Yesterday a big story broke in the arena of state higher ed law: Minnesota bans Coursera: State takes bold stand against free education. A letter was supposedly sent to MOOC provider Coursera, informing them of a Minnesota statute that prohibits institutions from offering education to Minnesota residents without registering with the state:
State law prohibits degree-granting institutions from offering instruction in Minnesota without obtaining permission from the office and paying a registration fee.
Naturally, the idea of a state prohibiting free, online education angered the internets and the story went viral (at least among my education technology peers).
But the story wasn’t over yet. Officials in charge of enforcing the statute have clarified their position, essentially stating that out-of-state MOOCs are beyond their pervue (Slate’s correction: Minnesota Coursera ban: State won’t crack down on free online courses after all).
“I don’t care what they do; we don’t regulate them,” George Roedler, the manager of institutional registration and licensing at the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, told Ars on Thursday.
For me, the interest in the story is in the changing story of the law. Research shows that, once misinformation has been spread, it’s very difficult to correct these misperceptions (a short description of the phenomenon). When that error is related to law, it might be more likely to impact behavior — either towards compliance, or driving people to rebel against it. Except for those who might follow a story closely, it is likely that any corrections might be missed.
This is why it’s important for journalists to be careful about reporting that “the law says ___.” The law is open to interpretation and change. Some care in called for in using language like “crack down” — especially given how easy it is to inflame social media users to quickly spread a rumor.