The voice of De Anza since 1967.

La Voz News

Advertisement
The voice of De Anza since 1967.

La Voz News

The voice of De Anza since 1967.

La Voz News

Wall Street Prop 30 connection

a stretch of imagination
Wall+Street+Prop+30+connection

Designed to raise taxes temporarily for funding education, Prop. 30 was approved by voters, and campuses statewide rejoiced at a hard won victory.
Recently, allegations of Prop.30 funds benefitting Wall Street have circulated online, with articles on Huffingtonpost.com, theaggie.org, and SFGate.com that at first look very unfavorable. But readers should always know all the facts before letting the headlines determine the truth.
According to research in a recent report published by UC Berkeleys doctoral students, “Swapping Our Future,” available at http://publicsociology.berkeley.edu/publications, UC Regents make bad construction investments that could lose money annualy. The report also points out possible conflicts of interest in the relationships between administrators and financial firms.
In a rebuttal by University of California CFO Peter Taylor published on SFGate.com, Taylor explains UC’s investment choices and why they were made, but does not address the possible conflict of interest. Taylor also dismisses the research in the report: “Indeed, if this level of ‘research’ were produced for a class on finance, it would merit an ‘F,'” Taylor writes.
At this point you might be wondering, “What does all this have to do with Prop.30?” In actuality, it does not. Prop. 30 is not mentioned in the “Swapping Our Future” report nor is it mentioned in CFO Peter Taylor’s rebuttal. But the title of a recent article on Huffingtonpost.com screams  “University Of California Deals With Wall Street Banks Could Wipe Out Prop 30 Gains, Report Says.”
The Huffingtonpost.com article connects Prop. 30 funds to UC investments by proxy, implying a connection built on circumstantial evidence while no sources involved even mention Prop. 30 in their statements.
This is problematic and misleading, possibly causing voters to be disenfranchised for the next election. The lesson here is, controversy in the news should always be taken with a grain of salt. Readers should always dig deeper and make up their own mind when a headline is used to elicit emotion.
 

Story continues below advertisement
Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

La Voz Weekly intends this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments should be respectful and constructive. We do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks or language that might be interpreted as defamatory. La Voz does not allow anonymous comments, and requires a valid name and email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comment.
All La Voz News Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest