3 ms·

> Nothing in the statement I see precludes Temple... Nothing precludes them from doing anything, and nothing precludes students from seeking legal remedies fo

> Nothing in the statement I see precludes Temple... Nothing precludes them from doing anything, and nothing precludes students from seeking legal remedies for those actions. Look, I'm not sure. Temple might have a defensible claim for charging tuition; it's a really complicated situation and I wouldn't take advice from anyone who isn't an employment lawyer. But the letter that Temple sent out is probably going to get Temple into some trouble for the reason identified by your parent comment.

secabeen 4y ago
> But the letter that Temple sent out is probably going to get Temple into some trouble for the reason identified by your parent comment. It's certainly gotten them into reputational trouble. I don't think they'll get into legal trouble until there is an actual harm when either the fine is charged, or a registration is blocked. Courts don't generally rule on hypotheticals.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  I'm sure Temple has good lawyers, but I'm skeptical. My employment contract as a graduate student was one page long. There was definitely an implicit consensus ad idem regarding tuition remissions for graduate students. It was not spelled out what exactly entitled me to the remission. It DEFINITELY wasn't an explicit benefit given in consideration for my labor as an RA. In fact, that situation might even be uncredible for universities to claim given the tax structure at play here. Temple's "and therefore you don't get benefits and therefore YOU owe US money!" reasoning might make sense to a Goldman mouth breather, but I somehow doubt that anyone else involved in this agreement going back 5+ decades has ever thought that this is how things are supposed to work. I am genuinely skeptical that the COO (or whatever)'s interpretation of the contract is spelled out in writing in the contracts, or that there was ever a meeting of the minds on this matter. And it's pretty trivial to show damages here without a bill coming due. If I were a grad student I'd put $xxK in a money market account, document my investment plan (or three ;) ), and sue for the opportunity cost plus treble damages even if this all gets resolved.

secabeen 4y ago

> But the letter that Temple sent out is probably going to get Temple into some trouble for the reason identified by your parent comment. It's certainly gotten them into reputational trouble. I don't think they'll get into legal trouble until there is an actual harm when either the fine is charged, or a registration is blocked. Courts don't generally rule on hypotheticals.

thwayunion 4y ago
I'm sure Temple has good lawyers, but I'm skeptical. My employment contract as a graduate student was one page long. There was definitely an implicit consensus ad idem regarding tuition remissions for graduate students. It was not spelled out what exactly entitled me to the remission. It DEFINITELY wasn't an explicit benefit given in consideration for my labor as an RA. In fact, that situation might even be uncredible for universities to claim given the tax structure at play here. Temple's "and therefore you don't get benefits and therefore YOU owe US money!" reasoning might make sense to a Goldman mouth breather, but I somehow doubt that anyone else involved in this agreement going back 5+ decades has ever thought that this is how things are supposed to work. I am genuinely skeptical that the COO (or whatever)'s interpretation of the contract is spelled out in writing in the contracts, or that there was ever a meeting of the minds on this matter. And it's pretty trivial to show damages here without a bill coming due. If I were a grad student I'd put $xxK in a money market account, document my investment plan (or three ;) ), and sue for the opportunity cost plus treble damages even if this all gets resolved.