GIVE US YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR SCANDINAVIANS.

TRUMP ONLY WANTS SOME IMMIGRANTS•SHOULD WE CLOSE OUR DOORS TO THE REST OF THE WORLD?

AMERICAN WOMEN DON'T HAVE ENOUGH BABIES TO SUSTAIN THE POPULATION.

WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO ENCOURAGE MORE BIRTHS?

AND GOOD MONEY IF YOU CAN GET IT.

WHY SHOULD TAXPAYERS FOOT THE BILL FOR FAILED COLLEGE COACHES?

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED THIS WEEK BY NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, LISA DOLAK FROM THE COLLEGE OF LAW AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, CHAD SPARBER FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, AND TARA ROSS FROM ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SUSPENDED GREEN CARD AND CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS FROM 19 COUNTRIES.

HE'S ESSENTIALLY SHUT DOWN THE ENTIRE REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM.

HE WOULD LIKE MORE IMMIGRANTS FROM DENMARK AND NORWAY, BUT CERTAINLY NOT SOMALIA AND OTHER POOR COUNTRIES.

WHILE THE U.S.

IS UNDENIABLY A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS, SHOULD WE PRIORITIZE CERTAIN COUNTRIES FOR IMMIGRATION, WHILE NOT COMPLETELY EXCLUDING OTHERS?

>> NO, WE SHOULD NOT.

WE TRIED THAT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS IN AMERICA WHERE WE PRIORITIZED PEOPLE PARTICULARLY FROM NORTHERN AND WESTERN EUROPE.

AND ALTHOUGH IN THOSE DAYS IT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY STATED, IT WAS ABOUT RACISM AND ETHNO-CENTRISM, IT WAS ABOUT RACISM AND ETHNO-CENTRISM.

WE WANTED PEOPLE WHO WANTED AMERICANS WHO LOOKED LIKE THE MARKET OF AMERICANS WHO WERE ALREADY HERE.

WE WANTED PEOPLE WHO WE PRESUMED WOULD AUTOMATICALLY ASSIMILATE AND HAVE AN EASIER TIME OF BEING QUOTE UNQUOTE AMERICANIZED.

YET THE PROBLEM IS WE DEPEND VERY HEAVILY ON PEOPLE FROM THOSE NON-NORTHERN AND WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

WE DID THEN TO A CERTAIN EXTENT AND WE STILL DO NOW.

, FOR MANY OF THE JOBS IN AMERICA THAT AMERICANS DON'T WANT TO TABLING, HAVE BEEN SOCIALIZED TO THINK ARE BENEATH THEM OR SIMPLY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN.

>> BUT SOME PEOPLE DO ASSIMILATE FROM SOME CULTURES MORE EASILY THAN OTHERS BECAUSE THEY'RE WESTERN.

IS THAT NOT SOMETHING WE SHOULD TRY TO MAKE WORK?

>> I THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASSIMILATION AND INTEGRATION.

IN OTHER WORDS, I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT ASSIMILATION IMPLIES THAT THERE HAS TO BE SORT OF CULTURAL HOMOGENEITY.

THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS INTERESTED IN ALONG WITH PROBABLY JUST NAKED RACISM, BUT INTEGRATION, I THINK, IS WHAT IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, NECESSARY.

YES, YOU NEED SOME LEVEL OF CIVIC COHESION.

YOU NEED SOME LEVEL OF INTEGRATION IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC FUNCTIONING OF THE COUNTRY, PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER AND GO TO SCHOOL TOGETHER AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT WE DON'T NEED TO BE CULTURALLY HOMOGENAIS.

WE ARE BEING COUNTERACTIVE.

WE SAY WE WANT ASSIMILATION BUT WE FORCE PEOPLE INTO THE CORNERS, INTO THE SHADOWS, RIGHT, BECAUSE STICKERLY NOW, RIGHT, WHEN YOU'VE GOT ICE OUT HUNTING PEOPLE, THEY'RE LITERALLY BEING FORCED INTO THE SHADOWS.

BUT WHAT YOU NEED IS OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GET FROM, YOU KNOW, ENCLAVES, IT'S NATURAL FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE FROM THE SAME PLACE WHO WANT TO LIVE TOGETHER.

THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN TRUE IN THIS COUNTRY.

THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET TO WORK, TO GET TO SCHOOL.

IT'S ABOUT OPPORTUNITY AND INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY TRANSIT AND NON-DISCRIMINATION AND JOBS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> I THINK FUNDAMENTALLY WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE, AS A COUNTRY THIS, WE HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN: WHAT IS OUR IMMIGRATION POLICY ABOUT?

IS IT ABOUT THE IMMIGRANT AND, AS LISA SAID, PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY.

AND AS YOU POINTED OUT, TARA, NOT BEING NATIVIST IN THE PROCESS?

OR IS IT ABOUT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY.

AND I EMPHASIZE THE TERM HERE THAT I WANT TO STRESS HERE IS PRIMARILY.

IS IT PRIMARILY ABOUT IMMIGRANTS OR IS IT PRIMARILY ABOUT IMMIGRATION.

DURING THE TIME YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THE QUOTA CONTROL ACT OF 1924, THAT WAS PRESUMABLY, YES, ON THE SURFACE, IT WAS DEFINITELY RACIST BUT IT WAS ALSO ARGUED AS HAVING TO DO WITH THE COUNTRY, RIGHT?

BECAUSE YOU HAD THE QUALITATIVE CONTROLS, MAKING SURE PEOPLE HAD GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND THAT THEY WERE HEALTHY.

AND THE 1965 ACT CHANGED THAT.

IT WAS PRIMARILY ABOUT IMMIGRANTS AND FAMILY REUNIFICATION.

AND NOW WE ARE HAVING TO ASK, WHAT ARE OUR PRIMARY CONCERNS?

AND WE ARE GENERALLY GOING BACK TO WHAT YOU SAID DAVID, AT THE TOP.

ARE WE STILL WITH THE STATUE OF LIBERTY.

BRING US YOUR HUNGRY, TIRED AND POOR OR ARE WE AT THE POINT OF JUST GIVE US YOUR SKILLED AND POSSIBLY YOUR WHITE EUROPEANS?

>> IS THERE SOME MIDDLE GROUND THERE, CHAD?

>> YEAH, LIKE WHAT EVERYBODY SAID, YEAH, I THINK THE 1920S LAW WAS MORE ABOUT KEEPING CATHOLICS OUT OF THE COUNTRY THAN A RACE-BASED KIND OF THING.

>> SOUTHERN EUROPEAN.

>> AND EASTERN.

BUT TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT PERT.

COUNTRY-BASED PREFERENCES EXIST IN A LOT OF CONTEXT, NOT ALL OF WHICH ARE RACIST.

IF YOU WERE TO BORROW SOME LANGUAGE FROM THE UNITED NATIONS ON REFUGEE ISSUES THEY TALK ABOUT RESETTLEMENT AS A PROCESS THAT RESULTS IN THIRD COUNTRY SOLUTION FOR REFUGEES WHO HAVE NO OPTION TO INTEGRATE LOCALLY OR TO RETURN TO THEIR HOME COUNTRIES.

AND YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THAT, THAT THE PRIMARY GOALS ARE REPATRIATION OR ASSIMILATION OR INTEGRATION, IF YOU LIKE.

AND TO BE SUCCESSFUL THAT REGARD AS YOU ALLUDED TO, A LOT OF TIMES MEANS PLACING REFUGEES IN COUNTRIES THAT ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY OR CULTURALLY CLOSE TO HOME.

SO WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS CONTEXT, MOST OF THE 19 COUNTRIES ON TRUMP'S HIGH RISK LIST, THAT'S MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, VENEZUELA, COLOMBIA, CHILE, HAITI, MAYBE QUEBEC BECAUSE AT LEAST IT'S FRENCH SPEAKING.

MAYBE IT IS ALL ABOUT RACISM, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE ABOUT WHAT TRUMP'S TRUE MOTIVES ARE BUT REALLY TO RAISE THE POINT THERE ARE SOME CASES IN WHICH YOU COULD ARGUE ON NON-RACIST GROUNDS THAT COUNTRY PREFERENCES ARE SENSIBLE.

>> WELL, SRTLY CERTAINLY HE IS ARGUING BASED ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND THAT'S WHY HE HAS CHOSEN THESE 19 COUNTRIES AND THROWN IN A FEW THAT HE PROBABLY WOULDN'T THROW IN WERE IT NOT FOR THE COVER THAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE IT ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY.

HOWEVER, ARTICLE 1 INVESTS IN CONGRESS THE POWER TO SET THE RULES FOR NATURALIZATION AND SO WHILE THE PRESIDENT HAS BROAD POWERS WHEN IT COMES TO NATIONAL SECURITY, WHEN IT COMES TO DECIDING WHO GETS TO COME INTO THE COUNTRY AND WHO DOESN'T, THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T GIVE THAT TO ONE PERSON.

>> AND IN TERMS OF CONGRESS WRITING A LAW ABOUT NATURALIZATION AND IMMIGRATION, THEY FAILED MISERABLY FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS.

>> YEAH, I MEAN CONGRESS, ON THIS ISSUE IN PARTICULAR, RIGHT?

CONGRESS IS MISSING IN ACTION ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING NOW, BUT IT'S BEEN MISSING IN ACTION A LONG TIME ON THIS.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S DEFINITELY A POLITICAL HOT BUTTON, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

THE THING I CAN'T GET AWAY FROM IS THAT WE ARE UNDENIABLY A COUNTRY OF IMMIGRANTS AND IT HAS UNDENIABLY BEEN A TREMENDOUS STRENGTH FOR THIS COUNTRY.

AND YOU KNOW, BESIDE THAT, ALMOST ALL OF US-- ALL OF US ARE BORN OF I AM GRANTS,-- IMMIGRANTS, DESCENDED FROM IMMIGRANTS.

I HAVE ISSUES WITH THIS ON MORAL AND ECONOMIC GROUNDS.

I BELIEVE WE ARE A RICHER, STRONGER, YOU KNOW, MORE VITAL COUNTRY, BECAUSE OF IMMIGRATION.

>> AND JUST TO MAKE ONE DISTINCTION THAT I DO THINK IS IMPORTANT.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REFUGEES COMING IN THROUGH THE REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM WHICH HAS BEEN VITAL TO PLACES LIKE UTICA AND SYRACUSE, OPPOSED TO IMMIGRATION IN GENERAL.

>> OF COURSE.

THERE HAS TO BE CONTROL OVER THE BORDERS.

YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY IF YOU DON'T HAVE BORDERS.

>> BUT TO LISA'S POINT, THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF IMMIGRATION, WHETHER YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT REFUGEES, ECONOMIC IMMIGRANTS, LOW SKILLED OR HIGH SKILLED WORK RS.

TO BE FAIR TO TRUMP, ON THE HIGH SKILLED END, HE IS DOING SOME THINGS THAT ARE ECONOMICALLY SENSIBLE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPUBLICAN BASE, YOU HAVE THE POP LIFT WING LIKE MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE ET CETERA WHO WANT TO KILL THE H-1B PROGRAM, FOR REFERENCE, THAT'S THE CHANNEL THAT ALLOWS HIGH SKILLED WORKERS TO COME INTO THE COUNTRY.

TRUMP DOESN'T WANT TO KILL THAT.

HE WANTS TO CHANGE IT SO THAT IT'S MORE SELECTIVE TOWARD THE HIGHEST OF THE SKILLED WORKERS, WHICH IS AN INTERESTING APPROACH.

AND HE IS TAKING HEAT FROM IT.

>> HE HAS TAKEN HEAT FOR THAT.

FAR FROM THE POPULATION BOMB THAT WAS PREDICTED 50 YEARS AGO, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON EARTH IS NOW EXPECTED TO SOON BEGIN A RAPID DECLINE.

IN THE U.S, THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN BORN TO EACH WOMAN HAS FALLEN TO AN AVERAGE OF ONE 1.6, WELL BELOW REPLACEMENT LEVEL.

THE TRUMP PRESIDENT VANCE- WANTS AMERICANS TO HAVE MORE BABIES.

PRO-NATALIST POLICIES HAVE PRODUCED MIXED RESULTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES•SHOULD U.S.

POLICY ENCOURAGE OR INCENTIVIZE MORE BIRTHS?

>> I MEAN, SURE.

IF WE ARE HAVING SOME POPULATION EROSION AND WE WANT TO REMAIN A VITAL COUNTRY, THEN, YES, WE SHOULD ADDRESS TRENDS THAT CUT AGAINST THAT.

HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, AGAIN, TO TALK ABOUT THE MOTIVES OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, YES, THE U.S.

BIRTH RATE IS DECLINING OVER ALL AND DECLINING GLOBALLY BUT PRIMARILY IN THE U.S.

IT'S WHITE WOMEN WHOSE BIRTH RATES ARE FALLING AND THE BIRTH RATE IS HIGHER FOR AILEEN OWE WOMEN-- FOR LATINO WOMEN.

AND THE KINDS OF POLICIES THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS PUSHING ARE A BIT GIMMICKY, NOT ONLY THE ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS CREDIT, WHICH BY THE WAY WILL GO TO WALL STREET, RIGHT?

BUT ALSO THERE IS TALK OF GIVING MORE FUNDING TO COMMUNITIES WHERE THERE IS A HIGHER MARRIAGE AND BIRTH RATE AND THEN POSSIBLY AWARDS TO WOMEN WHO HAVE SIX OR MORE CHILDREN.

THEY'RE GIMMICKY BUT LEAST THEY'RE PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS.

THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS WORKING ACROSS PURPOSES.

ON ONE HAND IT'S PROMOTING MORE CHILDREN, BIGGER FAMILIES.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS UNDERCUTTING THE KINDS OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES THAT ARE NEEDED TO SUSTAIN FAMILIES.

MEDICAID CUTS TO HEAD START, EVEN THE CUTS TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD, WHICH, BY THE WAY, PROVIDES PRENATAL CARE AS WELL AS CUTS TO HEALTHCARE.

I MEAN IT JUST HAPPENED THIS WEEK.

AND SO YOU NEED SOME SORT OF HEALTHCARE.

YOU NEED MEDICAL RESOURCES TO HAVE A BABY.

>> IT'S EXPENSIVE TO RAISE CHILDREN, RIGHT?

AND ISN'T THAT A BIG COST HERE, A BIG FACTOR IN THE LOWER BIRTH RATE, >> THIS IS CONNECTING BACK TO OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.

>> I THOUGHT WERE YOU GOING TO SAY CROSS PURPOSES.

HAVE MORE BABIES BUT KEEP THE IMMIGRANTS OUT.

WE NEED MORE WORKERS SO HAVE MORE BABIES WHO WON'T BE WORKERS FOR TWO DECADES MINIMUM BUT KEEP THE IMMIGRANTS.

>> IT IS DEEPER THAN THIS.

A RESEARCH BY DELIA FURTADO, AN ECONOMIST AT UCONN, THERE IS A CORRELATION BETWEEN FEMALE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION AND CHILD BIRTH.

AND IT TURNS OUT THAT YOU CAN WEAKEN THAT CORRELATION BY ALLOWING MORE IMMIGRANTS IN BECAUSE THE IMMIGRANTS REDUCE THE PRICE FOR CHILD CARE SERVICES, CLEANING SERVICES, FOOD PREPARATION SERVICES AND SO WITH MORE IMMIGRANTS, YOU ACTUALLY CREATE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR AMERICAN WOMEN TO BOTH WORK AND HAVE CHILDREN AT THE SAME TIME.

IS BUT I GOT TO SAY, I DON'T THINK THIS IS AN ECONOMIC ISSUE.

I THINK THIS IS A CULTURAL ISSUE THAT PEOPLE DESIRE TO HAVE FEWER KIDS AND SPEND MORE TIME WITH THEM AND TIME IS SCARCE.

THAT THERE IS CHANGING NORMS LIKE EVERY CHILD HAS TO HAVE THEIR OWN BEDROOM AS OPPOSED TO SHARE IS BEDROOMS.

AND THEN PESSIMISM ABOUT THE FUTURE.

I MEAN YOU LOOK 9/11, TWO-THIRDS OF AMERICANS THOUGHT THIS COUNTRY WAS HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND OVER THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS, IT PLUMMETED TO 24% WHERE IT HAS STAYED STAGNANT EVER SINCE.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE HOPE IN THE FUTURE, WHY WOULD YOU HAVE KIDS?

THAT IS NOT ECONOMIC.

IT'S CULTURAL.

>> IT COULD BE EXCEPT IT'S THE LEAST ECONOMICALLY STRONG POPULATIONS THAT ARE HAVING MORE CHILDREN.

AND TO YOUR POINT, LISA, ABOUT MORE I AM GRAIGHTS-- IMMIGRATION, IT'S ACTUALLY FOREIGN BORN CITIZENS WHO ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE CHILDREN THAN NOT.

IF I COULD SAY ONE OTHER THING.

OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE LOOKED TO GOVERNMENT TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE WOMEN TO HAVE MORE CHERN.

AND IT REALLY HASN'T WORKED.

ISRAEL HAS PROVIDED FUND LITTLE FOR IVF AND ALSO DENMARK AND SWEDEN HAVE GOT VERY LIBERAL PATERNAL AND MATERNAL LEAVE PROGRAMS AND THEIR BIRTH RATES HAVE NOT TURNED AROUND.

>> AND I GOT TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THIS.

IT IS AN ECONOMIC ISSUE IN TWO RESPECTS.

IT'S ALSO A VALUES OR CULTURAL ISSUE.

BUT IT'S AN ECONOMIC ISSUE IN THE SENSE THAT WE NEED WORKERS TO PROP UP THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND WE NEED PEOPLE IN THE JOBS.

IT'S ALSO, YOU SAY HOPELESSNESS.

A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE ECONOMIC RISK ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING CHILDREN.

A THOUSAND DOLLARS IS GOING TO GET YOU NOWHERE.

NOWHERE IN TERMS OF THE COST OF HOUSING CHILD CARE.

WHERE AT A TIPPING POINT ON CHILD CARE.

THERE IS NO WAY PEOPLE HIVE PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD IT IT'S GONE UP SO MUCH.

>> AND THE SILLINESS OF TRUMP'S PROPOSALS THAT IT DOESN'T PAY OFF FOR 18 TO 20 YEARS.

A BETTER PROPOSAL WAS MITT ROMNEY MICHAEL BENNETT PROPOSAL TO GIVE UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME TO KIDS BUT STILL IT'S NOT THE PRICE OF RAISING CHILDREN THAT IS DISCOURAGING PEOPLE BUT REALLY CULTURAL SHIFTS.

>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRUMP'S IDEAS AND THE THOUSAND DOLLARS, THIS IS THE PROPOSAL FOR THE TRUMP ACCOUNTS, THAT-- >> THE ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT -- I MEAN HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO PUT THE OTHER 4,000 IN AND HOW MANY HAVE EMPLOYERS WHO ARE GOING TO MATCH THOSE MONIES?

SO IT'S SORT OF GEARED AS TARA SAID, THE MORE WELL TO DO.

>> WHEN BRIAN KELLY GOT FIRED AS THE L-S-U FOOTBALL COACH, HE WALKED AWAY WITH A BUYOUT WORTH 54 MILLION DOLLARS.

JAMES FRANKLIN'S CONTRACT BUYOUT AT PENN STATE WAS 49 MILLION DOLLARS.

AT FLORIDA, BILLY NAPIER ONLY GOT 21 MILLION, POOR GUY.

THESE SEVERANCE PACKAGES ARE PAID BY UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS BEING GENEROUSLY FUNDED BY TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATIONS.

SCHOOLS ALSO BRING IN HUGE SUMS FROM TAX-EXEMPT CONFERENCES AND THE NCAA.

CHAD, SHOULD TAXPAYERS BE ON THE HOOK?

SHOULD THESE EXEMPTIONS BE REVOKED?

>> I THINK GETTING RID OF THE TAX EXEMPTION IN THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU A MORAL RIGHTEOUSNESS BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S THE TOOL TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM AT HAND.

CAMPAIGNS, WHETHER THEY'RE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS OR CAMPAIGN FOR A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, KIND OF HAVE HALLMARKS OF WHAT ECONOMISTS WOULD CALL SEQUENTIAL ALL BID AUCTIONS.

THAT'S THEY'RE REALLY PRONE TO OVERBIDDING.

IN ENGLISH TERMS, CAMPAIGNS SPEND TOO MUCH.

THE SOLUTION FOR THAT KIND OF THING IS TO MAKE BIDDING NON-SEQUENTIAL.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HIRING COACHES, MAKE THE WINDOW IN WHICH A COACH CAN BE HIRED VERY NARROW.

MAKE IT LIMITED TO THE POST SEASON.

AND FORCE SCHOOLS AND COACHES TO HONOR THEIR CONTRACTS THROUGH THE COMPLETION OF THE SEASON.

THAT GIVES THE ADDED BENEFIT OF ACTUALLY PRESERVING THE IDEA THAT TEAM IS FIRST HERE.

SO THERE ARE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM THAT YOU IDENTIFIED, AGAIN I DON'T THINK THAT REMOVING TAX EXEMPTION SOLVES THAT PROBLEM.

IT JUST MAKES YOU FEEL GOOD.

>> THERE HAS BEEN A BILL INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE TO LIMIT COACHES SALARIES: IS THAT A GOOD IDEA?

>> WELL, IT WOULD LIMIT COACHES SALARIES CONDITION ON YOUR RECEIVING TITLE 4 EDUCATIONAL FUNDS.

SO IT IS LINKED LIKE THAT.

I WOULD GO FURTHER.

I THINK THESE NUMBERS ARE OBSCENE.

I THINK THE IDEA THAT THIS IS PART OF AN EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISE NOW IS JUST RIDICULOUS.

SO I WOULD BE ALL IN ON LIMITING TAX DEDUCTIBILITY.

YOU COULD SET A CEILING ON COACH'S SALARIES.

5 MILLION, 10 MILLION, DONORS CAN DONATE, THEY JUST CAN'T DEDUCT THE FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR CHARITABLE DEDUCTION.

THAT, TO ME, SEEMS LIKE AN EASY THING TO DO.

>> I WONDER WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE BIG DEEP POCKETED DONORS THAT LOVE TO THROW TONS OF MONEY AT THEIR ALMA MATER FOOTBALL TEAMS, WHETHER THAT WOULD CONTINUE WITHOUT A TAX DEDUCTION?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD DISCONTINUE COMPLETELY.

WHAT I THINK WOULD HAPPEN IS WHAT OFTEN HAPPENS WHEN YOU CHANGE A LAW OR COME UP WITH A LAW TO TRY TO REGULATE SOMETHING, THEY WILL TRY TO FIND A WAY AROUND IT.

THEY WILL FIGURE OUT SOMETHING ELSE THEY CAN DONATE TO THE PROGRAM OR TO THE SCHOOL, WHICH BASICALLY GIVES THEM THAT INFLUENCE THAT THEY WANT OVER THE TEAM SO THAT THEY GET THE CERTAIN COACH, ET CETERA.

SO THEY WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY.

BUT ONE OF THE IDEAS THAT I LIKED WAS THIS NOTION OF A COACH'S SALARY BEING LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT THAT FULL-YEAR TUITION IS.

YOU CAN'T PAY A COACH MORE THAN THAT.

THAT TO BE, MORE INTERESTING BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD REALLY LEARN WHETHER THE COACH IS ABOUT THE SCHOOL AND THE TEAM FIRST OR WHETHER THE COACH IS ABOUT HIMSELF AT THIS POINT FIRST.

>> SO LIKE ULTIMATELY, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THIS IS REALLY SOLVING ANYTHING.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A BUYOUT FOR $54 MILLION.

THE TAX EXEMPTION, YOU KNOW, THE DONOR IS GOING TO PAY THAT, TOO, TO COVER THAT.

I DO WORRY THAT REMOVING THE TAX EXEMPTION WOULD HURT SMALLER PROGRAMS AND DISCOURAGE INVESTMENTS IN FACILITIES AND THINGS THAT CAN BENEFIT THE STUDENT BODY AT LARGE.

CAPS?

I'M KIND OF OKAY WITH CAPS EXCEPT AGAIN I THINK PEOPLE GET AROUND IT.

THERE IS A REALLY CUTE STORY ABOUT LEONARD IN THE NBA ABOUT GETTING MONEY MORE AN ENDORSEMENT HE NEVER DID TO GET AROUND A SALARY CAP ISSUE.

FUNDAMENTALLY, IF THE PROBLEM IS THE MASSIVE BUYOUTS FOR COACHES WHO ABANDON THEIR TEAMS BEFORE THE PLAYOFFS ACTUALLY OCCUR, AGAIN, I THINK THE SOLUTION IS NARROW THE WINDOW THAT YOU CAN HIRE AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY COMPLETE THEIR CONTRACT-- >> THEY DON'T WANT THEM TO COMPLETE THE CONTRACT BECAUSE THEIR TEAMS ARE NOT WINNING.

>> YOU MAKE THAT THE RULE.

>> I DISAGREE THAT'S EVEN THE PROBLEM.

THAT MAY BE A PROBLEM.

THIS IS A PROBLEM.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT TAXPAYERS ARE SUBSIDIZING THESE SALARIES AND SO IS THE STUDENT BODY, BY THE WAY, AT MOST SCHOOLS.

IT'S ONLY AT THE ELITE CERTAIN FLAGSHIP FOOTBALL PROGRAMS THAT THEY ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, THAT THE REVENUE ACTUALLY EXCEEDS THE EXPENSES LEER.

AND-- HERE AND I KNOW THIS NOTION ABOUT SUCCESSFUL FOOTBALL PROGRAMS HAVING A FOOTBALL PROGRAM EVEN IF IT IS NOT ALL THAT SUCCESSFUL, ENCOURAGES ENROLLMENT AND OTHER DONATIONS BUT THE EVIDENCE THERE IS QUITE MIXED AND QUITE LIMITED.

>> I GET THE PLAN ON EQUITY CONCERNS, BUT AS A SPORTS FAN AND PRESERVING THIS MODEL THAT WE LIKE, AMATEUR ATHLETICS AND BUILDING UP TEAMS AND TEACHING YOUNG PEOPLE HOW TO DO, TO WORK TOGETHER FOR THE COMMON GOOD AND STUFF LIKE THAT, THIS SOLVES NOTHING.

>> I'M A HUGE SPORTS FAN, COLLEGE SPORTS FAN BUT I DO WONDER, NINA, WHETHER SOME SCHOOL OUGHT TO JUST GET THE GUTS TO SAY WE ARE DONE.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO DID IT >> MY ALMA MATER, YES, ANYTHING MY ALMA MATER DOES IS WONDERFUL.

BUT HAVE I TO TELL YOU I DON'T WONDER ABOUT THIS AND I DIDN'T START THINKING ABOUT IT UNTIL LITERALLY FIVE MINUTES AGO.

THAT'S THE ONLY BECAUSE LISA MIGHT BE PERSUADING ME TO START TO THINK THERE MIGHT POSSIBLY, ON AN OFF CHANCE, BE A PROBLEM HERE?

OTHERWISE I REALLY DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM.

I MEAN TAXPAYERS ARE ON THE HOOK FOR SO MUCH OTHER JUNK, AND IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, I WONDER IF HAVING OUTSIDE MONEY FROM DONORS WOULD ENABLE UNIVERSITIES TO REALLOCATE THOSE MONIES TO ATHLETIC PROGRAMS AND OTHER KINDS OF PROGRAMS THAT CHAD TALKED ABOUT.

BUT OTHERWISE, AS I SAID, I'M JUST-- I GUESS I'M NOT VESTED ENOUGH IN THIS TO SEE WHAT THE BIG DEAL IS >> F YOU WATCHED THE PROGRAM A COUPLE WEEKS AGO-AND IF YOU STUCK AROUND UNTIL THE END-YOU HEARD ME ANNOUNCE I WOULD BE LEAVING IVORY TOWER.

TONIGHT, IS MY LAST REGULAR SHOW.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING OVER THESE PAST NINE YEARS.

I AM VERY HAPPY THE SHOW WILL CONTINUE IN JANUARY UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF LONG-TIME PANELIST, NINA MOORE.

THANK YOU, NINA, FOR AGREEING TO TAKE IT ON.

NOW LET'S TAKE ON AS AND FS AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH FS AND I'VE FORGOTTEN WHO THE FIRST F IS.

>> THANK YOU, DAVE FOR ALL OF YOUR LEADERSHIP AT THE TABLE.

IT'S VERY MUCH APPRECIATED AND YOU WILL BE MISSED.

TO MY F, ROB REINER, THE LATE ROB REINER MADE HUGE CULTURAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COUNTRY BUT WAS TRAGICALLY MURDER ADD LONG THIS WEEK ALONG WITH HIS WIFE AND POSSIBLY AT THE HANDS OF THEIR SON.

THE RESPONSE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TO DISPARAGE THE VICTIM OF THIS TRAGEDY, SAYING ROB REINER SUFFERED FROM TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME AND WAS KNOWN FOR DRIVING PEOPLE CRAZY DUE TO A RAGING OBSESSION WITH HIM.

WITH ALL THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS INDEED ACCOMPLISHED ON THE FOREIGN POLICY FRONT, SOMETIMES IT IS TRULY PAINFUL TO WATCH WHAT HE DOES ON HIS OWN HOME FRONT.

>> LISA.

>> MY F GOES TO MEMBERS OF FINLAND'S FINNS PARTY WHO POSTED SLANTED EYE SELFIES ON SOCIAL MEDIA, OPENLY MIMICKING ASIAN FEATURES AFTER MISFINLAND LOST HER CROWN OVER THE SAME GESTURE.

THEY HAVE BEEN FORCED TO APOLOGIZE TO JAPAN CHINA AND KOREA AND TRIGGERED A BACKLASH ON ASIAN MARKETS.

PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE RAISING THEIR STANDARDS IN THE WORLD NOT UNDERMINING WITH CONDUCT THAT DEMEANS PEOPLE AND EMBARRASSES THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT.

>> CHAD.

>> MY F GOES TO GOVERNOR HOCHUL FOR MARKING THIS ADVENT SEASON BY ANNOUNCING SHE WILL SIGN NEW YORK'S ASSISTED ACCESS-A-RIDE BILL AND SHE WAS MOTIVATED BY THE SUFFERING HER MOTHER SUFFERED SUFFERING FROM A.L.S.

BUT THIS VALUES EXPEDIENCY OVER HUMAN LIFE.

IN CANADA ONE OUT OF FIVE DEATH IS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO GOVERNMENT ASSISTED SUICIDE.

>> MY F GOES TO THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE MEDIA STAFF FOR CHANGING THE WHITE HOUSE WEB PAGE TO INCLUDE A PAGE WHICH NOW CALLS OUT ANY MEDIA OUTLET WHICH DISAGREES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OR WITH WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION TAKES ISSUE.

WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY CONTEXT, THE MEDIA OUTLETS AND THEIR STORIES ARE LABELED BIAS AND EXAMPLES OF LEFT WING LUNACY.

ACCURACY IS NEVER QUESTIONED.

>> AS.

NINA.

>> CONSERVATIVE SCHOLAR AND COMMENTATOR ROBERT GEORGE WROTE A COMPELLING OP-ED IN THE WASHINGTON POST IN WHICH HE NOTED THERE ARE DIFFERENCES AMONG CONSERVATIVES ON MANY THINGS.

BUT THOSE WHO ARE IN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT MUST DRAW A BRIGHT LINE BETWEEN THEM AND PEOPLE LIKE NICK WHO PROMOTE WHITE SUPREMACY, ANTI-SEMITISM MISOGYNY AND OTHER FORMS OF IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM AND BIGOTRY.

I'M NOT A CONSERVATIVE OR A LIBERAL BUT I DO KNOW THESE THINGS HAVE NO PLACE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE.

>> LISA.

>> MY A GOES TO CONSUMERS ENERGY IN COMMISSIONER GONE AND MILITARY LAURENED LAST YEAR TO BURY MOST FAILURE PRONE POWER LINES UNDERGROUND.

THOSE SECTIONS HAVE COME THROUGH SEVERE STORMS WITHOUT THE OUTAGES AND DAMAGES THAT HIT OVERHEAD HEADLINES.

THIS GIVES A CREDIBLE BASIS TO AUTHORIZE TARGETED UNDERGROUNDING.

>> MY A GOES TO DAVID, VIEWERS KNOW HE IS A GREAT MODERATOR.

YOU DON'T SEE THE BEHIND THE SCENES WORK.

HE HAS MENTORED ME IN MANY CONTEXTS AND COME TO MY CLASSROOM TO DO "IVORY TOWER" EXPERIENCE.

IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU, THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU.

TARA, YOUR A.

>> MY A IS ABOUT TO THE FINDINGS OF A RECENT AACU AND MORNING CONSULT POLL THAT SAYS 7 OUT OF 10 EMPLOYERS MAINTAIN THEIR CONFIDENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION.

EMPLOYERS EMPHASIZE THAT THEY WANT FUTURE EMPLOYEES TO HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF SKILLS, INCLUDING ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION AND CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND 81% OF THOSE EMPLOYERS SAID THAT THEY THINK THAT COLLEGE GRADUATES ARE THE BEST EMPLOYEES >> WHERE DID YOU GET THOSE PICTURES?

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, AND FOR ALL OF US AT "IVORY TOWER," HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪