

Minnesota clarifies: Free online ed is OK - waterlesscloud
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
“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.”<p>Props to the people in charge there for reacting swiftly.  Nice to see.
======
erichocean
_“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.

~~~
tzs
> UPDATE: Downvoted? Larry, is that you?

You are being down voted (rightly so) because it was George Roedler who said
the things you are complaining about. Larry Pogemiller is the guy higher up
who stepped in to correct that.

~~~
erichocean
Here's the paragraph immediately following the part I quoted above[1]:

 _But [Larry Pogemiller's] office was talking tough earlier on Friday, saying
it would tell Coursera-affiliated schools that they were out of compliance
with state law -- and possibly even take up the matter with the schools'
accreditation bodies and the federal government._

Are you suggesting his office is out of control, that it's "gone rogue", and
thus Larry Pogemiller is (somehow) not responsible? Who do you think is
responsible?

[1]
[http://www.twincities.com/technology/ci_21813203/minnesota-e...](http://www.twincities.com/technology/ci_21813203/minnesota-
eases-restrictions-online-education-following-internet-dust)

~~~
tzs
It's very simple. Coursera appears to be required to register, according to
the law as written. The department within the Minnesota Office of Higher
Education that handles registration and licensing informed them of this.

When people inquired, the manager of that department, George Roedler,
responded, restating what the law says and the rationale behind the law.

Later, the person at the top of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education,
Larry Pogemiller, decided that this was a case where the law should not be
applied as written, due to changing circumstances, and so stopped enforcement
and said he would work to get the law modified.

No one has "gone rogue" or is out of control. They all appear to have done
their jobs correctly. Roedler applied the law, as written and as interpreted
by the OHE, as is his job. Pogemiller changed OHE policy, as is his job.

------
uvdiv
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/minneso...](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)

~~~
Evbn
Speech for money is not pure speech, obviously.

~~~
uvdiv
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.

------
tokenadult
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>

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.

------
InclinedPlane
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
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.

~~~
btilly
_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._...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah)
suggests that animal sacrifice is protected under the Constitution.

~~~
mkramlich
I know for a fact there are animal cruelty laws on the books in many
jurisdictions. If you go to the cops and courts and say, "but it's part of my
religion, we do animal sacrifice" you then are at the mercy of the courts to
decide which law takes precedence. the Constititional law saying the
government shall not interfere with the establishment of any religion, or, the
ability of states and local jurisdictions to enact laws regulating what
citizens can and cannot do. If any given Constitutional clause or amendment
was somehow always and without exception enforced, US society would be very
different because individuals could make excuses left and right to excuse
otherwise illegal behaviors as being protected by the Constitution. That
doesn't happen. Therefore no provision (or most of them anyway) is absolute,
either in a literal sense or in spirit. Heck look at the clause that says
Congress must declare war -- yet the government has engaged in hundreds of
military adventures across the world, without a declaration of war ever being
made or even requested, by the Executive branch. The Constitution is truly
"just words on paper" and the government effectively just does whatever it can
get away with. That's what the historical record suggests anyway.

~~~
btilly
I am not debating the fact that the Constitution as interpreted is not the
Constitution as written.

However you made a very specific claim that flies in the face of what I
understand the interpretation to be. I would be interested in a citation.
(I've already given a citation of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of animal
sacrifice on grounds of religious freedom.)

------
dos1
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
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
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.

~~~
misnome
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
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.

