Much Ado Over Nothing.

Linda Greenhouse, bless her liberal heart, tries her hardest to make the case that students who are American citizens need not prove their parents are legal residents of the state of Florida in order to receive in-state resident tuition discounts.

Problem is, Linda:
plenty of students who are American citizens are required to produce such proof, or else pay the significantly higher, non-resident rate. (At Wisconsin, there's an appeals board made up of faculty that you can plead your case to, if you are lacking such proof and want a special dispensation. I suspect other state schools with such residency requirements operate much the same way.)

If a student can't prove their parent/s -- assuming they are still dependent*, a very special caveat, key to much of it here -- hold/s legal residency in the state, no in-state tuition breaks for you.

So... is it really such unfair discrimination if the reason the student can't prove their parents are legal residents is that ... they are residents, but not here legally? I say not.

A commenter sums it up simply:

Hard Choices, Connecticut:
I don't agree with this policy; however, in order to receive in-state tuition rates, one must be able to prove that one is a resident of that particular state. Since most people applying to college are minors, their state of legal residency is based upon their parent's state of legal residency. Since these students' parents are here illegally, they cannot establish that they are legal residents of Florida. But there should be some other way for these kids to establish that they themselves are legal residents of Florida, such as having attended a Florida high school for at least the last two years, or if they are older than nineteen, having a Florida-issued drivers license or ID and proof that they themselves have resided, voted, and filed taxes in Florida for over one year. Unfortunately, Ms. Greenhouse doesn't mention this issue, which is the gist of the matter.

If we start picking winners and losers based on pity, we lose overall, just as if we start rewarding the offspring of those who make poor social choices (think of all those parents who indeed are NOT well-to-do, but who don't qualify for all the government entitlement plans, but are being asked not only to take care of their own, but also to help pick up the tab for those unable to afford that primary parental duty.

That is why the new Democrat strategy is so dangerous -- the elites want to help, but instead of doing it privately, they pick the pitied (some say, the permanent underclass) and via government programs, divvy up the costs to be split amongst all.

You can't keep rewarding the elites in this unbalanced system, taking care of the reproducing permanent poor (via likely government handouts should the system's employment/salary imbalances remain until enough Boomers are out of the market opening up what meager job options will remain), and passing the costs -- borne "equally" natch, and mandatorily too -- onto those barely getting by on what little they make on their own, often one, salary.

In short, if the policy treated all the American citizen, but non-legal-resident offspring students fairly and waive the requirements showing legal proof, that's consistent. But to single out those citizen-students who were blessed enough to have parents who decided it was not in their best interests make the whole arrangement legal for the discount without extending that ... empathy to others, that's not consistent.

Greenhouse is respinning the facts to try and prove some discrimination here, in what is simply a sad situation that impacts plenty of Florida youngsters, unfortunately.

Perhaps a private charitable organization, funded by concerned empathetic people like Greenhouse, could help the non-resident offspring (particularly the non-papered immigrant offspring) afford their non-resident tuition rates. And then they could discriminate too: picking and choosing for whatever reason which students to privately help, and which to turn reject help.

As it is, I think Florida has this one exactly right. "If you can't prove your parents are lawful residents of the state, sorry but you don't qualify for the in-state residence discount."

Perhaps those affected could do what plenty of students not qualifying for resident tuition in other states do: become independent financially. ie/ get any kind of legal/on-the-books paying job that they clearly qualify for with their documents, (in FLA especially: think CNA, boys and girls !) establish your own residence, and after time, apply -- on your own -- for the in-state resident tuition. No parental papers.

Sure, it might take longer. A little inconvenient perhaps, a little slower timeline for graduation than those who have ualifying parents who can prove residency.

Best of all, the costs are not borne by others, who might even be paying out-of-state tuition someplace else ... for their own.

And, with those learning experiences under their belts, imagine how much better students and parents, in years to come, those do-able strivers will prove to be for their own. Dare to Dream... but understand that dreams are powered by hard work and self-reliance, not pity or asking for special favors not available to other similarly situated American citizens either.



-----------------

EXCELLENT COMMENT:

Calvert Cliffs
A good lawyer is taught never to ignore the strong parts of the opponent's argument. Greenhouse makes a strong case, and I agree with her conclusion. But it would be stronger if she could somehow explain why assigning the official place of residence of the parents to their dependent children is wrong. It's perfectly possible for an American-born citizen to reside somewhere other than Florida, and if so, their American citizenship doesn't earn them in-state tuition in Florida.

Of course that can look like sophistry when the children do in fact live within the state, but legal distinctions often look like sophistry. Greenhouse weakens her argument by ignoring that point, which is the central point upon which the policy is based. She ought to deal with it.

ADDED: Here's a take on a similar topic: George Will on race-based preferences in school admissions, and what actually happens when those unfair rules are tossed?

Does the "pity" and lowering of standards for some really help the students, or is it just some liberal program to make the elites feel better, that they are "helping" their ... lessers, without actually leveling the playing field, or remaking the system they clearly are beneficiaries in? .

-----------------

* For many now, isn't there an incentive to stay "dependent" until age 26, at least. Not that I worry, but what will happen if the economy is still down, with less and less affordable employer healthcare options offered for the minimal treater, as these "dependent" children eventually age off their parents' plans, btw?

Granted there is likely little overlap in those cases and the situations Greenhouse is discussing, as the unpapered p rents are less likely to have private qu lifying insurance