
Free Online Education Is Now Illegal in Minnesota - paufernandez
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/18/minnesota_bans_coursera_state_takes_bold_stand_against_free_education.html
======
tokenadult
As correctly pointed out by another comment posted overnight in Minnesota's
time zone, this blog post is just blogspam of the earlier Chronicle of Higher
Education blog post, which was discussed on Hacker News beginning yesterday.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4671196>

The title of the Slate blogspam piece is even more exaggerated and link-
baiting than the title of the Chronicle piece; both titles are factually
wrong. Both blog posts overstate the impact of the Minnesota notice to higher
education institutions, which has resulted only in a fig-leaf change to
Coursera's ToS directed to Minnesota residents, and has had NO effect on
Coursera's operation in Minnesota. As noted in my comment on the first thread,

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4672038>

I am a Minnesota resident, I am enrolled in multiple Coursera courses (and two
of my children are enrolled in Coursera courses), and I will be speaking to my
state legislators about this as a precaution after first speaking to the
Minnesota Department of Education about this when business hours begin here.
The sun will rise in the east here in Minnesota just like everywhere else
today, and all is well with the world. Well, maybe not quite everything is
well with the world, as two of the top eleven most active posts on HN just now

<http://news.ycombinator.com/active>

are both discussions of this very exaggerated story about Minnesota, neither
checked with actual on-the-ground reporting on students currently enrolled in
Coursera courses in Minnesota.

ONE MORE EDIT: Thanks to the several commenters (at various comment levels in
various subthreads) who suggested policy considerations to bring up with the
offices of my state senator and state representative today during the campaign
season, and to the commenters who pointed to various possible interpretations
of the relevant statutes and possible partisan political considerations
related to this issue. I'll digest all that after giving blood today, and send
an email to the state Office of Higher Education

<https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/>

and to my legislators. Over the weekend, I'll be doing homework in my Coursera
courses [smile].

~~~
impendia
I agree with most of what you say (and thank you also for the link), but not
"all is well".

Quite possibly the importance of this law should not be overstated, and I
agree with you and your children carrying on with your Coursera courses. But
apparently you will be doing so in violation of the law.

Should not unjust laws be protested, if perhaps also disobeyed? I would not
exactly be afraid to continue using Coursera in Minnesota, but experience has
taught me that law enforcement should never be trusted 100% to be reasonable.

That said, you mentioned that you will be speaking with your state legislators
-- you are doing as much to fight this as anyone reasonably could, and for
that you have my gratitude. If 10,000 other Minnesotans took the same action
as you, this would die as it deserves to.

~~~
oleganza
If people protest laws they dislike, but not protest against the whole
democratically elected dictatorship board with all their laws and regulations,
it won't you get anywhere. But once people realise it's not legitimate to
aggress against people based purely on "majority rule" with disregard to basic
property rights, the government will dissolve.

~~~
rayiner
Property "rights" are a construct that is meaningless without government. In
the state of nature, you have no rights as against someone who is stronger who
can take from you what he wants.

The creation of property rights is an imposition of the dictatorship of the
majority. It tells the strong that they cannot use their natural gifts to
further their own interests under the penalty of collective force. If the will
of the majority dissolves, property rights are meaningless.

------
EzGraphs
Coursera terms of service: <https://www.coursera.org/about/terms>

Notice for Minnesota Users

Coursera has been informed by the Minnesota Office of Higher Education that
under Minnesota Statutes (136A.61 to 136A.71), a university cannot offer
online courses to Minnesota residents unless the university has received
authorization from the State of Minnesota to do so. If you are a resident of
Minnesota, you agree that either (1) you will not take courses on Coursera, or
(2) for each class that you take, the majority of work you do for the class
will be done from outside the State of Minnesota.

Previously reported: [http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/minnesota-gives-
cours...](http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/minnesota-gives-coursera-the-
boot-citing-a-decades-old-law/40542)

Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4671196>

------
delinka
I don't see how you can make such a determination about a online information
site (i.e. one that provides information but not accredited diplomas or
degrees.) You can learn all day from Wikipedia, will they ban wikipedia next?
This really looks like politicians overreaching on behalf of some frightened
post-secondary institution.

From the article's page, commenter Greg Shenaut points out that further
reading of MN law would render this political "threat" moot. His comment
pasted below:

Bottom line, they should have considered Coursera, since it offers no degrees
at all, under their “Private Career Schools” statute (Chapter 141) rather than
under their “Private and Public Postsecondary Education Act (136A.61-71)”. The
latter act is concerned with (1) degree granting institutions and (2) schools
that call themselves universities or colleges as part of their name. Coursera
grants no degrees and doesn't call itself anything except “Coursera” (or
coursera.org), so it is really bizarre that they decided to regulate it under
136A.61-71.

If they had made the opposite determination, then, under 141.21(10) and
141.35(17), Coursera would probably have been exempted from any need for
official approval: “[The Private Career Schools Act] shall not apply to...
schools with no physical presence in Minnesota, as determined by the office,
engaged exclusively in offering distance instruction that are located in and
regulated by other states or jurisdictions”.

~~~
sejje
Reading the article informed me that they are banning Coursera because
universities are conducting classes on the site. That's not the case for
wikipedia.

Additionally, said universities are referring to themselves as their
traditional name (e.g. "stanford university") and not "coursera."

~~~
delinka
I seem to have missed this detail. However, why is it a problem if Stanford
contracts out to some third party to operate a particular course? I enrolled
in a local college a few years ago and took courses online. Not one of those
courses was located within the college's web site- they were all third
parties. Why would I have the expectation that the college doesn't vouch for
the validity of the course material?

EDIT after reading the update: I read this as back to square one. Stanford is
offering courses via Coursera for free. But Stanford doesn't offer free
degrees. Why is that a problem?

MN's opinion seems to be its citizens can't get a degree online from a school
outside of MN unless that school is registered with OHE. However, the quoted
law speaks to not having a physical presence.

------
jeremyhaberman
It gets worse: religious schools are exempt from this law:
<https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=136A.657>

Here's an index of the relevant statutes (scroll down to the 'MINNESOTA
PRIVATE AND OUT-OF-STATE PUBLIC POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION ACT' section):
<https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=136A>

~~~
pdubs
I'm pretty sure that's there to exempt things like seminaries.

>Subd. 4.Statement required; religious nature. Any degree awarded upon
completion of a religiously exempt program shall include descriptive language
to make the religious nature of the award clear.

~~~
jeremyhaberman
Good clarification, pdubs. It seems a university like St. John's might not be
exempt, but its School of Theology might be.

If true, it's still strange to me that school with a non-free graduate degree
in liturgical studies would be exempt, but an online school offering free
courses in science, business, history, etc. would not be exempt.

~~~
protomyth
Liturgical studies by a religious organization are specifically protected
under the the 1st Amendment[1][2]. Schooling has been a state domain for a
very long time (look at Texas and California's influence on textbooks). The
regulating of schools does not violate the US or MN constitution.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)>

[2] consumer protection law and religious organization
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantwell_v._Connecticut>

------
ekianjo
When are we going to stop the nonsense to stop any disruption to any existing
business by making laws against it? Just like in france recently they want to
tax Google for referencing the contents of french newspapers on the basis that
they are benefiting from their contents to put their ads - this never stops
and the politicians are too easy to corrupt.

~~~
njharman
When we stop being a for-profit society. Don't hold your breath.

~~~
marknutter
No; when government becomes sufficiently small.

~~~
Reebz
No and no; when we are sufficiently globalized and companies are taxed
(fairly) by all countries. In your example, France is pissed off they're not
getting a slice of the billion dollar pie because Google sits in the US. Our
archaic ideas of "nations" are tied to land masses - not a great partner to a
distributable service that can be accessed almost anywhere near the speed of
light.

~~~
mercurial
At the risk of derailing the discussion, it's my understanding that the US
government is not getting much in corporate taxes from Google either, thanks
to a well-established practice of tax-dodging by funneling profits into
Ireland.

------
dschiptsov
Something is very wrong with that country.

It is not mere about depriving people from their right to free information
access, it is an attempt to deprive people from their right to grow up, to
improve their lives, to learn how they have been cheated and by whom.

For example, to learn that not just those finance guys, but the whole economic
science has no clue about what's going on with the economy, except that it is
very broken.)

~~~
oleganza
Something is very wrong because people believe in positive rights. Like the
right to information access, to improve lives etc. Because to provide positive
rights someone must be coerced to do so. And you end up with a huge government
that ceases, distributes and tells you how to live.

Enter negative rights. For instance, a right to protect yourself and your
property against aggression. You can't take mine, I can't take yours. Now we
do not always need anyone else to resolve any conflict between us. (We may ask
a judge for help, but it is not required.)

In this case the problem is not with a right to education. Minnesota state
violates negative rights of the educator and a student to do what they want
with themselves (provided they do not aggress upon property of others).

If you think in terms of negative rights you will see solution to many
difficult problems. But if you continue thinking in terms of positive rights,
you will get more arbitrary judgements and more aggression.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Positive rights are necessary because many natural rights have been taken
away.

I think, as a human born in the U.S. I have a _divine_ right to erect a
structure to sleep in and keep the snow off so I don't die. But that right
disappeared long ago.

Since the property-owning class (private and government) took that right away
from me, they now have an obligation to provide me some things.

Or would you prefer armed revolution where I take back my right to establish
reasonable shelter?

~~~
oleganza
You never had a right to establish any shelter. You have a right to
appropriate what's unowned or receive something in voluntary exchange.

Now if you stand on a justly owned property (like my house), then you play by
the rules of the owner or go away.

If you stand on unjustly owned property (like a forest protected by the
state), then you may use part of it as your own provided you do not alter
objective properties of this forest that were enjoyed by everybody prior to
you. E.g. if you noticeably alter the air quality by cutting it down, prior
users of the air may ask you for compensation.

Also, it's a losing strategy to talk about somebody's obligations. If somebody
has robbed you, he must 1) compensate what's stolen 2) be punished. He is not
obliged to provide you with social security, free speech and fast internet.

~~~
erikpukinskis
While there is some marginal amount of class mobility, property ownership in
the U.S. is correlated almost entirely with privilege. The more
white/rich/male/citizen/straight/cis/typical-bodied/neurotypical boxes you can
tick, the more likely you are to be a property owner.

The fact that you think Mitt Romney owning property is "just ownership" while
the children of, say, a non-citizen Native American who came back across the
Mexican border in the 90s to his ancestral lands in San Diego county are "just
non-property owners" is absurd.

------
nicholassmith
And once again a service discovers the thorny world of regulation framework
that was design for a specific set of circumstances and is being applied like
a hammer to an egg.

~~~
Turing_Machine
No, it's being applied exactly as it was intended: to reduce competition, for
the benefit of existing players, at the expense of Minnesota consumers.

~~~
briandear
Exactly. This is what happens in blue states: protectionism and regulation
designed to benefit a defined constituency while screwing the majority. This
law never would be passed or enforced in Texas.

~~~
weiran
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not?

~~~
njharman
If not sarcastic it's wildly ignant. Texas special interests ensure that
majority of text books are bland, puritanical and contain creationist pseudo-
science.

~~~
_delirium
Protection-of-trade laws are also a pretty common feature of "red states" in
general; I don't think there's a discernible partisan divide. For example,
Utah recently had its laws surrounding regulation of hair braiders partially
invalidated (<http://www.ij.org/utah-hairbraiding-release-8-9-2012>). There
was also a famous case in Louisiana over monks selling caskets without a
license.

~~~
jivatmanx
Not to mention that East Texas is the Patent Troll capitol of the U.S.

------
imgabe
How could they enforce this? If someone from Minnesota takes a class, is
Minnesota going to sue Coursera? Fine/jail the student? There's really no
option that doesn't leave Minnesota looking bad.

~~~
dmix
> How could they enforce this?

Whatever government agency the schools in minnesota have an influence over.

------
jiggy2011
It seems this would hinge on defining coursera as a "college"?

I'm assuming this was legislation passed in order to prevent people creating
bogus for-profit universities.

But coursera doesn't charge money or offer accredited qualifications.

So how would this differ from any other educational site, like say
stackoverflow?

Does it hinge around the fact that it is unofficially associated with certain
existing universities like Stanford etc by using their logos and lecturers?

------
abbasmehdi
I'd love to learn which government official and department is responsible for
this action so we can direct our dislike of this decision towards them.

P.S. The ML class Andrew Ng is teaching on Coursera is phenomenal by the way.

~~~
uvdiv
A bureaucracy calling itself a "Minnesota Office of Higher Education"

<https://www.coursera.org/about/terms>

<https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/>

~~~
briandear
Which is entirely Democrat.

~~~
mattdeboard
Every comment of yours in this thread is partisan political bullshit. Take it
back to reddit.

~~~
briandear
The FACTS are that Lawrence Pogemiller, director of the Minnesota Office of
Higher Education is a Democrat. Pogemiller represented Minnesota Senate
District 59. District 59 includes the University of Minnesota, the largest
University in Minnesota. So yes, party is relevant to this discussion.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Pogemiller>

~~~
tzs
And the FACT is that Lawrence Pogemiller is the one who said that Minnesota
does NOT intend to enforce this law against Coursera (overriding the earlier
statement from the person in charge of registration), and will be working in
January with the legislator and governor to get the law amended to take into
these new developments in online education.

If you are intending to try to smear Democrats, you are doing a spectacularly
poor job.

------
iwwr
This is an opportunity for Minnesota residents to learn about geoIP and how to
circumvent it. I sense a fresh new Coursera course.

~~~
martin-adams
Catch-22 I'm afraid.

------
csomar
From my understanding, Coursera can charge a fee (say $1) and become fully
legal. That could be a third option for Minnesota citizens.

~~~
ianb
It's not the "free" part that is causing the problem – the law is that anyone
offering courses has to register and pay a fee to the state, which might seem
reasonable for an institution charging tuition. It becomes absurd when they
ask that an institution like Coursera ask permission of the state and pay a
fee to provide free classes that lead to no degree.

~~~
briandear
The government loves their fees. You can't take a dump Minnesota without
paying someone. Same in California.

------
jghefner
Makes me wonder if online for-profit schools have government permission to
offer instruction in the state.

~~~
briandear
Follow the money. Walden University is based in MN. Find our which politicians
received the contributions. But Minnesota people will still continue voting
for the same people so even if we did know, it's of no consequence. It's the
same reason guys like Jesse Jackson Jr, and Marion Berry keep getting
reelected year after year despite their obvious corruption and incompetence.

------
j45
Education, and self-education specifically is a fundamental human right.

I can't even begin to wrap my head around this.

------
nicolethenerd
This is very worrying to me. Not because of the actual ruling itself (which
seems fairly unenforceable, unless they're going to get Minnesota-based ISPs
to block Coursera), but because of the precedent it sets. What else can states
ask their residents not to read or look at? And what are the consequences if
they do?

Additionally, while a private resident of Minnesota can happily continue using
Coursera (at least for now) without consequence, this could have an impact on
Minnesota public schools. If I were a Minnesota public school teacher, I would
now be very reluctant to use Coursera in my classroom. All it takes is one
student to tell Mommy and Daddy that they got assigned homework from an
"illegal website," and there could be a shitstorm. (I realize that Coursera
isn't really targeted at school-age kids, but what if it had been Khan
Academy?)

------
jlarocco
Wow, there's a lot of hyperbole going on here. I'm a little disappointed
people on HN are falling for it.

It seems pretty clear from reading the article that Minnesota isn't stopping
anybody from taking online courses.

But to be officially recognized in Minnesota requires that the entity
providing the education is registered as an educational entity in Minnesota.
I'm pretty sure _most_ states have laws like this. Here's why: I know nothing
about biology, but without laws like this, there would be nothing stopping me
from offering classes on biology.

In this case it's obvious Coursera is legit, but in a lot of cases it may not
be so obvious.

~~~
agwa
> I know nothing about biology, but without laws like this, there would be
> nothing stopping me from offering classes on biology.

What if you _did_ know something about biology, and furthermore you were a
really good teacher, and you wanted to post YouTube videos to spread the
knowledge for free (like Salman Khan). If the law said you had be registered
as an educational institution, you'd first have to navigate the bureaucracy,
probably pay some outrageous fees, and you'd probably end up being rejected
because you're doing things in a new and innovative way which the law didn't
account for. Would you go through all that and try to fight it just to give
away some YouTube videos for free?

Probably not, and that would deprive the public of a new opportunity to learn.
That wouldn't serve the public interest.

~~~
jlarocco
Your completely missing the point.

Minnesota isn't trying to stop Coursera's innovation.

They just need to certify they're teaching legitimate stuff before they can
claim to be an educational institution in Minnesota.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If I wanted to teach people, it seems
reasonable to prove that I know the subject I'm teaching.

~~~
SilasX
And you're missing the point that if anyone tries any online educational
innovation, they can potentially be stopped by every locality in the world
shaking them down for money on a dubious pretense, if we let Minnesota set a
precedent.

------
sxp
FYI, this rule has been changed:"Obviously, our office encourages lifelong
learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials
available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free. No Minnesotan should
hesitate to take advantage of free, online offerings from Coursera."

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/19/minnesota...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/19/minnesota_coursera_ban_state_won_t_crack_down_on_free_online_courses_after.html)

------
bennesvig
I live in Minnesota. I had never heard of Coursera, but I just signed up for
my first course. I had also never heard of BuckyBalls before the government
threatened to ban them and ended up buying some. Interesting how prohibition
or threat of creates certain desires.

------
mkhattab
I wonder if they will apply the same restrictions to Udacity which offer
course completion certificates? It's worrying that such a harmless mode of
learning can be threatened by the stupidity of a few government officials.

------
S4M
An U.S state is making illegal online education before even Iran does? Well, I
hope they won't try to enforce this regulation by blocking coursera inside
Minnesota, that would start to be really scary.

------
jakeonthemove
This is a classic case of a law that needs to be changed. When your country
has an education problem, even charging the universities a fee for free
courses is simply stupid.

------
jeremiep
In other news, smart people are now illegal aliens in Minnesota.

------
belorn
What defines as "instructions"? Most products has instruction manuals. Most
companies has instruction manuals for new employes.

Written instructions are not that uncommon.

------
mikecaron
And this is a prime opportunity for Minnesota residents to learn about proxies
:)

------
tomjen3
Someone should go to prison for this.

------
Surio
EDIT I:

Based on feedback below, I have added my two bits to this conversation

Even supposedly conservative countries are opening up their elite curriculums
like this NPTEL effort in India to disseminate the IIT curricula for free on
YouTube: <http://nptel.iitm.ac.in>

Placed in context, this bit of news seems particularly galling!

================

I'm going to try this line again, particularly since tvtropes says: "On its
way to becoming a Forgotten Trope, a Seen It All Suicide occurs when a cartoon
character, having seen some outrageous sight, proclaims "Now I've seen
everything!" and promptly produces a pistol and shoots himself on the spot."

Wat?[0] >>> Now I've seen everything! !Bang! <<< [1]

[0] That "Wat" feeling. Cf., <https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat>

[1] <http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeenItAllSuicide>

EDIT II: [This last line removed/redacted based on feedback from below]

~~~
mmcnickle
You're being downvoted because your comment adds nothing to the discussion.

Comments don't need to be completely void of humour, but a comment that is
only intended to be a joke isn't appreciated on Hacker News. I'm writing this
as a courtesy as you are new here, and no-one has explained your mistake in
your other low-value comments.

~~~
Surio
+1 for taking the time to explain (without too much snark, like the other
comrade).

However I merely pointed out that this whole thing is wildly OTT by quoting an
old meme.

Other than this what else can someone add in matter like these? It would be
presumptuous (in my World view at least) to mouth opinions on how the World
ought to be run when it is very clear to me that most of these things are like
random chance set into motion where things become apparent only in hindsight.
One example of this is the Joshua Bell experiment:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bell#Washington_Post_exp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bell#Washington_Post_experiment)

Thanks again for pointing this.

~~~
mmcnickle
I don't comment much on topics where I feel I lack enough knowledge to add
anything to the conversation, even if I find the post or conversation
interesting. As a result, I only really comment on perhaps < 2-3% of the
threads I read. I imagine this is similar to a lot of other HNers and it helps
keep the signal-to-noise ratio relatively high.

With no snark intended, it boils down to: "If you have nothing to add, don't."

~~~
Surio
Two takeaways for me from today's experience:

1\. >> even if I find the post or conversation interesting

The "interesting" bit is important. There have been (less popular) threads
where I have noticed funny for funny's sake comments being left alone. A
trending topic is a dangerous topic for comments where your comments will be
read by more people who are likely to feel that it does or does not add much
"value".

2\. >> "If you have nothing to add, don't."

I don't think that sentiment can be expressed any differently, snark or not.
:) You could have been more blunt too. I think that point's very valid within
the HN subculture.

Irony is, both these takeaways are something that one picks up "after the
fact", which in itself is ironic.

Ciao.

