14 ms·

Minnesota clarifies: Free online ed is OK

86 points by waterlesscloud 14y ago

waterlesscloud 14y ago
“Obviously, our office encourages lifelong learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free,” said Larry Pogemiller, director of the office. “No Minnesotan should hesitate to take advantage of free, online offerings from Coursera.” Props to the people in charge there for reacting swiftly. Nice to see.
dos1 14y ago
I was hoping this would be the outcome. I could not believe that anyone would seriously try and enforce this statute. As a Minnesotan I still suffer the shame of electing Jesse Ventura, but at least we're not the state that said "no" to free education - yet.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Well, Jesse Ventura did exactly what he said he would. We just forgot to ask him about the other things he would do. His election does show how a once a year big money tax (vehicle registration) will irritate the heck out of people. It also goes to show that the big two parties are not invulnerable in state-wide elections. I am actually more embarrassed we elected (I have moved since) Amy Klobuchar. Sen Amy Klobuchar seems to be a media company rep (check all the bills discussed on HN and who co-sponsored them).
- Evbn 14y ago
  Why? I thought Ventura was one of the most respected governers in the country.
erichocean 14y ago
“Obviously, our office encourages lifelong learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free,” said Larry Pogemiller, director of the office. “No Minnesotan should hesitate to take advantage of free, online offerings from Coursera.” Larry Pogemiller needs to go. Earlier today, he said Coursera-affiliated universities needed to register (and, pay up) "to prevent people from wasting their time." Riiiight. /s Pogemiller only backed down from being a Government-sponsored bully when the press picked it up, and when asked, was surprised that Coursera didn't just roll over and pay up. Words fail me for how out-of-touch this guy is. He should be nowhere near the wheels of government. Minnesota, do the right thing and reprimand Larry Pogemiller. A very public firing would not be a step too far. UPDATE: Downvoted? Larry, is that you? UPDATE 2: Wow, I've never had a post that goes up and down in votes like this one. This wasn't an innocent mistake, a clerical error, a misunderstanding of the law, etc. He literally saw nothing wrong with his office's actions until confronted by the press. How many other times has he misused the long arm of the law that didn't get picked up by the press? People in positions of power like Larry Pogemiller must be reprimanded when they abuse their position. Every. Time. The public vests power in these people, and they must, MUST be publicly held accountable when they abuse that trust. If someone doesn't want the responsibility of maintaining the public's trust, they need to find work in the private sector.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- ihsw 14y ago
  This is how government works everywhere in the United States -- ram as much greedy crap through legislation hoping nobody would notice. Why innovate when you can legislate? It's not the status quo but it happens far too often, and without repercussions. I am not anti-government or anti-American but it's hard not to have a very sour taste in your mouth when you hear it happening every day.
- epistasis 14y ago
  Your comment is angry, lashes out with extreme responses, and is generally not helpful for discussion or for governance. I have not seen the "wasting their time" quote anywhere, where did that come from? What, precisely, were his actions before this blew up in the press? You seem to be placing a lot of faith in your reading of Pogemiller's state of mind. How did you come to your conclusions? The internet does outrage really well, but outrage is not conducive to accuracy.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Oh, so Minnesota doesn't want to repudiate the entirety of the 1st amendment to the constitution? Thanks, we weren't sure of that before.
- mkramlich 14y ago
  I disliked the apparent banning of free online education, and think that would be wrong. But I don't think any of the so-called Constitutional guarantees are absolute. In practice they're violated all the time, strictly speaking. But they're allowed legally when the courts and legislatures feel there is some other greater concern, especialy in exceptional or edge cases. Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, can't own a machine gun, not allowed to practice a religion that involves sacrificing animals (but farms allowed to do it, go figure), "separation of Church and State" principle but they'll cite the Judeo-Christian God in government documents and speeches and subsidize the income of state-approved religions (via income tax exemption), etc. "What the big print giveth the fine print taketh away." But yeah they may have backed down because they sensed either a political backlash brewing or a legal challenge coming their way, either of which would be painful.
  - dmix 14y ago
    > But I don't think any of the so-called Constitutional guarantees are absolute. What's the point of having a constitution if it's NOT absolute and then consistently ignored by government at will?
    - mkramlich 14y ago
      good point. and there are millions of other folks out here who've wondered the same.
  - btilly 14y ago
    not allowed to practice a religion that involves sacrificing animals (but farms allowed to do it, go figure) Citation please. Note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._... suggests that animal sacrifice is protected under the Constitution.
Evbn 14y ago
Thank you everyone who invested so much time and energy creating this tempest in a teapot all over the Internet instead of waiting five minutes for the responsible parties to sort out the right thing to do in a novel situation.
- rhizome 14y ago
  To be fair, this is probably all because some bureaucrat couldn't say "I don't know."
- misnome 14y ago
  Who's to say it would have gone this way without all the press attention? The statement I read was very vague: > “Obviously, our office encourages lifelong learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free,” Nothing here is a denial that they did try to get Coursera to pay. > “When the legislature convenes in January, my intent is to work with the Governor and Legislature to appropriately update the statute to meet modern-day circumstances,” said Pogemiller. “Until that time, I see no reason for our office to require registration of free, not-for-credit offerings.” I read this as: "We can't ask them to pay now, but will try to find a way in the future to change the law so it does apply"
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Really, why you don't read that as "we will update the statute so that it does not compel us to send a bill to Coursera"? I don't want mid level bureaucrats ignoring laws because they don't care for them.
tokenadult 14y ago
Thanks for the submission of the blog post hosted by a major newspaper. I hope this gets as many eyeballs as the two less carefully edited blog posts that mistakenly said "Minnesota Gives Coursera the Boot" or, worse still, "Free Online Education Is Now Illegal in Minnesota." So many of these tempests in teapots arise overnight in the relevant time zones, without enough taking time to check facts and verify conditions on the ground. As I look at the active stories view of HN http://news.ycombinator.com/active http://news.ycombinator.com/active much attention is being devoted to ideas about Minnesota that are obsolete. Cooler local heads have prevailed, and the Legislature will clarify the law, if need be, after the general election as state legislators begin new terms of office. Have a good night, everyone.
uvdiv 14y ago
Doesn't that suggest the state can ban online courses if there is profit involved? That the state's power to "protect consumers" extends as far as their exposure to pure speech? The law's intent is to protect Minnesota students from wasting their money on degrees from substandard institutions, Roedler says. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/minnesota-clarifies-free-online-ed-is-ok/2012/10/19/456a0a3e-1a37-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/minneso...
- Evbn 14y ago
  Speech for money is not pure speech, obviously.
  - uvdiv 14y ago
    Obvious to whom? It's an ideological division whether money changes anything. The progressive left says yes, the classical liberal thinks no. An analogy is publishing for profit. Is there any discussion of "regulating" books and newspapers, using the profit "issue" as a wedge to insert censorship? The free press has been indisputably "pure speech" for centuries, yet money was always involved (before the internet). MN argues control over educational courses to "protect consumers" from "wasting money"; by identical reasoning, they could protect readers from wasting money on the wrong books.

dos1 14y ago

I was hoping this would be the outcome. I could not believe that anyone would seriously try and enforce this statute. As a Minnesotan I still suffer the shame of electing Jesse Ventura, but at least we're not the state that said "no" to free education - yet.

protomyth 14y ago
Well, Jesse Ventura did exactly what he said he would. We just forgot to ask him about the other things he would do. His election does show how a once a year big money tax (vehicle registration) will irritate the heck out of people. It also goes to show that the big two parties are not invulnerable in state-wide elections. I am actually more embarrassed we elected (I have moved since) Amy Klobuchar. Sen Amy Klobuchar seems to be a media company rep (check all the bills discussed on HN and who co-sponsored them).
Evbn 14y ago
Why? I thought Ventura was one of the most respected governers in the country.

erichocean 14y ago

“Obviously, our office encourages lifelong learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free,” said Larry Pogemiller, director of the office. “No Minnesotan should hesitate to take advantage of free, online offerings from Coursera.” Larry Pogemiller needs to go. Earlier today, he said Coursera-affiliated universities needed to register (and, pay up) "to prevent people from wasting their time." Riiiight. /s Pogemiller only backed down from being a Government-sponsored bully when the press picked it up, and when asked, was surprised that Coursera didn't just roll over and pay up. Words fail me for how out-of-touch this guy is. He should be nowhere near the wheels of government. Minnesota, do the right thing and reprimand Larry Pogemiller. A very public firing would not be a step too far. UPDATE: Downvoted? Larry, is that you? UPDATE 2: Wow, I've never had a post that goes up and down in votes like this one. This wasn't an innocent mistake, a clerical error, a misunderstanding of the law, etc. He literally saw nothing wrong with his office's actions until confronted by the press. How many other times has he misused the long arm of the law that didn't get picked up by the press? People in positions of power like Larry Pogemiller must be reprimanded when they abuse their position. Every. Time. The public vests power in these people, and they must, MUST be publicly held accountable when they abuse that trust. If someone doesn't want the responsibility of maintaining the public's trust, they need to find work in the private sector.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ihsw 14y ago
This is how government works everywhere in the United States -- ram as much greedy crap through legislation hoping nobody would notice. Why innovate when you can legislate? It's not the status quo but it happens far too often, and without repercussions. I am not anti-government or anti-American but it's hard not to have a very sour taste in your mouth when you hear it happening every day.
epistasis 14y ago
Your comment is angry, lashes out with extreme responses, and is generally not helpful for discussion or for governance. I have not seen the "wasting their time" quote anywhere, where did that come from? What, precisely, were his actions before this blew up in the press? You seem to be placing a lot of faith in your reading of Pogemiller's state of mind. How did you come to your conclusions? The internet does outrage really well, but outrage is not conducive to accuracy.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Oh, so Minnesota doesn't want to repudiate the entirety of the 1st amendment to the constitution? Thanks, we weren't sure of that before.

mkramlich 14y ago
I disliked the apparent banning of free online education, and think that would be wrong. But I don't think any of the so-called Constitutional guarantees are absolute. In practice they're violated all the time, strictly speaking. But they're allowed legally when the courts and legislatures feel there is some other greater concern, especialy in exceptional or edge cases. Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, can't own a machine gun, not allowed to practice a religion that involves sacrificing animals (but farms allowed to do it, go figure), "separation of Church and State" principle but they'll cite the Judeo-Christian God in government documents and speeches and subsidize the income of state-approved religions (via income tax exemption), etc. "What the big print giveth the fine print taketh away." But yeah they may have backed down because they sensed either a political backlash brewing or a legal challenge coming their way, either of which would be painful.
- dmix 14y ago
  > But I don't think any of the so-called Constitutional guarantees are absolute. What's the point of having a constitution if it's NOT absolute and then consistently ignored by government at will?
  - mkramlich 14y ago
    good point. and there are millions of other folks out here who've wondered the same.
- btilly 14y ago
  not allowed to practice a religion that involves sacrificing animals (but farms allowed to do it, go figure) Citation please. Note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._... suggests that animal sacrifice is protected under the Constitution.

Evbn 14y ago

Thank you everyone who invested so much time and energy creating this tempest in a teapot all over the Internet instead of waiting five minutes for the responsible parties to sort out the right thing to do in a novel situation.

rhizome 14y ago
To be fair, this is probably all because some bureaucrat couldn't say "I don't know."
misnome 14y ago
Who's to say it would have gone this way without all the press attention? The statement I read was very vague: > “Obviously, our office encourages lifelong learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free,” Nothing here is a denial that they did try to get Coursera to pay. > “When the legislature convenes in January, my intent is to work with the Governor and Legislature to appropriately update the statute to meet modern-day circumstances,” said Pogemiller. “Until that time, I see no reason for our office to require registration of free, not-for-credit offerings.” I read this as: "We can't ask them to pay now, but will try to find a way in the future to change the law so it does apply"
- Evbn 14y ago
  Really, why you don't read that as "we will update the statute so that it does not compel us to send a bill to Coursera"? I don't want mid level bureaucrats ignoring laws because they don't care for them.

tokenadult 14y ago

Thanks for the submission of the blog post hosted by a major newspaper. I hope this gets as many eyeballs as the two less carefully edited blog posts that mistakenly said "Minnesota Gives Coursera the Boot" or, worse still, "Free Online Education Is Now Illegal in Minnesota." So many of these tempests in teapots arise overnight in the relevant time zones, without enough taking time to check facts and verify conditions on the ground. As I look at the active stories view of HN http://news.ycombinator.com/active http://news.ycombinator.com/active much attention is being devoted to ideas about Minnesota that are obsolete. Cooler local heads have prevailed, and the Legislature will clarify the law, if need be, after the general election as state legislators begin new terms of office. Have a good night, everyone.

uvdiv 14y ago

Doesn't that suggest the state can ban online courses if there is profit involved? That the state's power to "protect consumers" extends as far as their exposure to pure speech? The law's intent is to protect Minnesota students from wasting their money on degrees from substandard institutions, Roedler says. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/minnesota-clarifies-free-online-ed-is-ok/2012/10/19/456a0a3e-1a37-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/minneso...

Evbn 14y ago
Speech for money is not pure speech, obviously.
- uvdiv 14y ago
  Obvious to whom? It's an ideological division whether money changes anything. The progressive left says yes, the classical liberal thinks no. An analogy is publishing for profit. Is there any discussion of "regulating" books and newspapers, using the profit "issue" as a wedge to insert censorship? The free press has been indisputably "pure speech" for centuries, yet money was always involved (before the internet). MN argues control over educational courses to "protect consumers" from "wasting money"; by identical reasoning, they could protect readers from wasting money on the wrong books.