Hey, there! Log in / Register
For-profit schools say they have the right to contact prospective students as many times as they want, so they sue Martha Coakley
By adamg on Fri, 09/26/2014 - 9:20pm
A trade association of for-profit career schools in Massachusetts is suing Attorney General Martha Coakley, saying her attempts to regulate them violate their First Amendment rights and federal regulations and are a just a confusing mish-mash of nonsense they say does nothing to protect students, whom they say already enjoy bountiful legal protection by the Federal Trade Commission, among others.
In its lawsuit, filed this week in US District Court in Boston, the Massachusetts Association of Private Career Schools wants a judge to toss regulations put into place by Coakley's office. The association cites as an example a Coakley regulation that bars a school from "initiating communication with a prospective student” more than twice in seven days:
This blanket restraint is in no way tailored to deceptive or unfair conduct. The restraint further fails to recognize that prospective students often need information regarding their program that is communicated in several conversations that may, of necessity, occur within seven days. This blanket prohibition on lawful speech violates the Free Speech guarantees of the Constitution of the United States.
The association says Coakley would make liars out of the schools, and again violate their First Amendment rights, by telling students which other schools have signed agreements to accept any credits from their current schools, when schools sometimes will accept credits even without an agreement.
The group wants a judge to toss the regulations and award them appropriate damages and lawyers' fees.
Topics:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 MAPCS complaint | 222.77 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Mish-mash
The "initiating contact more than twice in a week" thing would be very easily avoided by the recruiter saying "If you have any questions, call me." Or even explaining why the student should make the call, because the rule says the recruiter can't. It seems pretty clear that the rule is designed to limit bombardment of students with marketing calls. The school's "1st Amendment rights" aren't being violated by this. They can say everything they want to say within their two calls.
The other thing is the sort of ridiculous argument you get when lawyers are fully-funded to push a weak case. "Make liars out of the schools"? Come on. Again, all the school rep has to say is that their school will accept those credits with or without a signed agreement. They could even, you know, put it in writing. With a signature.
I'm not a fan of Coakley, but this is corporate BS.
Why does the AG have the
Why does the AG have the "authority" to regulate something like this? Isn't writing law the legislature's job?
Laws vs. Regulations
I can't cite the specific law that gives the AG the authority to make this particular regulation. But, in general it works like this. The legislature passes a law that gives state agencies the authority to create regulations that apply in certain areas with certain boundaries.
For example, there's no law that specifies what kind of pants prisoners can wear. However, there is a law that allows the department of correction to create regulations around prisoners (Chapter 24). And, the department of correction has decided to specify that prisoners only be allowed to have blue or black pants (See 103CMR, Section 403.10, 8a).
Similarly, the Department of Industrial Accidents has a regulation that any workplace that is a "self-insurer" must submit a list of the company's assets. And, the Department of Education regulates that agricultural schools must not duplicate the programs of vocational schools within 20 miles. The "Department of Recreational Tramways" has a regulation that ski areas must keep a log of when their ski lifts are inspected. There's like a million more examples like this. None of these are laws per se, but laws exist that allow for them.
So what state legislation
So what state legislation enables Coakley to regulate private schools from soliciting potential students? I doubt there is one.
here you go
Here you go:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter93A/Sect...
I think this would be as
I think this would be as legal as the "Do Not Call" laws. Don't know why it wouldn't be.
There's an election.
So, Martha's trying really, really hard. But, even if there's a law, if it's found unconstitutional, then the law, as well as the regs, get thrown out, right?
my favorite part
My favorite part was this:
71. Second, the Regulations unlawfully compel Career Schools to make non-factual
disclosures voicing the Attorney-General’s opinion, such as “[f]ailure to repay student loans is likely to have a serious negative effect on your credit, future earnings, and your ability to obtain future student loans.” (940 Mass. Code Regs. 31.05 (3)(a).)
What part of that is non-factual? Defaulting on your student loans will absolutely have a negative effect on your credit and your ability to obtain future loans. Your earnings are likely to be reduced through garnishment of your wages and tax refunds.
pooooor predatory fake colleges
They don't want to have to provide a list of schools that accept their credits because they know no reputable ones do. In a time when even legitimate colleges are offering questionable debt-to-benefit value, it is absurd that anyone should worry about the rights of these life-ruining vultures.