felix qui possit rerum cognoscere causas
|
December 18, 2002
Free education in Missouri
A judge has ruled that alumni of the University of Missouri are entitled to free education, based on a 1889 law which gave free education to "all youths of the state of Missouri, over the age of 16 years." After this lawsuit was filed the law was quickly changed, but the fact remains that by charging tuition, the University of Missouri has for years been acting illegally. It could cost $450 million dollars (approximately its annual operating budget) to repay the illegally charged tuition, a prospect that would sure bankrupt the university. Legally the plaintiffs appear to be on firm ground. The University's defense that it was charging "education fees" rather than "tuition" was shot down by the judge: "Dr. Pacheco's testimony was nothing more than pure pretense, incredible and sadly not believable," Judge Romines wrote in the decision, issued on Dec. 6. "Resort to all editions of all dictionaries and honest scholarship demands the conclusion that `tuition' and `educational fees' are synonymous."It looks like the judge was not very keen on ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, but had no other choice. But what's to gain from suing in this case In the words of Frederick Eccher, one of the plaintiffs: "Getting the judge's opinion was worth the wait, but saying something was wrong is one thing, and justice is putting things right," he said of the absence of any remedy so far. "What would make me feel better would be them paying back the tuition, and interest."The pursuit of money is obviously a big factor in all of this. While the legal position of the plaintiffs seems impeccable, this whole thing still feels deeply wrong, because by winning this lawsuit the plaintiffs could well sink the University of Missouri education system, denying the opportunity of getting an education to others. This is clearly an instance where being technically right is not exactly edifying. The law is an ass again. On the other hand, throwing this ruling out simply because it's inconvient rankles too, and I'd find that deeply unsatisfactory. The plaintiffs should not have sued in this case, although I realize they were fully within their rights to do so. I'm obviously not an expert on Missouri law, so I wonder whether the judge can award symbolic damages only in this case. Or would the eighth Amendment provide a way out if they'd have to pay $450 million? Comments
The Eighth Amendment is for excessive fines and applies to punitive damages usually. The actual damages are approximately 472 million dollars U.S. with a 9% interest rate as the judicial standard in this case. The interest is approximately 472 million at this point in time. If the University of Missouri lawyers appeal, there would be approximately 472 million every 3 years or approximately 1 billion more in interest if the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. The total is projected to be between 1.8 and 2 billion dollars in actual damages and interest at 9%. The judge found that there was no 'evil intent' on the part of the University of Missouri, so punitive damages are not part of any ajudication now. As far as I can tell, there will be no fines to the University of Missouri unless criminal charges are brought by the state or federal government [unlikely]. Posted by: Frederick Eccher Jr on December 21, 2002 02:23 AMWhat I'm trying to understand is how this happened at all. I have to imagine that tuition actually was free. And then they started charging. Didn't people think that was...Wrong? What year did this happen? Didn't anyone say "Hey, it was free last year?" Didn't anyone say "It's SUPPOSED to be free! How can you charge me?" It just seems weird that no newspaper or parent gave it a thought. Posted by: bird on December 21, 2002 05:31 AMI'm interested in finding out as much as I can about this Missouri case. I'm involved in a case in Iowa where a public high school has been charging fees, which are really tuition, for a show choir class. Any help would be appreciated, including being able to find the text of the Judge's ruling. Posted by: Randy Ressler on December 26, 2002 04:10 PMPost a comment
|