In the latest installment of what has become a disturbing public policy trend, House Republicans last week released a budget proposal for fiscal year 2012 that includes significant reductions to federal spending on higher education. Although this proposal is less disastrous than the one put forth by the GOP during fiscal year 2011 negotiations in February, it still suggests that the party's congressional leadership remains blind to the fact that reinvesting in higher education will be essential to boosting the nation's long-term economic growth. Moreover, it shows a stunning lack of precision by placing the burden of cuts upon those who can least bear the additional load.
It should be acknowledged that the current Republican plan does a better job protecting Pell Grants than did the February proposal, and it even includes one reform that could be worth pursuing. In an attempt to hold down the program's costs, which have skyrocketed in recent years, the proposal aims to reduce the amount of time for which individuals are eligible to receive the grants from 18 months to 12 months. If this revision were coupled with funding increases at the front-end of a recipient's period of eligibility, then it could push more students to graduate on-time. This, in turn, would free up space at universities that are attempting to cope with sharply rising enrollment figures.
This good idea, however, is not enough to make up for several others that could have devastating impacts upon groups of low socioeconomic status. For example, the proposal would reduce the income threshold at which students would be classified as having an expected family tuition contribution of zero, which is determined by the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. This is a backwards measure at a time when tuition expenses are increasing at a much faster rate than are wages.
Furthermore, federal grants to institutions which predominantly serve minorities would experience severe cuts. There would be an 83 percent reduction in funds to Hispanic-oriented higher education institutions, which could deal a body-blow to a demographic that already attends college at a far lower rate than other ethnic groups. Historically black institutions also would suffer from a 36 percent cut to their funding. The proposal also would continue the recent policy of slashing funding to foreign language programs, many of which are dependent on federal support for their existence.
These proposed changes come at a strikingly inopportune time since the country desperately needs improved educational attainment to avoid years of lagging growth and high unemployment. It also shows a callous disregard for the nation's most vulnerable citizens and those segments of the population who would stand to gain the most from expanded access to higher education. Therefore, Republicans should scrap their latest proposal and instead seek to craft a plan that would push in the exact opposite direction by bolstering support for higher education in a targeted way that particularly benefits historically under-served groups.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
