Modern academia is facing threats never before seen.
The challenges posed by a slumping economy and the demands for
increased national security in today’s world have weighed
heavily upon the relationship between the federal government and
higher education.
The war on terrorism has greatly altered the role of the
government in the academic world. Recent legislation has influenced
the relationship between schools and foreign students. It has
placed pressure on professors that teach controversial topics. And
it has weighed on the national budget.
While funding for education has been a long-standing issue,
today’s economy necessitates strict budget regulations and
specific short- and long-term plans. Spending priorities have
changed how colleges and universities operate.
And since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, national
security concerns have become as important an issue as the economy,
and higher education has seen a host of changes as a result.
With the most pressing issues in mind, the federal government
has undertaken a broad reauthorization of education policies known
as the Higher Education Act.
In this regard, colleges and universities in the United States
continually struggle to find their place in a modern post-Sept. 11
world.
Economic uncertainty
As the American economy suffers through a recession, budget
priorities have become a significant issue for colleges and
universities.
Whether war concerns have injured the economy or education
funding has been siphoned elsewhere, the economic slump in the
United States has drained funds from most publicly funded
schools.
Tuition rates at colleges and universities across the nation
have seen a sharp increase recently. The University of California
has raised tuition rates by 30 percent in the past year. The state
schools of Arizona recently raised tuition by nearly 40 percent,
and the State University System of New York raised tuition by 41
percent.
This raises some anxiety from students and schools over the
obligations of the government in the face of economic turmoil.
Budget burdens on public schools often beg governmental aid.
Reauthorization
Wading in a pool of proposals and bills, the House of
Representatives is immersed in the task of reauthorizing the Higher
Education Act of 1998. Four of the seven bills that constitute the
reauthorization have been passed, but legislation has not yet begun
on those bills.
Several of the bills address affordability in light of rising
tuition and current economic difficulties.
The Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act will support
graduate education by renewing Title VII programs. Title VII
addresses funding for graduate and postsecondary fellowship
programs. Higher education organizations have been concerned about
insufficient funding for graduate education.
However, trepidation has arisen with a provision in the act that
prioritizes spending for institutions that train math, science or
special education teachers. Some groups question whether this is
among the most important of the nation’s priorities.
However, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chair of the U.S. House
Subcommittee on Select Education, said the bill is important for
the United States to maintain its position in the world economy
because he says the more people who have graduate educations, the
better the nation’s economy will perform.
One role that is encouraged of the government is that it ensure
proper training for future educators, which is the thrust of the
Ready to Teach Act.
The final bill already passed is the Teacher Recruitment and
Retention Act, which increases the amount of student loan
forgiveness from $5,000 to $17,500 for teachers of math, science or
special education in high-need schools.
The bills have received bipartisan support.
The House of Representatives has been generally applauded for
its efforts to train future educators because some fear the state
of education will decline without government support.
Curriculum concerns
Amid a firestorm of controversy, the International Studies in
Higher Education Act would create an advisory committee to oversee
the curricula of international studies departments in institutions
of higher education.
The committee would examine international studies departments to
determine the extent to which the curricula advance American
interests and fulfill national security needs, according to a press
release from the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce. The
committee’s recommendations would be taken into consideration
by Congress when deciding how to distribute funds to schools.
The threat of losing federal funding has educators worried, and
the bill has generated extreme dissent from Middle Eastern studies
departments that are concerned the committee could indirectly
influence curricula if course content disagreed with the
committee’s views.
Described as censorship by some professors, the prospect of an
advisory committee has raised serious concerns about the
appropriate role of the government in higher education.
In a November interview, Hamid Algar, a professor in the Middle
Eastern studies department at UC Berkeley, called the act
“hideous” and derided the proposed level of
governmental intervention in the academic sphere.
Political convictions should not directly influence what
students are taught, especially with the potential for
misunderstanding between politicians and professors, Algar
said.
The government has asserted that the bill is intended to
strengthen the courses in international studies departments and
create more accountability over what is taught.
But professors insist the government should not be allowed any
means to control the curricula of college classes.
“An academic institute should be the forum in which
curriculum decisions are made,” said Michael Fishbein, a
lecturer in the UCLA Department of Near Eastern Languages and
Cultures.
He added that academic freedom is on the line if the federal
government becomes involved in the content of college
curricula.
Still on the table
The House recently reconvened for the new year and will begin
discussion on the remaining three bills of the Higher Education
Act.
The Affordability in Higher Education Act was introduced by Rep.
Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., and has subsequently
come under intense scrutiny from Democrats and academics alike.
The bill would institute federal price controls on college and
university tuitions and punish the schools for raising costs above
approved levels.
The bill has been criticized because it largely removes
accountability from state governments, and places the burden of
tuition increases solely on the shoulders of the institutions. This
penalizes universities and their students when tuitions increase,
despite the fact that the causes for the fee hikes come from
diverse sources.
In a letter to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the
American Association of University Professors opposed the bill
because they believed it would “punish institutions for
factors largely beyond their control.”
In response to this bill, Democrats proposed the College
Affordability and Accountability Act which would punish states that
cut higher education spending. The bill would also implement cost
containment strategies and an annual report on college
affordability.
“The … act will make college affordable to low- and
middle-income students by controlling rising tuition and
guaranteeing stable tuition rates to incoming classes of
students,” said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the senior
Democrat on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, in a
statement.
The House will debate the bills over the coming months before
they move on to the Senate for legislation.
Outside looking in
In a post-Sept. 11 world, the United States government has
assumed the role of bodyguard for American schools in addition to
its standard monetary-allocation and quality-control duties.
The oft-cited war on terror has bestowed upon the government a
more far-reaching influence than it had known before Sept. 11. The
government handed itself the responsibility of strengthening
America’s defenses on every front, including education.
The USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress shortly after Sept.
11, 2001. One aspect of the legislation was designed to increase
the monitoring of foreign students enrolled in U.S. colleges and
universities and thereby shore up one of the nation’s
vulnerabilities.
The Patriot Act gave birth to the Student and Exchange Visitor
Information System in late 2001. SEVIS is a nationwide network into
which all the personal information that is collected is stored. All
colleges and universities are required to operate within the SEVIS
beginning this school year.
In addition, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform
Act of 2002 expanded the information-sharing among government
agencies. But for international students this act effectively made
it more difficult to obtain a student visa.
This legislation was cited as the cause for the significant
decline in the growth rate of foreign student enrollment in 2003.
The rate of growth was 0.6 percent, down from two consecutive years
of 6.4 percent growth, and the lowest growth rate since 1996,
according to a study by the Institute of International
Education.
While increased government involvement in education typically
meets with active dissent from a variety of groups, the increase in
foreign student tracking has seen support from educators and
students. Many groups believe national security concerns warrant
the collection of personal information from international students,
within reason.
In an official release Allan Goodman, president of the IIE,
acknowledged the difficulties associated with maintaining national
security and expressed support for the steps taken by the
government.
The government walks a fine line between benefitting education
and damaging academic integrity when it proposes to have a direct
influence in what is taught. Schools want the government to protect
their interests but also to give them freedom.
The federal government’s role in the academic world is
ever-changing.
But the fabric of higher education in the United States is and
always has been woven with the threads of government influence.
Every tear and every stitch shapes the involved and often
tumultuous relationship between the government and education.
This article is the second in a two-part series on
governmental relations with higher education. Read the first part
on the Daily Bruin Web site.