Threads of influence

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.