Categories
Higher Education

Texas SB 17 (2023) Restricting Inclusion on Campus

Enhancing the Power of Governing Boards to Control Hiring and Course Offerings

Prohibiting Offices or Employees of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

Prohibiting DEI Training Unless Approved by the Texas Attorney General

And Providing for the Reporting, Removal, and Blacklisting of Offending Campus Employees

But Requiring Statements Affirming the High Priority of “Viewpoint Diversity”

Including a $1 Million Dollar Fine

Version Accessed, Good Friday, 2023


Rep. Gene Wu (D-Houston) speaks against the House version of the DEI Ban, which has been approved as part of the House budget bill.

By:  Creighton, et al.                             S.B. No. 17

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to public higher education reform; authorizing administrative penalties.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1.  Section 51.352, Education Code, is amended by amending Subsection (d) and adding Subsection (g) to read as follows:

(d)  In addition to powers and duties specifically granted by this code or other law, each governing board shall:

(1)  establish, for each institution under its control and management, goals consistent with the role and mission of the institution;

(2)  appoint the chancellor or other chief executive officer of the system, if the board governs a university system;

(3)  appoint the president or other chief executive officer of each institution under the board’s control and management and evaluate the chief executive officer of each component institution and assist the officer in the achievement of performance goals;

(4)  restrict the membership of a search committee for the position of president or other chief executive officer of an institution under the board’s control and management to members of the governing board;

(5)  approve or deny the hiring of a person for the position of vice president, provost, associate or assistant provost, dean, or associate or assistant dean or a similar position by each institution under the board’s control and management;

(6)  set campus admission standards consistent with the role and mission of the institution and considering the admission standards of similar institutions nationwide having a similar role and mission, as determined by the coordinating board;

(7)  approve or deny each course in the core curriculum, as that term is defined by Section 61.821, at each institution under the board’s control and management;

(8)  approve or deny each posting or other advertisement for a tenured faculty position at each institution under the board’s control and management; and

(9) [(5)]  ensure that its formal position on matters of importance to the institutions under its governance is made clear to the coordinating board when such matters are under consideration by the coordinating board.

(g)  An institution of higher education may not spend money appropriated to the institution for a state fiscal year until the governing board of the institution submits to the legislature and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board a report certifying the board’s compliance with Subsections (d)(2), (3), (5), (7), and (8) during the preceding state fiscal year.

SECTION 2.  Chapter 51, Education Code, is amended by adding Subchapter L to read as follows:

SUBCHAPTER L.  PROHIBITIONS REGARDING IDEOLOGICAL OATHS OR STATEMENTS

Sec. 51.601.  PURPOSE.  The purpose of this subchapter is to prohibit institutions of higher education from requiring or giving preferential consideration for certain ideological oaths or statements that undermine academic freedom and open inquiry and impede the discovery, preservation, and transmission of knowledge.

Sec. 51.602.  DEFINITIONS.  In this subchapter:

(1)  “Coordinating board” means the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

(2)  “Institution of higher education” has the meaning assigned by Section 61.003.

Sec. 51.603.  PROHIBITIONS REGARDING IDEOLOGICAL OATHS OR STATEMENTS.  (a)  An institution of higher education may not:

(1)  compel, require, induce, or solicit a student enrolled at the institution, an employee or contractor of the institution, or an applicant for admission to or employment or contracting at the institution to:

(A)  endorse an ideology that promotes the differential treatment of an individual or group of individuals based on race, color, or ethnicity; or

(B)  provide a statement of the person’s:

(i)  race, color, ethnicity, or national origin, except to record any necessary demographic information;

(ii)  views on, experience with, or past or planned contributions to efforts involving diversity, equity, and inclusion, marginalized groups, antiracism, social justice, intersectionality, or related concepts; or

(iii)  views on or experience with race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or other immutable characteristics; or

(2)  provide preferential consideration to a student enrolled at the institution, an employee or contractor of the institution, or an applicant for admission to or employment or contracting at the institution on the basis of the person’s unsolicited statement in support of an ideology described by Subdivision (1)(A).

(b)  This section may not be construed to:

(1)  restrict academic research or coursework;

(2)  prevent a person from providing to an institution of higher education information described by Subsection (a) on the person’s own initiative separate from any specific requirement or request from the institution; or

(3)  prevent an institution of higher education from requiring an applicant for admission to or employment or contracting at the institution to:

(A)  disclose or discuss the content of the applicant’s research or artistic creations;

(B)  certify compliance with state and federal antidiscrimination law; or

(C)  discuss pedagogical approaches or experience with students with learning disabilities.

(c)  Not later than December 1 of each year, each institution of higher education shall submit to the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the house of representatives a report certifying the institution’s compliance with this section.

SECTION 3.  Subchapter Z, Chapter 51, Education Code, is amended by adding Sections 51.9317, 51.9318, and 51.9319 to read as follows:

Sec. 51.9317.  DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION OFFICES AND EMPLOYEES PROHIBITED.  (a)  In this section:

(1)  “Coordinating board” means the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

(2)  “Diversity, equity, and inclusion office” means an office, division, or other unit of an institution of higher education established for the purpose of:

(A)  influencing hiring or employment practices at the institution with respect to race, sex, color, or ethnicity, other than through the use of color-blind and sex-neutral hiring processes in accordance with any applicable state and federal antidiscrimination laws;

(B)  promoting differential treatment of or providing special benefits to individuals on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity;

(C)  promoting policies or procedures designed or implemented in reference to race, color, or ethnicity, other than policies or procedures approved in writing by the institution’s general counsel and the office of the attorney general for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with any applicable court order or state or federal law; or

(D)  conducting trainings, programs, or activities designed or implemented in reference to race, color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation, other than trainings, programs, or activities developed by an attorney and approved in writing by the institution’s general counsel and the office of the attorney general for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with any applicable court order or state or federal law.

(3)  “Institution of higher education” has the meaning assigned by Section 61.003.

(b)  An institution of higher education may not establish or maintain a diversity, equity, and inclusion office or hire or assign an employee of the institution, or contract with a third party, to perform the duties of a diversity, equity, and inclusion office.

(c)  Subsection (b) may not be construed to:

(1)  restrict:

(A)  academic course instruction;

(B)  research or creative works by an institution of higher education’s students or faculty;

(C)  the activities of student organizations registered with or recognized by an institution of higher education;

(D)  the guest speakers or performers who may be invited to speak or perform at an institution of higher education for short-term engagements;

(E)  health services provided by licensed professionals at an institution of higher education;

(F)  services provided by appropriate professionals at an institution of higher education to veterans of the armed forces of the United States or persons with a physical or cognitive disability; or

(G)  an institution of higher education’s ability to:

(i)  respond to a request for information from a grantmaking agency or athletic association; or

(ii)  collect data; or

(2)  prohibit an institution of higher education from:

(A)  establishing or maintaining a legal office or other unit, hiring or assigning an employee who is an attorney, or contracting with a third-party attorney or law firm to ensure the institution’s compliance with any applicable court order or state or federal law;

(B)  establishing or maintaining an academic department that does not establish policy or procedures for other departments; or

(C)  registering or recognizing student organizations at the institution.

(d)  Nothing in this section may be construed as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of an institution of higher education.

(e)  Any person may notify the attorney general of a violation or potential violation of this section by an institution of higher education.  The attorney general may file suit for a writ of mandamus compelling the institution to comply with this section.

(i)  If an institution of higher education determines that an employee of the institution has violated this section, the institution shall:

(1)  take the following action against the employee:

(A)  for the first violation, place the employee on unpaid leave for the next academic year; or

(B)  for the second or a subsequent violation, discharge the employee; and

(2)  report the determination and the action taken by the institution to the coordinating board.

(j)  The coordinating board shall maintain and provide to each institution of higher education a list of persons against whom action has been taken under Subsection (i).

(k)  An institution of higher education may not hire an employee who is included on the coordinating board’s list maintained under Subsection (j) before:

(1)  if the employee was placed on unpaid leave under Subsection (i)(1)(A), the end of the academic year for which the employee is placed on unpaid leave; or

(2)  if the employee was discharged under Subsection (i)(1)(B), the fifth anniversary of the date on which the employee was discharged.

(l)  If the coordinating board determines that an institution of higher education has violated this section, the coordinating board shall assess an administrative penalty against the institution in an amount equal to the lesser of $1 million or one percent of the amount of the institution’s operating expenses budgeted for the state fiscal year preceding the state fiscal year in which the violation occurred.

(m)  An administrative penalty collected under Subsection (l) may only be appropriated to an institution of higher education that the coordinating board has not determined to have violated this section during the two state fiscal years preceding the state fiscal year for which the appropriation is made.

Sec. 51.9318.  STATEMENTS REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN MISSION STATEMENT, BYLAWS, FACULTY HANDBOOK, AND STUDENT HANDBOOK.  (a)  In this section, “institution of higher education” has the meaning assigned by Section 61.003.

(b)  Each institution of higher education shall adopt an institutional mission statement that includes, or incorporate into the institution’s institutional mission statement if the institution has already adopted an institutional mission statement, the following statements in whole and without interruption:

(1)  “We affirm that (name of institution) will educate students by means of free, open, and rigorous intellectual inquiry to seek the truth.”;

(2)  “We affirm our duty to equip students with the intellectual skills they need to reach their own informed conclusions on matters of social and political importance.”;

(3)  “We affirm the value of viewpoint diversity in campus intellectual life, including in faculty recruitment and hiring.”;

(4)  “We affirm our duty to ensure that no aspects of (name of institution) life, in or outside the classroom, require, favor, disfavor, or prohibit speech or action that supports any political, social, or religious belief.”;

(5)  “We affirm our commitment to create a community dedicated to civil and free inquiry that respects the intellectual freedom of each member, supports individual capacities for growth, and tolerates the differences in opinion that naturally occur in a public university community.”;

(6)  “We affirm the value of institutional neutrality: that institutions of higher education should not take collective positions on political and social controversies of the day.”; and

(7)  “These values take priority over any other value we may also adopt.”

(c)  Each institution of higher education shall incorporate into the institution’s bylaws, faculty handbook, and student handbook the substance of the following reports issued by the University of Chicago:

(1)  the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression; and

(2)  the Kalven Committee Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action.

Sec. 51.9319.  CERTAIN MANDATORY TRAINING PROHIBITED.  (a)  In this section:

(1)  “Coordinating board” means the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

(2)  “Institution of higher education” has the meaning assigned by Section 61.003.

(3)  “Training” includes a training, seminar, discussion group, workshop, or other instructional program, whether provided in person, online, or by any other means, with a purpose of advising, counseling, influencing, or teaching participants.  The term does not include:

(A)  an academic course offered for credit; or

(B)  an activity of a student organization registered with or recognized by an institution of higher education that affects only the organization’s members.

(b)  An institution of higher education may not require a student, employee, or applicant for employment at the institution to participate in training on diversity, equity, inclusion, bias, oppression, gender identity, or related concepts as a condition of:

(1)  admission to or enrollment at the institution;

(2)  employment or promotion at the institution;

(3)  participating in any function of the institution; or

(4)  graduating from the institution.

(c)  This section may not be construed to:

(1)  limit the academic freedom of any individual faculty member to direct the instruction of a course taught by the faculty member; or

(2)  prohibit any training:

(A)  that is:

(i)  developed by an attorney; and

(ii)  approved in writing by the institution’s general counsel and the office of the attorney general as being required to comply with any applicable court order or state or federal law; and

(B)  for which the materials are made publicly available on the institution of higher education’s Internet website.

(d)  Any person may notify the attorney general of a violation or potential violation of this section by an institution of higher education.  The attorney general may file suit for a writ of mandamus compelling the institution to comply with this section.

(e)  A student or employee of an institution of higher education who is required to participate in training in violation of this section may bring an action against the institution for injunctive or declaratory relief.

(h)  If an institution of higher education determines that an employee of the institution has violated this section, the institution shall:

(1)  take the following action against the employee:

(A)  for the first violation, place the employee on unpaid leave for the next academic year; or

(B)  for the second or a subsequent violation, discharge the employee; and

(2)  report the determination and the action taken by the institution to the coordinating board.

(i)  The coordinating board shall maintain and provide to each institution of higher education a list of persons against whom action has been taken under Subsection (h).

(j)  An institution of higher education may not hire an employee who is included on the coordinating board’s list maintained under Subsection (i) before:

(1)  if the employee was placed on unpaid leave under Subsection (h)(1)(A), the end of the academic year for which the employee is placed on unpaid leave; or

(2)  if the employee was discharged under Subsection (h)(1)(B), the fifth anniversary of the date on which the employee was discharged.

(k)  If the coordinating board determines that an institution of higher education has violated this section, the coordinating board shall assess an administrative penalty against the institution in an amount equal to the lesser of $1 million or one percent of the amount of the institution’s operating expenses budgeted for the state fiscal year preceding the state fiscal year in which the violation occurred.

(l)  An administrative penalty collected under Subsection (k) may only be appropriated to an institution of higher education that the coordinating board has not determined to have violated this section during the two state fiscal years preceding the state fiscal year for which the appropriation is made.

SECTION 4.  Section 51.942, Education Code, is amended by adding Subsection (c-1) to read as follows:

(c-1)  For purposes of Subsection (c)(5), good cause for revoking the tenure of a faculty member includes the faculty member’s violation of Section 51.9317 or 51.9319.

SECTION 5.  (a) Section 51.352(d), Education Code, as amended by this Act, applies beginning with the 2023-2024 academic year.

(b)  Section 51.352(g), Education Code, as added by this Act, applies beginning with money appropriated to a public institution of higher education for the state fiscal year beginning September 1, 2024.

SECTION 6.  (a)  Except as provided by Subsection (b) of this section, Subchapter L, Chapter 51, and Sections 51.9317, 51.9318, and 51.9319, Education Code, as added by this Act, apply beginning with the 2023-2024 academic year.

(b)  Sections 51.9317(i) and 51.9319(h), Education Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a person who enters into or renews an employment contract at a public institution of higher education on or after the effective date of this Act.

SECTION 7.  A public institution of higher education may not spend money appropriated by the legislature for the state fiscal biennium beginning September 1, 2025, until the institution’s governing board has filed with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and posted on the institution’s Internet website a report that:

(1)  states the steps taken by the institution to comply with Section 51.9317, Education Code, as added by this Act; and

(2)  certifies the institution’s compliance with Section 51.9317, Education Code, as added by this Act.

SECTION 8.  This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.  If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2023.

Categories
Uncategorized

‘An Understanding of the 1619 Project’ Cannot be Required According to Proposed Texas Law

Here is a portion of the official bill analysis filed on July 15, 2021 (first special session of the Texas Legislatue), in support of S.B. 3 “Relating to certain curriculum in public schools, including certain instructional requirements and prohibitions.”

(4) a teacher, administrator, or other employee of a state agency, school district, or open-enrollment charter school is prohibited from:

(A) requiring or making part of a course inculcation in the concept that:

(i) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;

(ii) an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;

(iii) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual’s race or sex;

(iv) an individual’s moral character, standing, or worth is necessarily determined by the individual’s race or sex;

(v) an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;

(vi) an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual’s race or sex;

(vii) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race;

(viii) the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States; or

(ix) with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality;

(B) teaching, instructing, or training any administrator, teacher, or staff member of a state agency, school district, or open enrollment charter school to adopt a concept listed under Paragraph (A); or

(C) requiring an understanding of the 1619 Project.


Editor’s Note: Here is a self-description of the 1619 Project from the New York Times Magazine:

“The 1619 Project began with the publication, in August 2019, of a special issue of The New York Times Magazine containing essays on different aspects of contemporary American life, from mass incarceration to rush-hour traffic, that have their roots in slavery and its aftermath. Each essay takes up a modern phenomenon, familiar to all, and reveals its history. The first, by the staff writer Nikole Hannah-Jones (from whose mind this project sprang), provides the intellectual framework for the project and can be read as an introduction.

“Alongside the essays, you will find 17 literary works that bring to life key moments in American history. These works are all original compositions by contemporary black writers who were asked to choose events on a timeline of the past 400 years. . . .

“In addition to these elements, we partnered with the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African-American History and Culture to create a brief visual history of slavery. That is as good a place to start as any.

“A word of warning: There is gruesome material in these stories, material that readers will find disturbing. That is, unfortunately, as it must be. American history cannot be told truthfully without a clear vision of how inhuman and immoral the treatment of black Americans has been. By acknowledging this shameful history, by trying hard to understand its powerful influence on the present, perhaps we can prepare ourselves for a more just future.

“That is the hope of this project.”


Editor’s Note: Under the proposed Texas law, here are some things that will be required:

(h-2) Requires SBOE, in adopting the essential knowledge and skills for the social studies curriculum for each grade level from kindergarten through grade 12, to adopt essential knowledge and skills that develop each student’s civic knowledge, including:

(1) an understanding of:

(A) the fundamental moral, political, and intellectual foundations of the American experiment in self-government;

(B) the history, qualities, traditions, and features of civic engagement in the United States;

(C) the structure, function, and processes of government institutions at the federal, state, and local levels;

(D) the founding documents of the United States, including:

(i) the Declaration of Independence;

(ii) the United States Constitution;

(iii) the Federalist Papers, including Essays 10 and 51;

(iv) excerpts from Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America;

(v) the transcript of the first Lincoln-Douglas debate; and

(vi) the writings of the founding fathers of the United States; and

(E) the history and importance of:

(i) the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000a et seq.);

(ii) the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution;

(iii) the complexity of the historic relationship between Texas and Mexico; and

(iv) the diversity of the Hispanic population in Texas;

(2) the ability to:

(A) analyze and determine the reliability of information sources;

(B) formulate and articulate reasoned positions;

(C) understand the manner in which local, state, and federal government works and operates through the use of simulations and models of governmental and democratic processes;

(D) actively listen and engage in civil discourse, including discourse with those with different viewpoints;

(E) responsibly participate as a citizen in a constitutional democracy; and

(F) effectively engage with governmental institutions at the local, state, and federal levels; and

(3) an appreciation of the importance and responsibility of participating in civic life, a commitment to the United States and its form of government, and a commitment to free speech and civil discourse.


QED: “The controversy surrounding CRT is not about the verifiability of its claims or the accuracy of attributing social inequities to anti-Black racism. The debate over CRT is at its heart the assertion, through censorship and punishment, that Black people do not—and should not have—the ability to indict the historical legacy of white civilization and the virtue of white individuals. Insofar as the dissent of Black peoples and other non-white victims of white violence become popularly endorsed, the white managerial structures of American and British societies demand a limit on the discussion of racism and critiques of white societies. As such, the failures of Black people—their poverty, death, and under-representation—cannot be attributed to their history of exclusion and oppression, only their cultural inadequacies or personal failures. In short, the white managerial classes have decided that censorship is necessary to curb not only undesirable speech, but unwanted social empowerment among Black, Brown, and indigenous populations who seek a redistribution of power and economic resources. The effect of which is that Black peoples, despite the rhetoric of equality, remain subject and not a citizen within white democratic societies.”

–Tommy J. Curry. “Racism and the equality delusion: The real critical race theory.IAI News: An Online Magazine of Big Ideas, 16 July 2021.

Categories
Covid-19 Justice Higher Education

Are We Up Against the Wall Yet, Alma Mater?

By Greg Moses

Dissident Voice

If all values are system values, what do we make of trending lawsuits filed by students against their college campuses? Is it something like the demand of an air traveler who gets downgraded from first class to coach? The analogy seems to have merit. At least it reminds us of flying.

Campuses have about five categories of bills they send to students: tuition, student activity fees, parking, meal plans, and housing. Tuition goes to the academic budget. Student activity fees go into the infrastructure of extracurricular life, student organizations, counseling, libraries, health services, etc. In public debate, the term tuition often collapses all five categories into one.

On the more obvious side, meal plans and housing should be refunded if students are ordered to leave campus. But this means that funding for food service workers and housekeeping staff suddenly goes to zero. Bundled with any refund of this type–however obvious–will be a question of layoffs.

Parking also seems like an obvious refundable claim. But again, parking services are self funded through fees, and any refund is going to delete money that was budgeted for payroll.

Student activity fees get complicated, but the general theme is applicable. Wherever a campus is collecting fees, they are funding staff workers, and wherever fees are refunded, budgets for salaries begin to disappear.

Activity fees are complicated, because many services remain open to students, particularly counseling and emergency services, even if staff are working at a distance.

Which brings us to the difficult question of tuition itself, the money paid for academic, um, tuition. Students are correct to argue that online education is not the full experience of in-person education. For some fields of study, the difference can be a wide one. Drama, fine art, chemistry lab, etc., involve experiences that may be impossible to simulate online.

Students complain on the internet that moving their math classes online was especially difficult, which is an interesting thing to think about. Here we see the value of real-time personal attention to student questions and posture. The teacher can see everyone slumping down and make adjustments on the spot. Eye contact, unmediated by Zoom, is a wonderful teaching tool, and we can thank the pandemic for the crash course in the embodiment of it all. Teaching math is a deeply embodied transaction. Is that why my high school math teachers were coaches, too?

Literature was also mentioned by students on the internet. They missed the spontaneous discussion of the assigned materials, even if they were perfectly suitable for online delivery. Stanley Fish once asked, “is there a text in this class?” It all sounded so postmodern at the time, but here comes the pandemic, and we more plainly see how the text may be a kind of occasion for higher education, but never the education itself. There is a good reason why we continued to hold classes for several centuries, long after the printing press made it possible for everyone to read the books on their own.

As students were abruptly shifted from classroom to laptop, the feel of shock was widely confirmed. It was like being downgraded from first class.

However, we should not let the structure of our rant obscure the value of online education for those who need it most. Think of the soldier overseas, the working mother of three, or the 19-year-old who already has classes on campus plus a job as night clerk at your local hotel. Or perhaps the unemployed worker who wants an educational upgrade right away. Students such as these have competing pressures to consider, and online education is their preferred vehicle.

Two questions are important to ask about the difference between online and in-person instruction. Is there any difference in delivery cost? Did your online literature class leave your professor behind when it moved from class to laptop? Did the academic sector of campus find itself doing less work? Were teachers fired on the spot so that online classes could be lumped together into even more mind-numbing aggregations of distance packages? If the cost of delivering semester credits remained the same, how is it fair to demand refunds of tuition–when tuition is defined as the academic portion of the bill?

The second question is, what choice did the schools have? There are several related questions: If the pandemic made the move to online education necessary, and if online instruction involved the same payroll, and if other students were receiving online instruction by choice prior to the pandemic, just how much money do we think the school should pay back? Should the schools have simply refunded tuition to all classroom enrolled students and stopped trying to help them complete their semester credits?

And if schools have to re-budget their credit-delivery tuition to a lower amount, how do you expect them to make up the difference? Larger class sizes? Fewer instructors? Surely you are not expecting across-the-board cuts to administrative salaries? Do you really think that’s how things work?

At any rate, I think students will likely benefit from the recent right-wing shift in our national courts. There was already a culture war on liberal sentiment, the liberal arts, and liberal education prior to the pandemic. Lawsuits that demand refunds for the academic emergency seem to play into a picture of colleges as elite liberal leeches who probably deserve a whipping of some kind.

Recalling our thesis of system values, the student lawsuits also represent a dialectical moment when higher education in America is viewed increasingly as the student’s problem to finance. The state has been shaving its share of commitment for many decades now–at least since Reaganomics–transforming a system of public finance into a system of student debt, a.k.a neoliberalismo. In this social moment, student lawsuits are social expressions of pushback against this system of values, where Alma Mater, or nurturing mother, is dragged into court for a sad family feud.

Meanwhile, all the student energy directed against local campus administrations has had the effect of deflecting pressure from the national stage just as several trillions of dollars have been allocated for COVID-19 relief. And according to the usual calendar of campus politics, the game is over. Once finals are done and grades are in for the Spring, college student activism usually goes into hibernation for at least several months.

We have seen no evidence that widespread student discontent was ever effectively delivered to the doors of Congress in the form of an appeal for direct federal relief. This may be a failure of media coverage or research on our part. Instead, we have seen Congress allocate modest relief funds for college students and campuses. In an election year, Congress would, in theory, be most susceptible to students organized to advocate and vote. But the pressure was never brought to bear at the Congressional level, where the real money is.

Forbes reporter Adam S. Minsky, Esq., reports that progressive Democrats wanted to award $30,000 in student loan relief across the board. As the final package of the HEROES Act was being negotiated prior to the House vote of May 15, the dollar amount of student loan relief was cut to $10,000, and the scope of relief was restricted to borrowers who demonstrated some defined forms of hardship.

There is money in the House-passed HEROES Act that can flow to public campuses, but the amounts are less than what organized higher ed interests groups had asked for. And this is another sign that the higher education community was unable to mount much of an organized voice at the national level during March, April, or May, preoccupied as they were with the day-to-day work of getting semester credits completed, slashing budgets for the next academic year, and generally contemplating the lifeboat ethics of who gets shoved off.

Meanwhile, back in the nation’s capital, the majority leader of the Senate and the President of the United States both promise that none of this modest HEROES money, in support of the public sector or higher ed, is going to see the light of day. If students are able to claw back funds through lawsuits, and if the HEROES Act dies in the Senate, the legacy of 2020 will be what?

The American tragedy here is that Mencius was correct. The personality of the ruler flows down through the kingdom. We have become a flock of bickering grackles. Above us, we fail to notice if that sky remains devoid of any farsighted, graceful eagle. If all values are system values, what system will we reach for after final grades are in?

Greg Moses is editor of the Texas Civil Rights Review and a member of the Texas Civil Rights Collective.

Categories
Covid-19 Justice Higher Education

In a World with Few Easy Answers, Why not Double Down on College?

By Greg Moses

Op-Ed News

Massive unemployment. College courses shifted online. Graduates looking for a place to celebrate. If we consider these three things in isolation from each other, without imagination, then it looks like nothing but total breakdown. Add a touch of vision, however, stir them together, and we begin to see a massive opportunity for a national commitment to higher education.

Instead of laying off dedicated college teachers, instead of denying the real value of distance education, instead of parking unemployed workers in streaming services filled with conspiracy theory documentaries, and instead of ignoring the joys that college graduates want to celebrate, we can choose to see an unprecedented opportunity.

Let’s begin with the demand that college students are making to celebrate their graduations. That demand is our guiding light. There is much joy and well-being in college life. As Spinoza argues, when we know the good, we desire to share its joys. I love this paragraph from Part Four of Spinoza’s Ethics:

“The good, which a person desires for themself and loves, they will love more constantly, if they see that others love it also; they will therefore endeavour that others should love it also; and as the good in question is common to all, and therefore all can rejoice therein, they will endeavour, for the same reason, to bring about that all should rejoice therein, and this they will do the more, in proportion as their own enjoyment of the good is greater.” (Eth. Pt. IV, PROP. XXXVII, pronouns adjusted)

As anyone who has attended a live graduation can attest, it is a time of great joy shared among students, faculty, staff, family, and friends. The difference that a college education makes is not fake joy. There are good reasons to celebrate and to share that celebration.

Massive unemployment, on the other hand, is neither good nor joyful. Depression is filled with hateful pains that are personal, social, economic, psychological and more. When all these things could have been avoided through foresight and wisdom, the pain is all the more intense. We feel and we know that these hateful pains must be transformed. Once again, we consider Spinoza:

“He who chooses to avenge wrongs with hatred is assuredly wretched. But he, who strives to conquer hatred with love, fights his battle in joy and confidence; he withstands many as easily as one, and has very little need of fortune’s aid. Those whom he vanquishes yield joyfully, not through failure, but through increase in their powers; all these consequences follow so plainly from the mere definitions of love and understanding, that I have no need to prove them in detail” (Eth. Pt. IV PROP. XLVI).

And this is where we have a choice to make about being forced to move higher education online. We can continue to hate it and fight it with hate, or we can open our attitude to another perspective, where the need for online education meets the population of unemployed and unemployable people literally where they live. There are millions of connections to make here. Seriously, we can make those connections in an unprecedented national gesture of love.

A call to share in a national renewal of higher education online is not to say that everyone needs a new degree plan. Students may want to refresh themselves in basic principles of biology, economics, psychology, entrepreneurship, technology, poetry, or film.

As we find ourselves today, we can seek to become that national leadership who exercises what Martin Luther King, Jr. called “the strength to love.” To have strength for real love, we must be programmatic and strategic, mindful of material responsibilities that will support the bodies of students and teachers as we encourage their distant connection in mind. We have a choice before us. As Spinoza would remind us, we are always free to choose the uplifting task.

Greg Moses is editor of the Texas Civil Rights Review and a member of the Texas Civil Rights Collaborative.

Categories
Covid-19 Justice Higher Education

Deferred College Dreams Reveal COVID-19 Relief is a Civil Rights Issue

[CARES 2 changed to HEROES 5/12/20]

By Greg Moses

CounterPunch

Assaults on Civil Rights can be loud, with microphones or guns, but the effects of structural racism are often hushed, in the silence of dreams deferred. Whether we hear it or not, the Civil Rights rollback of 2020 is well underway.

To feel how Civil Rights are rolling back in a quiet, ebbing tide of college enrollments, take a look at two Austin, TX, high schools. The Liberal Arts and Science Academy (LASA) is three miles away from the Northeast Early College High School, but the two schools are worlds apart, according to the “schools comparison” tool at the Austin Independent School District.

The High School Divide

At LASA, ten percent of students are economically disadvantaged, compared to 91 percent percent of students at Northeast. And while LASA reports a 100 percent pass rate for state reading exams, with only a half-dozen English language learners out of 1,280 students enrolled, the Northeast school, with 450 English language learners out of 1,140 students enrolled, has a reading pass rate of 54 percent.

In terms of supports for students and families, Northeast is a community school with breakfast in the classroom, child care during the day, after-school meals, and community mentoring. LASA, a magnet school, has none of the above. LASA is 48 percent white, 23 percent Asian, 21 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent African American. Northeast is 80 percent Hispanic, 14 percent African American, 3 percent white, and 2 percent Asian.

Comparing these schools helps to grasp the meaning of the FAFSA completion rate, a measure of how many high school students have filled out the tedious federal application for college financial aid. At LASA, compared to last year, the FAFSA completion rate is up about 40 percent. At Northeast, compared to last year, that completion rate is down 65 percent.

Across the country and under our watch, 50,000 fewer high school students have completed the FAFSA application this year over last, reports the National College Attainment Network (NCAN). As our tale of two schools shows, within the overall decline lies a discouragement gap, where a 40 percent uptick at one school is contrasted against a 65 percent drop-off at another.

“In 2018, high school graduates missed out on $2.6 billion in free assistance for college because they did not submit a FAFSA,” says an Apr. 23 letter to the Department of Education (ED), signed by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and 25 other members of Congress. “2020 is on track to be even worse, with FAFSA completion rates continuing to decline during the COVID-19 pandemic.” The letter asks ED to boost visibility of FAFSA and reach out to students more proactively.

Doggett’s district includes the LASA campus. The Northeast campus is captured within the district lines of Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), who was not a signatory to the Doggett letter. A May 9 search for “FAFSA” at McCaul’s official House website “yielded no results.”

The Retention Slide

While lagging FAFSA completion rates are troubling enough among economically disadvantaged high school students, an even larger problem is brewing among students already in college who are not renewing their FAFSA applications.

NCAN’s data guru Bill DeBaun reported May 6 that a quarter million college students who could be returning in the Fall have not yet completed their FAFSA renewals. “This cycle’s declines in FAFSA renewals have more than doubled since Feb. 29,” reports DeBaun, calling attention to a date two weeks before the COVID-19 pandemic was officially declared a national emergency by the President on Friday the 13th in March.

As our two-school comparison illustrates, declines are steeper in FAFSA rates among our most economically disadvantaged students. “With more data points now available, a grim picture for future enrollment at higher education institutions is beginning to emerge,” writes Owen Daugherty, staff reporter for the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA).

Civil Rights

Polling results confirm these grim anticipations. Based on a late-April survey conducted by the women-owned firm SimpsonScarborough, 26 percent of enrolled college students say they are not likely to come back in the Fall. That’s a 12 percentage-point increase in pessimism compared to late March.

The SimpsonScarborough report documents a few more civil rights impacts of the COVID-19 landscape. Forty one percent of “minority” high school seniors are reluctant to commit to college in the Fall, compared to 24 percent of white students.

Thirty three percent of minority students report that “their top choice school has changed” due to COVID-19, compared to 15 percent of white students. And, among today’s enrolled college students, 32 percent of minority students say it’s unlikely they will go back to college in the Fall, compared to 22 percent of white students.

On the other hand, 18 percent of “minority” students would rather go ahead and finish with an online-only education, compared to 13 percent of white students.

Solutions Delayed

As the writings of Rep. Doggett, NCAN, and NASFAA demonstrate, there is a vigilant and organized community of support for disadvantaged students. The question is, will there be leverage enough to ensure that college student relief is amply funded in the next rescue package, styled the HEROES Act.

Public funding for higher ed has already taken two big hits this century. And while the Recovery Act of 2009 filled a sizable pothole at the time, some states “are still well below pre-recession levels of state funding while a handful have recovered,” says a comprehensive review by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO). “Most states have increased tuition revenues to more than make up for cuts in state funding for higher education, but almost one-third still have lower total revenue than before the Great Recession.”

As the real SHEEO tells it, slowly but surely, public support for higher education has eroded throughout the century, offloading more of the financial burden onto tuition, which in turn gets shoveled into multi-decade burdens of student-loan debt.

The battle for college relief in HEROES is not just about filling the pothole that the pandemic is causing these days. The deeper question of HEROES is whether America is going to wake up to the social value of higher education as we enter the third decade of the 21st Century. Rip Van Winkle slept for 20 years. Don’t we think it’s time to wake up?

College students do benefit, by and large, from their college experience. They are more prosperous as a group and have greater well-being. Furthermore, the communities that surround college campuses are nourished by the relative well-being of college life.

The question is, do we want to continue making college students pay an increasing share of the complete structure of higher ed, like some fee for service, or do we want to start increasing our support from the public treasury, because a well-educated state is a wise public investment.

Student Leadership

Young Invincibles last Wednesday released a 5-point plan to protect young people: (1) job creation through tax credits and subsidies, (2) stimulus payments that do not swerve way around young people or DACA families, (3) food subsidies that reach more than three percent of college students, and (4) Medicaid expansion combined with access to the Affordable Care Act that, again, does not fence out DACA students. The final point (5) calls on Congress to “Make Higher Education Work Better for Students.

“At a time of unprecedented investment in the national economy and direct support for individuals, Congress should move to make a long-overdue commitment to public higher education,” argue Young Invincibles. “Congress should form partnerships with states that preserve student access and affordability.”

Finally, Young Invincibles speak of the elephant in the room: the student loan system of higher ed finance.

“More than 43 million Americans bear a collective total of more than $1.7 trillion in outstanding student loan debt,” state the Young Invincibles. Two months ago that sounded like a whole lot of money, that is, until the first CARES Act rang up a bill of $2 trillion or until the Federal Reserve Bank announced what Brookings calls “$2.3 trillion in lending to support households, employers, financial markets, and state and local governments” plus “$1 trillion in daily overnight repo.”

Whichever way we calculate the cost of doing too little for higher ed right now, we cannot forget that any average estimate of social damage in America always hides a discouragement gap that intensifies negative impacts along Civil Rights lines. Real support for young people across the board will be necessary to any rising tide in Civil Rights.

Greg Moses is editor of The Texas Civil Rights Review and a member of the Texas Civil Rights Collaborative.