Missouri Senate wants to restore funding cut for some colleges and universities 66%

By Sarah Kellogg38%

4/14/2026, 2:21:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Status Quo Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 21.2% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 660 faulty-reasoning hits from 387 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.5% and a BS Rank of 66% (7,643 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.10% of the article peer group.

Missouri’s colleges and universities would receive the same amount of state money they did the prior year under a Senate committee’s proposed budget. 
That decision, made Tuesday by the Senate Appropriations Committee, gets rid of the new funding model that the House had in its budget, which was largely based on enrollment. 
The budget must still go through the Senate and back to the House, where the chamber is likely to reject the Senate versions and request a conference committee. 
In the conference committee, both the House and Senate will work on compromise budget bills. 
Speaking to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, Chairman Rusty Black, R-Chillicothe, said the Senate decided to go back to Gov. 
Mike Kehoe’s recommendation on funding for both community colleges and four-year universities. 
“It’s not completely unanimous, but it’s virtually unanimous at this point with people who have communicated with me in the Senate about this,” Black said. 
House Budget Chairman Dirk Deaton said the change by the House came after years of no changes to how higher education is funded by the state. 
However, critics of the plan say it would create winners and losers among the state’s higher education institutions. 
Sen. 
Brian Williams, D-University City, said the state should be making sure that higher education institutions have adequate funding. 
“I know we have a challenging budget right now, but our workforce and educating the workforce of tomorrow is more important,” Williams said. 
Some universities like the University of Missouri system would have seen a sharp increase in funding from the House model, up to $20 million more. 
Meanwhile, other schools like Truman State University and Harris-Stowe State University would have experienced significant cuts. 
Truman State could have lost around $27 million in funding, while Harris-Stowe State University had around $5 million in cuts under the House version. 
Sen. 
Barbara Washington, D-Kansas City, said she was just as baffled by the House plan as higher education institutions were. 
“They were all confused, and you were basically getting ready to put schools out of business in 24 months or less,” Washington said. 
Washington said that because the universities are receiving the same amount of funding as they did last fiscal year, they are more or less facing a budget cut. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.5%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias7.5%This article: 6.2%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias6.2%This article: 11.4%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic11.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.0%Sarah Kellogg: 7.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect9.0%This article: 9.3%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion9.3%This article: 12.7%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Sarah Kellogg: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias10.9%This article: 21.2%Sarah Kellogg: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias21.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.2%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.5%Sarah Kellogg: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority8.5%This article: 5.9%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma5.9%This article: 5.9%Sarah Kellogg: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope5.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.9%Sarah Kellogg: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization4.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.5%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon6.5%This article: 10.6%Sarah Kellogg: 9.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion10.6%This article: 7.2%Sarah Kellogg: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question7.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.5%Sarah Kellogg: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal6.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.1%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

387 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers50%attributed speech192writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageRusty Black • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRusty Black • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRusty Black • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDirk Deaton • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Williams • 18 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Williams • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageBarbara Washington • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBarbara Washington • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBarbara Washington • 28 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Barbara Washington

100%flagged-word coverage
70 attributed words36% of attributed speech91% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.