A group led by Alliance Coal CEO Joseph Craft recently proposed donating $7 million to the University of Kentucky for a new dorm for the men’s basketball team. The catch, however, is that the dorm would have to be named after Craft’s true love: coal. The proposed change sparked intense protests from local environmentalists and students. One professor said that as universities become “models for new energy sources,” putting “coal” on a prominent building could “make it difficult to attract top students and faculty members to the university.” Last night, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and Dave Zirin, sports editor for The Nation, discussed the controversy. Watch it:

This afternoon, the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees voted 16-3 to approve the proposal for the new dorm, which will be named the “Wildcat Coal Lodge.” Significantly, two of the “no” votes were from faculty representative Ernie Yanarella and Student Government President Ryan Smith, who said he opposed the motion “as a voice for the student body.”

Students in the audience were reportedly not allowed to speak at the meeting. After the vote, people began chanting, “Move forward, not backward,” forcing the trustees to temporarily recess. More on the events at the meeting:

The vote set off shouts from about 30 protesters, mostly students, who attended the meeting.

“Big Coal is about to go down, and the university’s going down with them,” said Cor de Jong, who described himself as “a Lexingtonian and a basketball fan.”

A statement from students was passed out to board members moments before the vote. “They did not read our statement,” said Katie Goldey, a senior majoring in international studies. “They weren’t even given a chance to read it.”

Ironically, because the building costs more than $5 million, it is required to “meet the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards.”

The coal industry has been taking a greater “public role” in the University of Kentucky lately. While Craft has already donated millions of dollars and has a basketball practice facility named in his honor, this is the first time that coal is being specifically recognized. Last weekend, however, there was a “students only” basketball practice “sponsored by Joe Craft and the Friends of Coal.”

The battle over America’s clean energy future is increasingly being fought on college campuses. As Greenwire reported recently, environmentalists are turning to student activists to get the word out about dirty coal, while American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity — the coal industry’s biggest lobbying group — “spent the summer sending activists to 264 cities in eight states, where they attended community events and visited college campuses.” More here and here on efforts to get dirty coal off U.S. campuses.

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that he would be including a version of the public option (with a state opt-out provision) in the Senate’s final health care bill. Although all of the details of the public plan are yet to be determined, progressives cheered the move. As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) admitted, without all the pressure that progressives in and out of Congress put on legislators, it is unlikely there would have been a public option included in Reid’s final bill.

Yet this afternoon, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) broke with the Democratic caucus that he is a member of and vowed to join a Republican-led filibuster if the public option is not removed from the bill. In response, insurance company stocks — which plummeted Monday as Reid made his announcement — shot up after Lieberman made his announcement around 1:30 pm:

Lieberman’s opposition to the public option puts him completely out of step with Connecticut voters. As this polling from 538.com’s Nate Silver shows, voters in every single one of Connecticut’s congressional districts favor the inclusion of a public option in health care legislation by wide margins. The stated reason for Lieberman’s opposition to the public option — that it would increase the debt and create another entitlement — is misplaced. As ThinkProgress has noted before, the public option would be self-sustaining and would cut the deficit.

Insurance giant Aetna, represented by the blue line above, fared the best among all of the health insurance companies. Aetna is based in Hartford, CT. It is also the tenth largest single private contributor to Lieberman’s re-election committee.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is expected to reveal legislation (possibly today) creating a “resolution authority,” which would enable the government to negotiate an orderly unwinding of large, complex financial firms like AIG, Citigroup, or Lehman Brothers.

The banking industry has already begun to criticize the proposal and Republicans have taken to characterizing it as enshrining taxpayer-funded “bailouts.” Last night, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee, and CNBC’s Larry Kudlow went so far as to call resolution authority “TARP in perpetuity,” and “permanent bailout authority“:

KUDLOW: It’ll perpetuate TARP, in perpetuity. TARP will be used to somehow string these institutions along. Is that right, is that fair, is that your question? [...]

BACHUS: It’s a permanent bailout authority.

Watch it:

While it makes sense, politically, to invoke the unpopular TARP to oppose anything that the administration is proposing, Kudlow and Bachus are pretty far off the mark. In fact, resolution authority is meant to ensure that the government doesn’t find itself, as it did last year, having to choose between letting a company’s disorderly collapse ripple through the economy or infusing that company with money to prop it up, indefinitely.

And contrary to Kudlow’s positing, the resolution money will not come from TARP. That said, there is a legitimate question of how it will be raised, and Frank and the administration were looking at two options to find the answer.

The first was having the largest banks pay into an insurance fund that would be used in the event of a failure that required resolution. The second, which Frank and Treasury have reportedly settled on, is having Treasury loan the failing institution money, which will then be recouped from the company’s assets and from a fee on other large institutions, after the fact.

Unfortunately, I think Frank and the administration have this backwards. We already have a system in which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. assesses fees on banks, which it uses to pay depositors when an institution fails. I don’t see why a similar system wouldn’t work to build a fund for resolution authority.

The big banks are going to cry foul either way, but at least if they had to pay into a fund, it’d be simple to say that the fee was meant to guard taxpayers against any of them failing. Collecting fees post-failure means that one firm will have to pay for the mistakes of another, directly, with some undetermined formula for how much each institution should pay.

Simon Johnson, professor at MIT Sloan School of Management, said that charging banks after the fact was “a non-starter,” while Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) said that “the only way he could vote for the bill would be if it had large insurance premiums levied on the biggest banks.” Indeed, framing the fee as insurance, instead of forcing banks that didn’t fail to pay a penalty, seems like the better way to go.