Nurse, Doctor Rip Brian Moran's Views on Education as "Ill-informed," "Appalling"

more than a conflict-of-interest (4.00 / 1)

The Democratic Party is supposed to protect citizens from vultures like Brian Moran's scam schools.

---

by: Brigham @ Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 19:34:54 PM UTC

I think Brian should resign as head of DPVA (4.00 / 3)

These for profit schools are simply a scam to get money from the government without upholding standards.  

---

by: commentator1 @ Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 20:36:10 PM UTC

James B. Kenley, Commissioner of Health ? (0.00 / 0)

Is this the James Kenley who was Commissioner of Health a number of years ago ?

---

by: Bumble Bee @ Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 00:03:02 AM UTC

It definitely appears that way. (0.00 / 0)

n/t

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 00:09:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This underscores a serious conflicts problem (0.00 / 0)

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether for-profit schools are evil or not, the best argument (in my view) that can be made for Brian Moran's being the head of the DPVA while also a lobbyist for the industry is this: they are two different jobs; head of the DPVA is essentially an administrative/fundraising position, not a policy-defining position, so Mr. Moran's lobbying for an industry with questionable ethics might raise eyebrows and question, but ought not to exclude him from the DPVA post.

But this RTD story underscores the problem with that defense. Fair or not, the story accurately identifies Brian as the head of the DPVA, and so the clear perception created in the story is that the position articulated by him is a Democratic position.

I'll bet if you asked Brian, he would say he spoke to the RTD as the head of the lobbying association, not as the head of the DPVA, and that he has no control over how the RTD chooses to identify him. I'm actually sympathetic to this view, but the facts are the facts -- we do not have control over what the media does, so all the DPVA can do is not create a situation in which it provides ammunition to the media, whether they are driven by a political agenda or incompetence (probably a little of both in the case of the RTD, IMHO).

As for the schools themselves, I suspect the truth of the dispute over their ethics lies somewhere in the middle of the dispute. Some schools are undoubtedly good, honest and moral businesses meeting a legitimate consumer demand, but many are bad and exploitive. Mr. Moran's job, unfortunately, places him in the position of defending a system in which the bad schools can exist (and by extension the schools themselves) in order to ensure the continued existence of the decent places.

Now, whatever the ethics of that choice by Mr. Moran, at the end of the day the question for Virginia democrats is whether we want to be identified as defending the interests of incompetent and possibly dishonest businesses that are ripping off Virginia students, and possibly turning out ill-trained individuals to care for our sick and elderly?

Because fair or not, that is the position that Mr. Moran, as head of the DPVA, has created.

---

by: aznew @ Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 13:34:19 PM UTC

"somewhere in the middle" (0.00 / 0)

I was totally agreeing with your comment until you wrote that.  Yes, sure, it's "somewhere in the middle" in the sense that 99%-1% is "in the middle," but let's not imply that it's 50/50 or whatever.  This industry is a total scam, ripoff of the taxpayer, predatory on vulnerable people, handing out largely worthless degrees, saddling their "graduates" with huge debts, paying their top execs (including Brian Moran) huge amounts of (ripped-off-from-taxpayers-and-students) money, simply disgusting in (almost -- 99%) every way.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 14:08:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As I was writing that (0.00 / 0)

I said to myself, "Lowell is going to disagree with this statement."

---

by: aznew @ Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 14:51:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, because it's an "on the one hand on the other hand" (0.00 / 0)

false equivalency. And you know how much I love those! :)

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 14:59:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think I made that argument at all (0.00 / 0)

IMHO, recognizing nuance and complexity within disputes is not, ipso facto, arguing for a false equivalence.

That said, it is a tough industry to defend, and I'm not going to do so.

---

by: aznew @ Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 20:24:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree, there's complexity here (0.00 / 0)

but, as you said, "it is a tough industry to defend, and I'm not going to do so." :)

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 20:33:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

RTD (0.00 / 0)

With Diana Cantor (wife of dear Eric) on the board of Media General which owns the RTD it would have been highly unlikely for the story to have been written any other way that did not reflect negatively on DPVA.

---

by: glennbear @ Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 03:59:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brian's Words Speak Volumes (4.00 / 2)

Brian Moran's own words, as quoted in the story, are what reflect very negatively on DPVA. No effort by Diana Cantor was required.

---

by: Peter 2010 @ Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 11:24:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

I love how people keep trying to distract from the issue at hand here: Brian Moran's dual roles as DPVA Chair and as head of the for-profit/scam "college" industry.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 11:52:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not me (0.00 / 0)

I hope you were not referring to me, I agree that his dual roles are definitely in conflict.

---

by: glennbear @ Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 21:59:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope, not you. (0.00 / 0)

n/t

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 22:34:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lowell (0.00 / 0)

I guess my comment and/or question about credibility were not to your liking, so they disappeared, along with JC's excellent comment made yesterday.

I don't understand why you are so sensitive about people asking you questions about the validity of what you post. I am sure there are parts of this I agree with you on, but we have never gotten past the fact that you don't like my questioning.

There are also missing new comments that must have been underneath mine which I will never see.

I have to admit I am not surprised at your behavior, and I wish we could get past technicalities like where your source is, a fundamental question in blogging.

---

by: Mark Brooks @ Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 21:50:29 PM UTC

Hidden comments (4.00 / 1)

You cannot see your comments because they are now hidden as a result of the Blue Virginia giving them low ratings. Lowell had nothing to do with hiding them (beyond possibly rating them poorly, which Lowell, along with every other member of this community, has a right to do).

Rather than lash out, perhaps you should ask yourself why this community thinks so poorly of your comments. Speaking for myself, the problem is that you do not seem to ever address the substance of issues, but rather choose to argue by attacking the motives, methods and morals of those with whom you happen to disagree. While this avenu of attack may sometimes be appropriate, it seems to be the tactic you use in almost every debate in which you engage.

I think it turns people off, even those who might be inclined to agree with your positions.

---

by: aznew @ Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 15:01:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly, his absolute refusal to address (4.00 / 1)

the substance of the issue, and instead to constantly question everyone's motives, integrity, etc., is why Blue Virginia has banned him from participating here. It's really a shame, because Mark is a diehard Dem, but the bottom line is that he refused to follow BV rules after being warned. Why did he refuse to respond to the substance? I think it's for a very simple reason: there IS no substantive, serious response in the case of Brian Moran's employment by the scam/ripoff "college" industry, especially at the same time he serves as DPVA chair. To the contrary, Brian's behavior is utterly inexcusable and indefensible, which is why almost nobody has tried to do so. The real question is, who are these diehard, dead-ender Brian Moran supporters, and why do they do it?!? I mean, I know a LOT of 2009 Brian Moran supporters - including several who even worked on his freakin' campaign!!! -- who are utterly disgusted with him at this point, would never support him/work for him again, just wish he'd go away, etc.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 15:19:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm reposting JC's excellent comment here (0.00 / 0)

since it got "hidden" because it was in reply to Mark's comments that were troll-rated into oblivion.

Mark, the letter/e-mail is signed (3.50 / 2) [delete comment]

If you doubt the veracity of the e-mail/letter, then you can contact the signatories.  It's not an anonymous attack: at least two people signed it.  As for how Lowell got it, well its pretty obvious someone leaked it.  The identity of the leaker is less important than the identity of the people who signed the letter: if they stand by what is written in the letter than I see nothing wrong with reposting it.  It is the sort of letter that is written and deliberately leaked all the time.

That being said, I do agree with you about the combativeness.  Can we all try to remember that the vast majority of us on this site are Democrats and Progressives and that we are all on the same side?

All too often of late I've noticed people using the comment ratings to punish comments they simply disagree with, comments that weren't especially abusive or trollish, but simply disagreed with the rater's opinion.  Troll-rating someone simply because you disagree with them is a kind of censorship.  Because this site doesn't seem to have any kind of mechanism to deal with abuse of the troll-rating, I'd suggest that folks apply a bit more care when using it.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 15:21:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]