Narrator: Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho public television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Melissa Davlin: The cost of living, student loan debt, and workforce readiness have dominated much of the political discourse over the last few years.

So where does that put the future of higher education in Idaho?

This week, Boise State University President Doctor Marlene Tromp joins me to discuss.

I'm Melissa Davlin.

Idaho Reports starts now.

Hello and welcome to Idaho Reports.

This week, constitutional law professor McKay Cunningham of College of Idaho joins me for a preview of next week's U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments regarding Idaho's abortion ban and how it applies in emergency rooms.

Then Boise State University President Doctor Marlene Tromp joins me to discuss the future of higher education in Idaho.

But first representative Sue Chew died on Wednesday at the age of 66.

Chew served in the House for 18 years, making her the longest serving Democrat and second longest serving current representative after speaker Mike Moyle.

She was a pharmacist by trade and an active member of the House Health and Welfare Committee, where she worked across the aisle on pharmacy legislation and other issues.

She was also known for her grassroots work, constantly reaching out to constituents, students, and marginalized members of the community, even outside of election years.

She rarely spoke on the House floor, saving her comments for issues she cared about deeply.

Like in 2014, when she encouraged her colleagues to add protections for sexual orientation and gender identity to the Idaho Human Rights Act.

Sue Chew: It's my hope, a very fervent hope, that these people who are different, but bleed as we all do, be heard and the four words be added.

So all of God's children are treated as equals, because in America, we all are.

Davlin: She was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer a few months ago, and sat out for the 2024 legislative session while undergoing treatment.

In late March, her colleagues in the House honored her by passing a resolution outlining her achievements and commitment to Idaho.

Ilana Rubel: I had the great honor of MC'ing a party for her a few weeks ago, before she ended up going to the ICU a few days later.

Our timing was good on that.

It was mind blowing.

Some of you I know were there.

Thank you so much.

We had about 300 people there.

You would not believe all of the facets of Idaho society that came out, who she had touched, who wanted to share what she had done for them.

People from the health care community and pharmacists, addiction recovery, juvenile corrections, higher education, judiciary, youth groups, Chinese Americans, the LGBTQ community, the disabilities community.

It's really incredible how this lady has gotten around and touched so many people who needed help in this state.

Davlin: On Thursday, Governor Brad Little ordered the flags at the statehouse to fly at half staff in honor of Chew.

Everyone at Idaho Reports sends our condolences to Chew's loved ones.

This week, the United States Supreme Court allowed Idaho's ban on gender affirming care for minors to go into effect, reversing a lower court's stay on the law as the case proceeds through district court.

The law prevents Idaho physicians from prescribing treatments like hormones and puberty blockers to patients younger than 18.

We'll have more on the ruling, as well as how it will impact patients in Idaho on next week's Idaho Reports podcast.

Watch for that on Wednesday.

You can listen and subscribe to the Idaho Reports podcast wherever you get your podcasts.

Also Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the state of Idaho versus the United States of America on whether Idaho has the right to create an abortion ban that may conflict with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or, EMTALA.

EMTALA is a federal law that applies to emergency rooms and hospitals that accept Medicaid and mandates that those facilities must provide treatment to stabilize patients in emergencies.

The United States argues that sometimes those treatments could include abortions.

The state of Idaho, represented by Attorney General Raul Labrador, argues that the state's abortion ban does not conflict with EMTALA as it allows physicians to perform abortions when the patient's life is in danger.

But not all stabilizing treatments are to prevent death.

Some are to improve the patient's health.

In January, the court lifted the stay on the law, allowing Idaho to fully enforce it.

Since then, St. Luke's has had to airlift patients with pregnancy complications to other states six times, according to Kelsey Mosley-Morris of States Newsroom.

That's compared to one time all of last year.

On Thursday, constitutional law professor McKay Cunningham with the College of Idaho joined me for a preview of next week's oral arguments.

Thanks for joining us.

Can you give us an idea based on the briefs that have already been filed?

What the arguments are going to be.

McKay Cunningham: The arguments are going to center around one central question, and it's a legal question.

And that is whether or not the federal law EMTALA, conflicts with Idaho's abortion statute.

And if there is a conflict with regard to one small portion of Idaho's abortion statute, then the Supremacy Clause, article six of the U.S. Constitution would say that one small portion of Idaho's abortion law is invalid.

And for those who aren't familiar, this department, Davlin: And for those who aren't familiar, the supremacy clause is, what is the supremacy Clause?

Cunningham: The Supremacy Clause is a clause that's been in the Constitution from the beginning, 1789, and it simply just provides that if there is a conflict between, either the US Constitution either the US Constitution or a federal statute or a federal statute and a state or local law, and a state or local law, then the federal law is supreme.

then the federal law is supreme and it's been applied countless times.

That's not really part of the question in front of the court.

The question really is, The question really is, is there, in fact, a conflict between the federal law and the state law?

Davlin: And there are two parallel issues here.

You know, medically, what physicians and experts say is sometimes necessary to stabilize a patient.

is sometimes necessary to stabilize a patient.

And constitutionally, you know, whether there is that conflict there.

Those two, you know, as you mentioned, aren't quite meshing.

Cunningham: Yeah.

Yeah, it kind of begs the question from medical providers point of view, can they comply with both laws?

can they comply with both laws or is it impossible?

Or is it impossible?

So if we could like, reduce it to an example, if you have a woman who is wheeled into the emergency room here in Idaho, into the emergency room here in Idaho, and you have a physician, I'm trying to treat this woman.

EMTALA, the federal statute says that the physician has an obligation to provide necessary stabilizing treatment necessary stabilizing treatment and the standard of care across the nation, in many instances, is to provide abortion care in certain instances, to provide that stabilizing treatment, of course, with consent of the patient.

But if they do so, they will be in conflict with the state statute, which says you cannot provide an abortion for stabilizing care.

The only time in this instance that you can provide an abortion is if it is to save the life of the woman.

Davlin: What legal questions, then, do you think the justices will be considering when they hear these two arguments from the state that says, we have the right to set our own policy versus the US Justice Department that brought this suit in the first place?

Cunningham: Looking at the briefings, one of the central arguments of the state of Idaho is that EMTALA does not conflict with our abortion statute.

EMTALA is really a statute, federal statute that says you can't, turn away a patient just because they're uninsured.

If they need emergency care and you take Medicare money, hospital, you have to treat that patient.

It has nothing to do with abortion.

That's not listed.

That word is not listed in the federal statute EMTALA.

And so there is no conflict.

It's, the state is also arguing, Idaho is also arguing that it's our decision.

And Idaho voters have voted in representatives who have created this abortion law.

And it's the state's prerogative to determine, when an abortion can and cannot happen in the state, federal government, get out.

Davlin: There's also the question, and I'm not sure if this is going to come up in court or if this is a more philosophical and medical question, but, philosophical and medical question, but, how easily can you call when a woman might die or will die when she is in the emergency room?

How do you define stabilization?

How do you say that this is necessary to stabilize the patient.

Cunningham: And that's a lovely question.

And I think medical providers are in the best position to make that decision.

And it kind of, it tees up a wonderful point because this is a legal argument.

But in order to determine the answer to that question, what's the differentiation between providing stabilizing treatment and providing treatment only if the life of the mother is clearly at risk.

What what's the differentiation between them?

if you ask medical providers, they say, yes, there's a clear, difference.

In fact, there were five amicus briefs filed in this US Supreme Court case that's pending right now.

And they're all from National medical associations, and they all uniformly say there's a big difference.

If a woman comes in to the emergency room and you delay giving her stabilizing care, all kinds of really bad things can happen medically, including amputation, including, kidney failure kidney failure, that that requires, that requires, permanent dialysis treatment, including permanent infertility, all those sorts of things.

So, if you ask doctors, typically the answer is, yeah, there's a big difference between providing stabilizing treatment and only providing treatment when it's clear that the that the life of the woman is in danger.

Davlin: Those are all terrible outcomes, but not necessarily life threatening.

If I am in a situation where I might need a hysterectomy, if I don't get that stabilizing treatment, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to die.

Do you think the justices will consider Do you think the justices will consider that medical opinion, or are they going to be looking strictly at whether these laws conflict?

Cunningham: That remains to be seen.

My inclination, and it's always risky to predict what the Supreme Court will do, but my inclination is that the conservative judges in particular, will really just focus on the law and whether or not they believe that EMTALA directly conflicts with Idaho's abortion statute.

And so, I don't know, I don't think that they will really take into, full consideration what the experiential, background is from women patients and from medical providers in making that decision.

Davlin: Because, again, those are two different questions.

The medical expertise and legally, whether those two things conflict.

They are, you know, different conversations.

conflict, they are, you know, different conversations.

Yes.

Cunningham: Yes.

Davlin: Regardless of what the decision is, how might it affect policy nationwide and state by state?

Yeah, this is interesting in the sense Cunningham: Yeah, this is interesting in the sense that when the court decided Dobbs, one of the biggest motivators, one of the biggest justifications, analysis wise, is, analysis wise, is, these decisions should be made by the states, right?

And not by the court.

But here the court is in the awkward position of doing the same thing that it tried to avoid in Dobbs, because it's going to make a decision in this case, and it will have the effect, not just in Idaho but across the nation.

So if the court decides that, EMTALA does in fact preempt this, kind of, an exception, at least 14 other states are going to have to change their law, or that portion of their law will be invalidated, along with Idaho's.

So, it has a bunch of policy implications.

Another one which is pretty interesting and hasn't been discussed a lot, is that if Idaho wins, and Idaho's abortion ban can be, enforced fully, enforced fully, that means that there's a precedent for other states to suggest, well, we don't want to comply with EMTALA with regard to AIDs patients.

with Instalar with regard to Aids patients.

We don't want to comply with EMTALA by providing medical care to mental health issues.

medical care to mental health issues.

And it kind of opens the door for other groups to say and it kind of opens the door for other, groups to say that emergency medical care under EMTALA we're not going to go that way because it's our state's prerogative to say that we don't want to provide emergency medical care, to AIDs patients, for example.

Davlin: All right.

McKay Cunningham, thank you so much for joining us.

Cunningham: Thank you.

Davlin: On Thursday, the state Board of Education approved a 3% increase for undergraduate fees and tuition at Idaho's four year institutions.

Our friends at Idaho Education News have more on Thursday's board meeting at which they approved the increase.

This comes as conversations of student loan debt and cost of living have dominated the political discourse over the last few years.

Here to discuss the cost of higher education and the role of higher ed in Idaho is Boise State University President Doctor Marlene Tromp.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Marlene Tromp: I'm so pleased to be here.

Davlin: That 3% raise puts Boise State University undergraduate tuition and fees at $9,000.

It's about a $250 increase.

What's driving that increase?

Tromp: Just like every business or organization, inflation has impacted us.

And in fact, one of the striking things that we looked at is if you took the tuition rate prior to my arrival and you adjusted for inflation adjusted dollars, we're actually, we would be $400 less with what we're charging right now, given the rate of inflation.

So we've worked really, really hard to be efficient, to create new efficiencies and to keep costs low for our students.

But we have to cover the basic costs of delivering that education.

Davlin: Part of that basic cost of education is covering the salary increases for your employees, and the legislature chose to only cover part of that, as historically they have done.

Generally speaking, how do you think this legislative session treated higher education?

Tromp: That's a complex question.

I think it was different for different institutions and different kinds of institutions.

We felt like the work we had done to communicate with our legislators about what we were trying to do for our students and for the state, really resonated with people this year.

And what we wanted to communicate was that we're really striving to work hard for Idaho.

And we saw a lot of people that that message really resonated with.

That we're preparing students for the workforce, that the kind of investment that students are making in their education is going to make a huge difference in their lives, personally, and for the state overall.

And in fact, one of the things that we're doing was to really try to address, we understand that it's hard for families to afford education.

And nationally, as there's been, this is true across the country, there's been a decrease in the amount of funding that's invested in public higher education, in inflation adjusted dollars.

And as that decrease has happened nationally, that cost burden has shifted to families.

So we're very conscious of that.

So we have raised literally millions and millions of dollars since I've been at Boise State for student scholarships, because my goal before the end of our comprehensive campaign is that no student will have unmet financial need.

No Idaho student will have unmet financial need at Boise State.

So that message really resonated with our legislators.

They can see the work we're doing to cover that financial burden for our students.

They can see the work we're doing to get people ready for the workforce.

And they've seen that we've been responsive to a lot of the questions they've asked and the things that they've wanted to explore on campus.

Davlin: As you mentioned, this is not unique to Idaho at all.

But what is unique to Idaho is Idaho Launch, which, of course offers $8,000 grants for training and education for in-demand careers.

BSU does, of course, offer some of those programs.

But, you know, in general, as people are talking about how much student loan debt to take on, whether to pursue higher education, you know, masters or doctorates, how do you convince prospective students that a four year degree is still a good investment for them to make?

Tromp: It's such a great question, and I'll tell you, when the chair of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, Idaho falls in her region, that's the second most powerful Federal Reserve in the country.

When Mary Daley came around the state and she talked to young people about whether or not they were going to college because the data Melissa is unequivocal.

If you go to college, you're going to earn almost $1 million more over the course of your lifetime.

You're going to have more financial stability.

You're gonna have more job stability.

you're going to be healthier.

The data is just unequivocal.

But people are worried about spending that money.

And so as she traveled around the state, she asked people, what do you making your decisions based on?

And, and young people were saying, well, I have to buy a pickup truck.

And she said, she shared this information with me, and she said they don't realize that that pickup truck is not going to serve them nearly as well in the long run as that degree.

But we thought, it's not so simple as that.

We have to really think about how we communicate it.

So we started gathering data, and 50% of our students graduate from Boise State with $0 in student loan debt, zero.

And, more than 50%.

And of those who have some student loan debt, the average student loan debt for all four years of their education is less than the cost of a pickup truck.

And so what we wanted to do is really speak to people about the things that were driving their concerns, and help them understand what it means to get that degree in engineering and how it changes not just your life, but the lives of people in your family.

Or to get that degree in the health sciences, you know, so the options for what people can do and the way they can really transform their lives and help their communities and the state are so profound that if we can communicate that messaging and if we're providing that support for students, I think they're going to make that choice.

Davlin: Does Idaho Launch change how you market programs that aren't classified as getting students ready for in-demand careers?

Tromp: We are, you know, Launch has designated right now what those options are.

And a huge swath of students have chosen to come to Boise State for those careers.

And we're already seeing this generation of students who are really looking to understand, much more than previous generations, are looking to understand how does this degree track to a professional career?

So part of what we have to do is to help our students understand, regardless of what their major is, we have to get them out into the workforce and get them internships.

We have to give them opportunities to do service learning.

We have to give them that hands on experience so they understand, and they can share with employers how what they're learning in school translates into the workforce.

Davlin: They're not your only audience that you have to convince.

You also have to convince lawmakers that you're a good steward of public funds.

You have to convince taxpayers that higher education is a good use of public funds.

You have to convince parents that you're a good place where their students can land.

How does that messaging change depending on who you're talking to?

Tromp: Well, you know, in many ways, the pressures are the same.

There's the financial pressures, there's the future pressures.

And what we want to do is make sure that we help people understand what their future options are, how they're going to track through, how we're going to support the students as they move through.

And one of the things people love about sending their kids to Boise is the incredible number of opportunities for things like internships or partnerships with industry or in their fields of study, whether, you know, for example, they're studying public service and they want to be right down there at the Capitol, or they're studying communications and they want to come work for a place like Idaho Public Television.

Those things are here, and that's exciting for them.

But it's also an incredibly safe city.

And it's an incredibly wonderful place to live.

So we have all these advantages, and we're giving students a lot of support in terms of scholarship funding, education about how to speak to their careers.

And we've done something quite unusual at Boise State, we've integrated that future planning that students have for their career.

You know, when I was an undergrad, people were starting to ask their senior year what they were going to do when they graduated.

We actually integrat it into the curriculum.

So you're thinking about what your future will look like from your freshman year.

And that kind of planning changes the way people think about their college education, too.

So when we're talking to parents we explain that, when we're talking to students we help them see it.

When we're talking to our legislators, we want them to know that we're the most efficient university degree delivery in the state.

We get less money per student than any university in the state, and it costs less at Boise State to deliver a degree to that student than it does at any university in the state.

So that efficiency means a lot to our lawmakers.

Davlin: You're trying to sell this message and deliver this message when so much of the discourse, in addition to student fees and cost of living, is also driven by culture wars.

First Amendment rights, academic freedom, conservative versus liberal, faculty and speakers and students and antisemitism versus students right to protest.

How do you navigate those concerns, especially when you're in a conservative state?

Is your approach different than your colleagues who are in more liberal states?

Tromp: I think my approach has been different than the approach of a lot of my colleagues in any kind of state.

So when I arrived at Boise State and there was a big flare up of concerns right out of the gate.

People made assumptions about what they thought I was going to do and what they thought the university was doing.

And we were sort of the tip of the spear of a lot of those tension points.

So we launched the Institute for Advancing American Values, which began as a series called, Conviction and Conversation in Contested Times.

And the idea behind that was, how do we bring people together who have strong convictions and disagree and still engage in dialog in a meaningful way?

Because that's where learning happens.

That's what's at the heart of education.

And so that grew into the Institute for Advancing American Values.

And we've made a national mark with that effort, where people are looking at what we're doing and asking, how do we reproduce that kind of sustained dialog on a campus?

And we've actually seen this incredibly beneficial effect where people take up very different positions across the political spectrum on our campus.

Students, faculty, staff, disagree with each other very strongly, but they can all be present, they can all speak.

They're having those events on campus on the same days sometimes.

And what our students are getting is the opportunity to make up their own minds, to explore the full range of ideas, and we're not shutting down that discourse.

And I think that really helps address the kind of tension points that we've seen on a lot of college campuses, where either students feel threatened or unheard, and we've made it a priority to ensure that our students understand that's an issue for us.

In our Idaho Listen's program that's traveled around the state, we've heard people in eastern Idaho, in Caldwell, in Coeur d'Alene, tell us that they felt like it was a balm to have that program come and to see people from the far left and the far right all talking on the same stage about what they value and why.

Because when you can recognize each other as human beings who actually have values, it changes the kind of conversation that you have.

Davlin: You said that students feel heard and the community is starting to get the message.

Do you think the lawmakers who are concerned about your hiring five years ago are getting that message?

Tromp: I think so many of them have, and I think that's part of the reason that we saw in this session a lot of support for the work that we're doing, and we've actually engaged some of those lawmakers in the Institute for Advancing American Values so they could see first hand what we were doing.

And we can always learn to speak to the students.

We can always learn more from our students and reach out to them more and try to engage with them more.

And we're trying to do the same things with people in our communities.

So if somebody has concerns, we don't turn our shoulder to them.

We walk towards them and say, come talk with us, come meet our students, come meet our faculty, see what we're doing on campus, see our programing.

And for a lot of people it's been very eye opening.

Now, that doesn't mean it's always easy.

To tackle these issues is incredibly hard.

It's a part of the reason we're seeing so much strife.

It's a part of the reason that we're seeing so many institutions where people are at tremendous odds with each other, and there's heartbreak in that.

But I think universities play a really important role in helping people learn how to meet each other and talk with each other again.

So we're striving to be that place.

Davlin: As we look at the next ten years, what's the trajectory of BSU to continue to meet those needs, as well as the affordability concerns that families continue to have?

Tromp: Thank you so much for asking that.

So, this university is a rocket ship.

We have escalated and elevated what the university is doing.

We've increased our research awards by 71%, our graduation rate by an incredible 39% in just the five years that I've been here.

And we are present on a national and international stage in a way that has given our students opportunities they could have never had before.

When I was at the G7 summit this summer, I was in the room with world leaders in a handful of universities and CEOs from major corporations across the world, and they wanted to know how to partner with Boise State.

The opportunities that provides for our students and for Idaho is transformative, so we want to remain on that trajectory, keep doing all these incredible things.

But as I said, one of my goals is at the end of our comprehensive campaign, we will meet, we will ensure that no student, no Idaho student has unmet financial need at Boise State.

Davlin: Very quickly, we have about 30s left, but briefly, when you say unmet financial need, high interest student loans, how much of, how much do they play into that conversation?

Tromp: What we hope is that our students will take advantage of the programs that are available to ensure that the loans are low cost.

And we advise students on financial aid.

And we also ensure that we're getting our students access to as many of the grant dollars and philanthropy that we can.

Davlin: All right.

We'll have to leave it there.

Doctor Marlene Tromp, President of Boise State University, thank you so much for joining us, and thank you for watching.

We'll have much more online at IdahoReports.org Narrator: Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho public television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.