Morning Wire - College Students Migrate South & Squashing Squatters | 4.27.24

Episode Date: April 27, 2024

College students choose state schools over Harvard, New York tightens restrictions on squatters, and Starbucks challenges federal labor group. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

New data shows that Southern State colleges are enjoying a spike in applications, while elite universities, including Harvard and Brown, are seeing their application numbers drop. What's driving the shift? I'm Daily Wire, editor-in-chief John Bickley, with guest co-host, Sage Steel, host of the Sage Steel Show. It's April 27th that this is a Saturday edition of Morning Wire. New York lawmakers strengthen laws against squatters after several disturbing news stories.

This guy just forced himself into my house. Yes, he did. And so did you. You broke through the front door. And Starbucks is playing hardball with the National Labor Relations Board, taking their fight to the Supreme Court. It very much seemed like they were poised to agree with Starbucks on this one. They feel like the NLRB has wielded too much power in that Memphis case.

Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know. A new report finds that an increasing number of students are decided. not to apply to elite colleges. Instead, many are choosing to attend school in the South. Daily Wire Culture reporter, Megan Basham, is here to explain what's driving the southern shift. Megan, this is a fascinating story. The South has been the fastest growing region of the country for the last few years.

Now it seems some college students are part of that migration. Just how prevalent is this trend? Well, you know, I wouldn't say the numbers are seismic yet, but they are significant. So this latest report comes from the free press. When they looked at college application rates in the Ivy League, they found that both Brown University and Harvard are down this year. So 5% for Brown, 3% for Harvard. Now, that might not sound huge, but arguably even more telling early decisions for Harvard

are down nearly 20%. So that suggests that a lot of kids who are getting in are hesitant about committing, kind of keeping their options open. Now, some education analysts have somewhat dismissed that as being unique to a very small handful of elite colleges because applications for private New England colleges are generally up 29% since 2019. But when you compare that to the increase in applications in the South, well, the numbers there really dwarf that. So applications for Southern schools are up a whopping 42%. That is a lot. That's incredible. And do we have a sense, Megan, of what's driving that?

Well, part of it does appear to be financial consideration as the cost of college has gone up really astronomically. Applications to cheaper state schools are also way up across the board, but all regions of the country are not equally up. So if you drill down on those numbers geographically, you find that applications to southern schools are overall up around 62 percent. And that's more than two times what state schools in the north are seeing. And then if you want to get really granular in 2023, around 19% of enrollment at South Carolina's Clemson came from New York and New Jersey transplants. That was their largest demographic group. Well, just a few years ago in 2017, the largest group of out-of-state Clemson students were coming from North Carolina and Georgia.

So next-door states. Now, more than half of students at University of Miami and North Carolina's Elon University came from Northeastern states too. again, especially from New Jersey and New York. So as you mentioned, what we seem to be seeing is that just as businesses and professionals are relocating South, so are students. Well, when we talk about the big sort overall, a big factor that transplants frequently bring up is politics. They say they're moving to set down roots in places where the laws are more in line with

their views. How much of a role is that playing with this, Megan? You know, it seems to be anecdotally a pretty significant role. It's certainly a factor that a lot of students are talking about. about, especially as we see the campus tensions over the war in the Middle East. So a number of students that the free press spoke to said that they chose Southern universities, specifically because as Jews, they're seeing little or no anti-Semitism at those schools. Meanwhile, Ivy League Jewish students are saying they often don't feel safe. This is what Eden Yadigar, a junior at Columbia,

said just before a congressional hearing on campus anti-Semitism last week. In the five months following October 7th, the Columbia administration sat idly by as a tsunami of anti-Semitism in the forms of harassment, bullying, exclusion, intimidation, and physical violence flooded every aspect of campus life. Many Jewish students are too fearful to report incidents of discrimination and harassment that occur both in and out of the classroom because of how little faith they have that the university will take the necessary steps to protect them. Now, there are indications that the Ivy universities and some other elite schools are aware that they have a developing PR problem here. To give you just one example at the height of the DEI anti-racism craze, Harvard, along with a lot of

other top-tier schools, announced that they were dropping standardized testing for admissions. So no more SATs or ACTs. But then just this month, Harvard backed away from that, and they said that they will start considering test scores again. So time will tell if these prestigious Northeastern schools, that maybe they need to make some other changes to stop this student migration. Megan, I have to say, I live in Connecticut. I have two kids already at High Point University in North Carolina, one on her way to

Ole Miss. They had no interest applying to schools up here in the Northeast. Maybe the fact that I said I wouldn't pay for them if they went to school in the Northeast had something to do with it. But really, I have experienced what these kids are looking south. So you're part of the anecdotal data. Yes, ma'am. Megan, thank you for this report.

Anytime. New York has made changes to state law to end squatters' rights, this after a series of high-profile incidents. Included in the state's budget agreement is a redefinition of the word tenant, which excludes squatters from certain protections under state law. Here to discuss the new definition is Daily Wire Senior Editor Ash Short. Hey, Ash. So what has changed in the Empire State? So part of the state's 24 budget agreement defines a squatter as, quote, a person who enters or intrudes upon real property without the permissions of the person entitled to possession and continues to occupy the property without title, right, or permission of the owner or owner's agent or a person entitled to possession.

And the new law, which was signed by Democrat Governor Kathy Hokel on Monday, also states that a tenant should not include a squatter. All right. So expressly excluding squatter from the definition of Now, we've discussed the issue of squatters before, but can you give us a recap of why this language was necessary? Sure. So the biggest example of what is happening in New York occurred in February in Queens when a 47-year-old woman was handcuffed after she tried to change the locks on her $1 million home, which had been taken over and subletted by a squatter. The squatter, Brian Rodriguez, forced his way into Adele and Deloro's home after she changed the locks, even as she tried to hold the door closed. He called the police and claimed he was a legal tenant, so Andaloro was arrested. So, Adele, you're getting arrested right now?

I'm being arrested. For what? For being in my own home. And where's your lease? She's fighting the house. It's not her house anymore. My deed is current and legal. The case brought nationwide outrage since Andalora had never rented her property to Rodriguez.

He now faces charges of second-degree burglary, fourth-degree grand larceny, fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property, second-degree criminal trespass and fourth-degree criminal mischief. He pleaded not guilty and claims to have signed a lease for the home, but didn't provide documentation to ABC7 when asked. Instead, he only provided bills for work he claimed to have done on the house. Now, as you noted, this case made a lot of ways, but this isn't the only case like this, right? No. In March, two teenagers were arrested after the 52-year-old owner of an upscale Manhattan apartment found them squatting. The two were arrested after allegedly killing the owner and stuffing her in a duffel bag. Yeah, truly shocking development there. And this problem isn't limited to New York, correct? No, as we've previously reported,

the pandemic really increased the number of squatters in major metropolitan areas around the country. Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Atlanta in particular have seen an increase in squatters, thanks to pandemic rules that placed a moratorium on evictions and a lackluster definition of what a tenant is. Now, New York has made some changes here. What were the law? in New York before these recent amendments. Squatters were considered tenants after 30 days of occupying a home, and after that, the property owners were prohibited by law from changing locks, removing belongings, or turning off utilities. This means that if a homeowner is out of town for an extended period of time, someone could break

into their home, and as long as they were able to occupy the home for 30 days, they could claim legal protections as a tenant without having to pay anything to live in the property. And homeowners are trying to evict people with these legal protection. could spend months or years in housing court, paying thousands of dollars trying to take back their own property. Well, it sounds like New York is at least trying to fix some of these issues. Ash, thanks for reporting. You're welcome.

Starbucks went head to head with a federal labor agency before the Supreme Court this week in a case that could significantly impact union organizing across the country. Starbucks claims the federal agency went too far and forcing the coffee giant to rehire seven employees who were fired after they tried to unionize. Daily Wire investigative reporter Moretela Lorty is here with the details. Hamerade, so a big case here that largely fell under the radar this week. First, tell us about this case. Hi, John.

Sure. So this case goes back to the summer of 2022 when Starbucks fired seven paristas who were organizing a union at a location in Memphis, Tennessee. Starbucks argued they could do this because the workers violated company policy by having a television news crew come to the store after hours. However, the National Labor Relations Board, this is the federal agency that protects workers' ability to unionize, obtained a court order to reinstate the fired baristas. The agency agreed with the employees that they were really fired over their union activities,

and appeals court later upheld that decision. So now Starbucks has taken the case to the Supreme Court and is arguing that federal courts should have a stricter standard for forcing companies to rehire fired employees over something like this. Currently, a court can grant an injunction against a company if it's deemed just and proper. Okay, so this case really deals with how much the government. government should be protecting union employees. And whatever the court decides could have a big impact on unions in this country. So what did we learn during oral arguments on Tuesday?

Well, during the first day of arguments, some of the justices appeared to agree with Starbucks. Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out that other federal agencies are subject to a stricter standard for stepping in and questioned why the National Labor Relations Board uses a looser standard to make companies keep union workers on their payroll. Similarly, Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back after a Justice Department lawyer said the agency only asks for injunctions in the cases that are the most deserving of relief. Roberts questioned why this Starbucks case would qualify. I don't know why the inference is the exact opposite, that these are the ones you really feel that you've got to put the best behind them, because these are the ones that are going to end up in court, the ones that are most vulnerable.

The only justice who seemed sympathetic to the federal agency was Justice Katanji Brown Jackson. She told the lawyer for Starbucks that the federal labor agency has only sought this. type of injunction, quote, in a very, very small number of cases and that it doesn't seem like a huge problem. In the past, the Supreme Court has often cited with companies in cases similar to this. We should note to a total of 12 current and former Starbucks baristas also wrote to the court claiming they'd been fired or punished for supporting union activity. Some said they had lost their health insurance or had their electricity cut off because they were unable to pay their bills. So some very disgruntled baristas. Now we've been hearing a lot about Starbucks and its union

in recent years. What is the status of their relationship at this point? Right. Well, Starbucks has a notoriously fraught relationship with its union. Starbucks workers united. But in recent months, that tension seems to have eased. Starbucks and union representatives announced in February that they would resume talks and they were set to meet Wednesday for a bargaining session, the first in close to a year, with the goal of getting a contract by the end of the year. Nevertheless, Starbucks has decided to plow ahead with its case before the Supreme Court to the dismay of union officials. Lynn Fox, who's president of Workers United,

that's the parent union of Starbucks Union, said Starbucks should have dropped the case once they resume talks with the union. Well, going back to the case, other corporations have complained about the same federal labor agency intruding in their business before, correct? That's right.

Amazon, SpaceX, and Trader Joe's have all recently challenged the National Labor Relations Board as well. SpaceX filed a federal lawsuit in Texas earlier this year against the agency after the Labor Board accused the company of illegally firing eight employees for criticizing Elon Musk, the company's founder. So as we mentioned, if the court does decide in favor of Starbucks, the decision could discourage union activity at other companies. Conservatives have long criticized today's labor unions, saying they've become too powerful

and are out of control. One important case that we'll be watching and discussing further. Maray, thanks for reporting. Thanks, John. Thanks for waking up with us. And, John, thanks to you and the entire Morning Wire team, for having me all week. I've loved it. And I hope you'll love my new show, the Sage Deal Show on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. We'll be back this afternoon with an extra edition

of Morning Wire.