenda. The problem with Boalt's procedure is that it avoids the label of a mandatory fee, and avoids any University regulation as such. See UC Policy 80.00 et seq (compulsory contributions) and 90.00 et seq (voluntary contributions). These policies exist largely to comply with SCOTUS rulings on viewpoint neutrality and other First Amendment issues with respect to the use of student fees. See, e.g., Rosenberger v. Univ. of VA, 515 U.S. 819; Board of Regents v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217; and this excerpt from a Justice Stevens concurrence as quoted on the VC is also worthwhile. The gist of these cases is that as long as the funds are distributed without any regard to the viewpoints expressed by the organizations, then they are generally presumed valid, even if compulsory. But they require some sort of a referendum procedure to ensure fairness (I haven't shephardized Southworth to really know the precise requirements here). That's where the UC policies come in. I'm not making some sort of a Constitutional argument here, but it is the best way to ensure that all student views are respected, and our funds are taken and used according to rules and regs previously established. Whenever there is a policy that circumvents other clearly laid out policies and favors sneakiness over openness, I'm suspect. Glasnost I say.
In the end, I think this is also in BHSA's own self interest. Hypothetically, let's assume the current take is $10,000. And assuming a student body of 1000, that's about $10 a student (doubt it, but it's a hypo). Even a referendum for $11 in compulsory student fees will of course generate more funds. It's easy to play around with fake numbers, but combine this with advance notice of textbooks (allowing us to bargain hunt) and you can see how it will lead to a far better result for both the BHSA and the student body here. Compulsory fees can also be raised with future referenda should the need arise. I'm also not opposed to part of those fees funding student services such as the bookstore, etc.
Although I think the Uni is not obligated to have any form of a refund procedure, I think the policies do allow individual campuses to establish one. I think it's fair to have one if someone disagrees with how those moneys are spent. I doubt more than a handful of Boalties will exercise that options, but still, it's better than the current IRS wage garnishing scheme the school's running.
Labels: BHSA, Legal Education Costs
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 11:41 PM
8 Comments:
I've come to accept these practices. Students are like migrant workers. We don't stick around long enough to organize effectively against the schools, and we will always be exploited.
I understand the complaint, but I think a big part of the reason Boalt supports the bookstore is convenience. If a high percentage of students don't buy books at the bookstore, Ned's will have trouble turning a profit. In that event, it would not operate a bookstore at Boalt. This would really suck for those of us who buy books from the bookstore at the last minute. Sure you can go online, but it's a real hassle to have no physical bookstore. Then you can't, for example, browse commercial outlines before purchasing them.
I apologize for not covering this in the original post but I find it hard to believe because every other law school that releases its textbook information ahead of time does not have this problem. Hell if you let me order online from our bookstore ahead of time for a $3 fee or something I'd do that.
That used to royally piss me off when I was a student. It's just another of Boalt's ways to pretend they're not charging us as much as they are. If Boalt wants to raise money for BHSA, they should increase tuition/fees, explain that the increase is because x number of dollars from those fees are now being donated to BHSA, and stop pulling this BS with the textbooks.
What I used to do when I was feeling like it was buy the books at the bookstore, immediately purchase them online, use the purchased book until the online one arrived, then return the purchased book.
It's a pain, but just a suggestion.
I agree completely with your suggestions in this post, but I think you exagerate in a way that matters. (Not the communist thing. Obviously you aren't alone in feeling that way.) Boalt isn't forcing people to buy there, it's just making it harder not to. Boalt doesn't release the book list, but it is always available from professors directly in time to order online. This matters because it makes it a little bit better. That's why it doesn't ever bug people quite enough to get it changed.
Whatever. All law schools make a killing on textbooks and try to monopolize the market. Resourceful students can work around it, as they always have and always will. With the Internet, it's even easier to avoid getting ripped off by your campus book store. No list in advance? Email the professor. If he or she is in on the cabal and won't release the textbook name (unlikely), then find out from former students who took the class. Yeah, it's more of a hassle than Boalt just giving you the list up front, but that's the way the game of (attempted) monopoly is played and Boalt is no more a sinner than lots of other schools.
Boalt has much deeper problems than this non-unique phenomenon.
The tuition hikes, combined with the increasingly decrepit building, will cause top students to choose to attend private schools like Stanford, Columbia, etc. where the value and name-brand stability is higher. Either California has to fund Boalt better or the alumni have to give a boat-load of money on a yearly basis.
This text-book debacle is a drop in the bucket.
But go Armen for ripping into the school on the issue of price gouging! That takes some courage to take on the school and the BHSA (indirectly)! And, even if this kind of rip-off game is inevitable, that's no reason for Armen not to call the school on it.
Also, why are law casebooks so expensive when they consist mostly of non-copyrightable federal and state cases? Yeah sure, the professors organize the cases and add some notes here and there, but $100/book is way overkill. Blame the academics as well for perpetuating this system.
I totally agree that legal textbooks are a scandal. A prof. writes about 30 pages of text, throws in 1000 pages of cases and then charges us $100+ for a huge book we have to lug around.
But the thing that really bugs me is that the companies that sell them are a monopolistic cartel and they jack up prices and cut quality. Even if you try to buy a used con law book, chances are the cover has already fallen off. That's bullshit.
3:44:
I think you're taking the argument way too far here. First of all, I sincerely doubt that if book lists were released to us a few weeks before the beginning of each semester, that so many people would purchase all of their books online as to drive our bookstore completely out of business. As you well know, most 2L's and 3L's spend the first week or so of each semester "shopping" for classes. Those students may well order one text book online for a class that they are certain at the time of registration that they will take, but they are likely to make purchases for last minute class additions at Ned's. IF, arguendo, Ned's was to suffer such a financial blow that it would be required to close its doors, you could always go to the main bookstore, just a couple of blocks down Bancroft.
In light or Armen's hypothetical, I would much rather pay 10, even 30 dollars, if I could save hundreds by purchasing books online.
Post a Comment
<< Home