1) Source? I can't believe that the sticker price has gone up this much and that financial aid went up in essentially the same amount. Let's see data on this.
2) Again, source? What I get from this is that minorities are financial leeches, then. Is that a correct reading? (No of course not, but that seems to be a correct interpretation of this insane premise the OP stated; one I do not agree with at all)
3)Again, source? So, get rid of the student's needs and you get rid of the costs? Really, this says that needy students are the reason costs have gone up. Did you even read the original article at ALL? Over 30 years of needy students have pushed the costs up this much? That is blatantly false.
The source is me attending university budget meetings, discussions with the provost, etc. University administrators are obviously not going to be saying this in public (exactly because of how it looks, as you note). If you think you're going to see the accounting books of a private university on such a sensitive topic, you may be waiting a while. But feel free to continue believing online columnists in the meantime; it seems like you've already made up your mind.
For 3), I think you misread my statement. I just said that there are useful programs to students that cost money, and not just the usual useless examples provided by journals. The other stuff is your creative interpretation :-)
I don't want to disparage a new user on HN, but your account was created 2 hours ago as of this writing. Please, do continue to use this site, but to make such broad claims about insider access and then claim that you cannot provide sources does stretch the veracity of your statements. Thomas Frank at Salon has his 'spit-bio' stating:
"Thomas Frank is a Salon politics and culture columnist. His many books include "What's The Matter With Kansas," "Pity the Billionaire" and "One Market Under God." He is the founding editor of The Baffler magazine."
You, however, disparage him as an 'online columnist' and say that I have already made up my mind. Well, with no proof provided to your examples, even after asking for it, I must make up my mind in Thomas Frank's favor. You cloak your data with the caveat that you can never provide sources for it. This forces me to not use you as a reliable source for information. At least tell us your university or job title.
Still, thank you for providing a different alternative to the OP. Please do not let my diatribe for sources distance you from commenting on other stories here in HN. I myself am guilty of doing just what you have done on here as well, ie. not posting sources outside of my own experience. Still, if you ever do find sources for your claims outside of your own experience, I would love to see them and be able to let others see them as well.
2) Again, source? What I get from this is that minorities are financial leeches, then. Is that a correct reading? (No of course not, but that seems to be a correct interpretation of this insane premise the OP stated; one I do not agree with at all)
3)Again, source? So, get rid of the student's needs and you get rid of the costs? Really, this says that needy students are the reason costs have gone up. Did you even read the original article at ALL? Over 30 years of needy students have pushed the costs up this much? That is blatantly false.
Sources for ANY of these points are needed.