A Response to Rep. Fairclough

Rep Fairclough has come under some heat recently for some comments she made in a House Finance hearing on the University of Alaska budget. Rep Fairclough has posted a rebuttal to the claims that she is anti-education, or specifically, against higher education at the Alaska Standard.

Alaskan Eyrie posted its thoughts on the issue, more musing about Rep Fairclough apparent anti-University leaning than trying to drag her name though the mud.

Rep Fairclough faces the criticism head on, as is appropriate, but our concerns remain. A general rule of thumb is past behavior predicts future behavior. In negative terms, smokers will continue to smoke, drinkers will continue to drink, cheaters will continue to cheat. In positive terms high achievers will continue to achieve, leaders will lead, and friends will continue to be friends.

Some times a leopard can change its stripes, but you shouldn't bet on it.

As Alaskan Eyrie mentioned, Rep. Fairclough has made the same anti-higher educational remarks before. In the 25 Legislature, Rep Guttenberg proposed a bill (HB 397) that would have created a needs based scholarship for high achieving students. I link again to the 2007 UAA newspaper article on the subject and quote:

Opposition to the legislation comes from Rep. Anna Fairclough, who, among others, argued that if more than 60 percent of UA students disagree with such projects as the Pebble Mine, one example of Alaska's government funding sources, why should the government increase its spending of such monies on students who disagree with where the money is coming from?

And when it came time to make a recommendation on the bill Rep Fairclough, despite her obvious distaste for the bill, voted "No Recommendation." Maybe I am too jaded, but I have become convinced that in a wide number of circumstances 'no recomendation' really means

I would vote "Do not Pass" but I don't want to take the political heat for being against the bill' (be it education , health care, veterans issues, et cetera).

As I previously stated, Sen Stevens made statements against Pebble Mine not because he was anti-mining, but because he was pro-fishing. Many Alaskans were against Pebble Mine for the same reason. Maybe the Alaska students believe that Alaska is not 'getting its fair share' of its mineral resources. Once again, that is not anti-resource development. If you asked University of Alaska students "If Alaska should continue to develop its natural resources" I am sure they would say yes. If it came to "over-exploiting" Alaska's natural resources, in regards to timber and fish, they would also say 'yes.'

Those are compatible views... Just because someone does not want to risk one of the richest fish runs the world has ever seen does not mean they are anti-development. They just put food before jewelry and copper wiring and support the industry that puts more Alaskans to work opposed one that puts fewer Alaskans to work.

Rep Fairclough asked us to listen to the full audio. I have. Rep Fairclough of 'support' for the University of Alaska seemed perfunctory. And of course, there is always a potential of conflict between what someone says, what they mean, and what they do.

Rep Fairclough has already shown her lack of support for higher learning during the 25th Legislature but she still has a chance to make amends during the 26th. This time I hope she will have the courage to vote either 'Do Pass' or 'Do Not Pass' instead of taking the 'No Recommendation' easy way out like she did last time.