Connect with us
Pawleys Front Porch

SC

CSOL Survey: Uniform Dissent

Published

on

A whopping 95.5 percent of Charleston School of Law (CSOL) students are opposed to the sale of the school to diploma mill provider InfiLaw, according to the results of a new student survey obtained by FITS.

An even larger number of CSOL students – 98.9 percent – said that “student leaders, faculty members, alumni, members of the Board of Advisors and others should discuss alternative possibilities for ownership” of the school.

Those are compelling numbers which represent nothing short of uniform opposition among the school’s student body to the controversial proposal.

Perhaps the most troubling statistic for the school’s leaders? Of the first year students at the school, the vast majority of them – 82 percent – said they are “considering transferring” if the proposed sale of the school to InfiLaw goes through.

Wow …

“Students remain committed to the pursuit of alternative ownership scenarios, and are determined to hold those in power accountable for their actions, which affect all students, our investment in our educations, and the future character of the institution that we love so dearly,” wrote survey organizer Leigh Ellen Gray, a third year student at CSOL.

Gray penned those words in response to criticism from school founders Robert S. Carr and George Kosko, who helped negotiate the InfiLaw deal.

Carr and Kosko made a rather mundane mathematical error in interpreting the survey results.

The latest CSOL saga began back in July when FITS exclusively reported on the school’s impending sale. The resulting furor has prompted all sorts of backlash – as well as a proposed state takeover of the institution.

Last we checked, the InfiLaw deal was on the verge of collapse, which is probably a good thing. Still, we do not support state ownership of this school under any circumstances.

Given its bloated and costly higher education system, South Carolina needs fewer – not more – campuses on the taxpayer dole.

CSOL STUDENT SURVEY (.pdf)

Comments