As we see in Melinda Cooper's “In Loco Parentis: Human Capital, Student Debt, and the Logic of Family Investment,” Steve Mims's documentary film Starving the Beast, and Scott Carlson's article "When College Was a Public Good," higher education is a highly politicized arena for debate which reflects many of the political, economic, social, and racial divisions in society. Using two of the readings for today, address one of the three question options below. Please post your response (using the comments section at the bottom of this post) before we meet on Tuesday, September 12th at 4:30 pm. Then respond to at least one other student to get the full two points participation credit.
Question Option #1: Diversity - How have changes in the funding of college impacted diversity, especially affecting minorities? What evidence from the readings do you find most compelling in supporting your view?
Which do you find most compelling: Carlson's argument that funding cuts were motivated by racial politics or Cooper's argument that the goal of funding cuts was to shift the burden of "deficit spending" from government to the family which then impacted those groups indirectly? Or is it some combination of the two? Or are there other angles on the issue?
Question Option #2: Fundamental Differences - What are the fundamental differences in thinking between academics and politicians on the political right and left? And how do those differences affect the way they think about higher education and the policies they put forward?
Cooper discusses academic debates among economists as well as the arguments about education that their theories inspired, Carlson discusses political debates about the funding of education, and Mims's film lets major players in the current debates about college explain their thinking and strategies for accomplishing their goals. Looking at two of our readings, answer the following: What sides can you identify in the debate about who should be responsible for paying for college? What principles, evidence, or beliefs seem to motivate their positions? How should we understand the terms of the debate?
Question Option #3: Political Strategies and Tactics - What sort of political and economic tactics have been applied in the arena of higher education in order to accomplish specific strategic goals? Point to specific evidence from two readings in your answer.
What tactics of "disruption" are employed at universities to achieve more rapid change, as shown in Mims's film? What tactical arguments are used to sell or successfully frame major policy changes in higher education? How did Reagan, for example, exploit campus protests to achieve his agenda? How do "dog whistle politics" work, according to Carlson?
Question Option #4: Freedom of Speech and Protest - How have government policies had a direct or indirect impact on freedom of speech on campus?
How may the shift of college costs from the state to the family have been motivated by the fear of anarchic student speech and protest according to Cooper? How might "trigger warnings" and the desire to insulate students from speech (discussed near the end of Cooper's piece) be interpreted? How is freedom of speech for professors at issue in Mims's film? What connections might be drawn between two readings in discussing this issue?
Respond to this question using the comments feature below, making direct reference to two of the readings in your comment, before we meet on Tuesday. Then comment on another student's comment before we meet again.
Post your comments below. And be sure to come back and respond to someone else's comment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt is no secret that higher education was designed for the white and the wealthy. Many obstacles have arisen when colored people have tried to go to college including the lack of federal funding. Melinda Cooper writes in In Loco Parentis: Human Capital, Student Debt, and the Logic of Family Investment” “… he argued that selective underinvestment in the education of the working class, African Americans, and women could account for the labor market discrimination experienced by these demographics” (Cooper 220). Underinvestment in the working class and minorities not only is discrimination and creates inequality but also affects the college system as a whole. Rutgers is an extremely diverse school and by having such an array of people, you are able to gather a whole new perspective. Also, not giving fair amounts of federal funding to the working class and people of color affects everyone because then the wealthy could go to college and be free of the need for their parents while the working class and people of color will still have an attachment to family as they will not be able to move up in economic class.
ReplyDeleteCuts to the funding of college such as the Pell Grant and the GI bill affected diversity at colleges significantly. Scott Carlson writes in this article When College Was a Public Good, “…Mr. Fergus lays out how the Reagan administration—with the help of conservative Southern Democrats—cuts a billion dollars out of Pell Grants and other grant aid, shifting the emphasis of government support for higher education from taxpayers to bank-based federal loans. At a time when 40 percent of black children were living below the poverty line, the move hit working- and lower- middle-class families hardest” (Carlson 6). This cut in funding makes it extremely hard for minorities to attend school. There is less funding, as well as, colleges have inflated the prices of college tuition to the point where you can no longer work all summer and pay off your tuition. This increase only gives access to the wealthy to pay tuition rates in full and makes college accessible for minorities and the working class ONLY if they take out loans at high interest levels. By increasing tuition and decreasing funding, the government makes it extremely terrifying for a minority or working class citizen to go to college; more minorities are less likely to go to college, therefore, decreasing diversity at universities.
Many laws and regulations, changes to federals systems like welfare, changes of education, etc are due to racial politics. It is common for politicians to blatantly talk about changing the systems that help minorities and the working class like when Reagan said we need to get rid of “welfare queens” (Carlson 7) and our president, Donald Trump eliminating programs that benefit immigrant children and adults. White people and the wealthy make it extremely hard for people other than themselves to be given equal opportunity.
Thanks for being brave enough to make the first post -- and for writing a model posting that makes a point and references two texts. Good job! Now you just have to wait for someone else to post so that you have someone else's post to which you can respond! :-)
DeleteHey Nikki, this was a great post ! there is no doubt that the diversity is decreasing and that the funding is not enough for students to attend the 4 years of college. Also, these students are not being given the same opportunity as the wealthy students. The wealthy don't need all these resources and grants that were cut but minorities depend on them in order to receive an education. Lastly, if our presidents and politicians don't take action no one else is going to. The wealthy will not offer to pay more taxes to help the less fortunate. Instead, many want taxes to be reduced which would lead to more fundings and grans being cut.
DeleteHi Nikki,
DeleteYour post was so well written! I completely agree with you and your response that the higher education is for the white and wealthy. It’s so sad that minorities are being excluded from such an important thing, right? I hate that they are not able to learn and succeed in college. College should be affordable for everyone. Politicians and the government need to be more caring and sympathetic to the minorities and their issues as well. They need to take action! Also, to add, I agree that all colleges should have a huge amount of diversity.
In the United States people are encouraged to attend colleges and universities to obtain a successful job or career. However, it is very difficult for minorities and middle-class people to attend these universities without having to accept loans with a high interest percentage. Many of these people attend a university but as the years go by their interest accrues and their funding decreases. This impacts their economic situation and many times they are forced to drop out. They can no longer obtain the loans or cash necessary to pay their tuition. Slowly these diverse students with low economic support begin to disappear from the universities. There is no longer an equal percentage representing them among the white upper class students. Instead, the white upper-class students keep graduating and filling the classrooms. In the documentary “Starving the beast” it is said that the political campaigns wanted to reduce the cost of universities. With the idea that “student education only belongs to the student and not to society, state or the world.” Not realizing that these students are the ones that need the most help to be successful, to help their families and to give back to their communities. The future of each citizen in the United States will affect the future of the country. However, these movements led to the cut of grants and scholarship for many students who depended on this money to attend school. Which leads to the conclusion that the federal and state governments where declining funding based on racism. In the article “when college was a public good” it is mentioned that there was a belief that “minorities benefit more from wealth redistribution” than the white students. Therefore cutting funds and grants would not affect the white families. However, later on it is also said, “I just don’t think they imagined that middle class whites would ever need aid.” This demonstrates that it is only the upper class white families the ones that are representing students in universities. There is no diversity in races but neither in economic class. The funding of college is now needed more than before.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to read your comment because I did not choose to view "Starving the Beast" for this assignment. Regardless, I still agreed with your position. College is such a big pressure on youth in today's age, even knowing higher education funding is so limited. Success seems nearly impossible without a degree. It is true that our success is tied with our countries success. If we individually cannot achieve anything worth being proud of, how could our country as a whole possibly achieve anything being proud of?
DeleteI really enjoyed reading you response to this week's prompt, especially because you tied it to "Starving the Beast," which I did not use in my response. I liked your point about a student's education belonging solely to the student, rather than to the government. Many students choose to go to school for different reasons, and they should all be able to pursue their aspirations, regardless of what the government tells them to do. However, it is still up to the government to create policies to ensure that students of diverse communities are able to attend and afford college. Once this happens, our country will see much greater graduation rates and, ultimately, success.
DeleteQuestion Option 1: It is a very unfortunate and sad reality that many minority groups are unable to attend college due to the lack of economic resources allotted to them. Even though there has been great strides in the direction of ensuring that low-income citizens are able to afford to go to college, there is still much more that can be done for them. To begin, in Cooper’s “In Loco Parentis,” it is highlighted that programs such as the Pell Grant “had the effect of welcoming unprecedented numbers of low-income, black, Latino/a, and women students into colleges and universities” (Cooper, 223). Yes, the programs like the Pell Grant did indeed have a great impact on the amount of minorities who could attend college, but this effect was not permanent. For example, many of my peers from high school did not have the means to afford a four-year university, so they had to make the tough decision to stay home and work instead. These peers came from lower-class families who did not attend college themselves. If the government does not make effective strides to amend this ongoing dilemma, this cycle will keep repeating itself for generations to come. Next, Carlson’s “When College Was a Public Good” shed light upon the frightening truth that is the modern day government. Carlson mentioned that President Trump “branded Mexicans as ‘criminals’ and described black neighborhoods as apocalyptic ‘war zones’” (Carlson, 13). With a country leader who sends out these harsh messages, it is hard to believe that we will begin to make steps in the direction of acceptance and unity. In this modern day and age, it should be assumed that the federal government has the proper mindset and resources in order to provide minority groups with the appropriate means in order to attend college. However, it is sadly clear that the United States will not accomplish this in this near future. Once the federal leaders can support inclusion and equality between all groups and cultures, then we can begin to see changes in the diversity on campuses around the country.
ReplyDeleteBecky,
DeleteYou make such great points!! I think its so disappointing in this day and age that while college is such a necessity in terms of careers and having a reasonable wage in your job, there is less of an urgency from the government to try and get more of the American population a higher education even though it is almost obvious that it would directly benefit the US economy.
I fully agree with your statement that until our leaders begin to see this division that they created within the U.S, not much can be achieved. This is an issue that the citizens themselves have to take action towards and elect the right leaders. Although, it is difficult to say how an elected leader would impact this issue until they are actually elected.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen considering the political opinions on the matters of public education one can simply state that liberals are more likely to side with the idea that college should be a priority and in order to create a more educated society we need to make college free to make higher education a fairly easy goal to reach for all Americans. While conservatives are more likely believe that education is something that has always been a privilege rather than a right and that you must work hard to make money and pay for your education— and there is plenty of evidence that backs these theories throughout history. When California, a state that has historically voted Democratically, came up with The California Master Plan in the 1960’s which was able to make a ‘class compromise’ by offering free higher education to the ‘baby boomers’ regardless of race or social class (Carlson, 5).
ReplyDeleteThe irony of that plan was that when Ronald Reagan, who was previously the Governor of California, was elected President in the ’80’s as the Republican nominee and “with the help of conservative Southern Democrats — cut a billion dollars out of Pell Grants and other grant aid, shifting the emphasis of government support for higher education from taxpayers to bank-based federal loans”, all because he considered students to be freeloaders. (Carlson, 6). That hit the middle and lower classes hard.
Melinda Cooper mentions in “In Loco Parentis”, that Theodore Schultz, the Chair of Economics as the University of Chicago, recognized what seems to be pretty obvious, that having a better educated population means that the community could be a direct link to a large portion of national economic growth. Schultz also realized that, “Underinvestment in education was not only a source of economic, racial and gender inequality; it was also a waster of national human resources that could have greatly increase GDP had they been deployed” (Cooper, 220).
The effect these political and social thinkers have had on millennials, and other generations, would be that they have basically formed the political ideas of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Politicians could go as far as Bernie Sanders and say that a college education should be free, or you could go as far as the Trump administration who suggested deep budget cuts for education in the country. I tend to side with the idea that if we were to make education more affordable, not necessarily free, but just on a level playing field for a majority of the country and that a more educated population could help our economy grow and make it easier for our government and communities to be able to help continue to make higher education more affordable. I think that one of the benefits of the millennial generation would be that there are so many people that agree that a college education is important and that working towards a more affordable plan is necessary and not just expect it to happen without hard work.
You make a great point -- that, much like healthcare, conservatives view higher education as a privilege and not a right. I would add that conservatives view academia as a liberalizing influence on young people. This perception further aligns right-leaning politicians and thinkers against publicly funded higher education, and I think explains their perspective beyond viewing education as a luxury that one should pay for oneself.
DeleteQuestion 1:
ReplyDeleteThere have been many changes to the funding of college, some that raised the funding and a few that lowered it soon there after. It all started with Walter Helter, who is credited with being responsible for the start of federal investment in higher education during the Cold War. Once the federal investment begun, it didn’t take long for people to focus on helping the minorities that needed the help the most. One specific bill that was passed was the Higher Educational Act of 1965 which “pumped federal aid into impoverished black colleges” (Cooper, 222). This helped create diversity in colleges because it showed that one’s background should not matter when seeking higher education. It helped decrease the separation between the wealthy and the impoverished in a college setting, and for the first time, with African Americans.
But this doesn’t mean that minorities are seen as equals in today’s society. In the article, When College Was a Public Good, state legislators referred to a predominantly hispanic schoolchildren as “those kids”. These legislators, predominantly white, believe that there is no need to everyone to have higher education and federal funding is not necessary. They fail to see the effects that not having educated citizens has on the future of their state. For example, the GI Bill of 1944, aimed to create more opportunities for higher education for all minorities failed to change much for African Americans. Furthermore, during the 70’s and 80’s, when California experienced an unprecedented rise in the hispanic population, they stopped funding state colleges in California to try to decrease the opportunity for those who can’t afford higher education in an attempt to stop the rise in the Hispanic population. So as the evidence shows, minorities still have a disadvantage when it comes to higher education. Until this view of being different people changes, it will be hard to create fully diverse country where everyone is seen as equals.
Minorities will never rise out of poverty unless the government realizes that everyone deserves higher education. It find it crazy how a low-income student who takes out loans ends up paying more than a wealthy student who paid upfront. Hopefully there will be a solution to this issue sometime soon.
DeleteI also find it insane how until this day, in a country founded by immigrants, minorities are still at a disadvantage and how something like race can affect public support for education. It is completely unfair how diversity, something that should be celebrated, is instead an impediment to the state of welfare. How someone will be less likely to support education funding simply because they believe minorities are benefiting more from wealth distribution, i will never understand.
Delete“If college degrees are more important than ever, could the country develop a new great advance in education that would give more people, a broad cross-section of the population, a real shot at college?” (Carlson 13). The answer to that question is no, in fact, it has become even more difficult than ever to receive a college degree without a massive amount of debt. The price tag of a college education continues to climb tremendously every year. This can be explained by the benefit of college education shifting from a public benefit to an individual one. “Public higher education has undergone a financial and conceptual shift: Once an investment covered mostly by the state to produce a work force and an informed citizenry, today it is more commonly shouldered by individuals and families, and described as a private benefit, a means to a credential and a job” (Carlson 9). This shift in the burden of tuition has limited the ability for lower-income students, a majority being minorities, to attend university and get a degree without putting themselves into major debt. It also leaves them with very little options to escape the poverty which they were born into.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cooper’s argument in his essay, In Loco Parentis, that the original goal of funding cuts was to shift the financial burden of tuition from government to family which indirectly impacted minority and low-income students who no longer had the funds to pay these tuition rates. However, this change has expanded the inequality gap between these groups, almost guaranteeing no escape from their background. Cooper goes on to explain how low-income students who take out loans end up paying much more for the same degree, “Assuming the same initial burden of debt, a student with no assets or savings is more likely to have to defer, refinance, or default a on a loan, accumulating a much longer temporal burden of interest payments than the student who can pay on schedule. The price that a low-income student must pay to get a college degree is much higher than the student who starts with family wealth” (Cooper 247). This concept makes minorities turn to lower-level institutions with less resources because they are more affordable. Although the funding cuts have prevented minorities from attending university, I do not believe that it was motivated by racial politics. The government made these cuts in order to save money and unfortunately, minorities faced the consequences.
I agree that college has become extremely expensive over the past few years and by receiving a degree, one puts him or herself in debt. On the other hand, there are a great deal of scholarships and grants available for those who look for them and qualify. I think if more people knew of these advantages, there would be less overall private deficit spending. Attending public institutions is a good way of mitigating debt due to the fact that the government is essential in higher education funding.
DeleteIt's interesting because I had a completely different mindset when thinking about the response to this original question, but you made a handful of compelling points. I personally do still think the funding cuts are motivated by racial politics; however, it is also true that minorities and low income students were indirectly impacted by the initiatives the government took in order to save money. I didn't really dwell on the inequality gap expanding until you mentioned it and now that I think about it, it's true that it kind of is just like a vicious cycle of people being born into low-income families and being given very little possibilities of escaping that fate and not adding on to it. Low-income students and minorities are faced with this issue and it is unfortunate that rather than aiding in the growth of this country's knowledge and economy, the government is essentially dwindling it.
DeleteIn the Carlson article he highlights a correlations between the decrease in funding of college with the increase of minorities now attending college. He speculation how there was more public support for college funding when there was a white majority in college students and now with this majority disappearing there is also a decrease in funding. Also he discuss how in countries like Finland with greater public support for education are generally racially homogenous and that these probably correlate. In Cooper’s article however she accounts the lack of funding due the discrimination in the labor market basically creating a cycle hard to break free. The working class and minorities aren’t receiving the funding they need to break free from the family and get the education they need to enter the working force which leadings them to continue in the same path as there family. I found both articles very interesting and they both highlighted some issues that I wasn’t even completely aware of. However, the evidence that I found most compelling was from Carlson’s article about how the decrease in public support correlates to the rise of minorities attending college. Although correlation doesn’t mean causation it is hard not to agree with the points Carlson brought up especially in regards to countries that are racially homogeneous having higher educational attainment.
ReplyDeleteI think this a great a summary of the two articles, except I slightly disagree with the conclusion. I think that the correlation that seems to be made "obvious" is similar to a jigsaw puzzle. There are only a handful of what seem to be isolated examples of such a correlation, in states that are extremely radical towards minorites. None touched upon states or areas that were receiving a fair amount of funding while being very diverse. All in all I think the "correlation" used is more of smoke in the mirrors hiding the truth.
DeleteQuestion #1
ReplyDeleteAll across America, people of all races and ethnicities are encouraged to go to college and get a higher education. But, the issue of racism in America is unfortunately affecting students’ education, specifically minorities. This has been going on for years now, and in Scott Carlson’s article, “When College Was a Public Good,” he writes about this issue. I personally agree and stand with his argument, that funding cuts are because of racial politics. It is completely wrong and unfair that politicians are keeping minorities from getting an education, and going to college. The white and wealthy should not be the only people that are able to afford a higher education. This affects colleges’ diversity because some have a lack of diversity, with only white wealthy students being able to afford college. Scott Carlson starts his article talking about a town hall meeting in Arizona, with a professor named Mr. Rhoades and legislators. They were discussing the issue of support from the state for minorities to afford higher education. Mr. Rhoades explains, “"We have been systematically disinvesting in higher education, and that is precisely at the time when people who want higher education — lower-income kids, students of color, and immigrant kids — have increased" (Carlson, When College Was a Public Good). Sadly, all over America, the states have been disinvesting in higher education for minorities. Racist politicians do not believe that minorities should go to college, and the minorities cannot afford it. Elizabeth Dole, chair of a task force for equal rights of women, explained how cuts in student aid showed a large presence of racism. Cuts of the Pell Grant and GI Bill made diversity decrease in schools. African Americans especially look to the Pell Grant for financial help. In Melinda Cooper's “In Loco Parentis: Human Capital, Student Debt, and the Logic of Family Investment,” she also mentions how African Americans are being affected by these cuts, where not only their education is being hurt, but also their employment. “… Selective underinvestment in the education of the working class, African Americans and women could account for the labor market discrimination experienced by these demographics” (Cooper 220). By minorities not being able to get a higher education, they are not able to get a good job, which keeps the cycle of them not being able to afford a higher education for generations to come.
It is apparent that our country is built on the success of white people and the failure of people of color. We can find that truth in almost every aspect of this country, and especially in the higher education system. Because the cost of college has increased and the amount of money the federal government provides to students has decreased, many more people take out high interest loans, which end up doing more damage in the long run. These loans that students take out affects low-income students and minority students more than wealthy-family students since they will eventually pay more money. In Loco Parentis, Cooper writes, “And contrary to the assumptions of Friedman’s human capital theory, average earnings for female and minority graduates continue to lag behind those of their college cohorts, even correcting for work experience. This means they will be putting aside a higher portion of their monthly wages to pay back their student debt” (pg 247). Basically because of an increase in tuition, which leads to more loans being taken out, and the wage gap due to gender and race, low income students will pay back more money than people who could afford the cost of college up front or pay back their loans right away.
ReplyDeleteNot only do loans affect minorities, but the funding that schools receive and where they receive the funding from. Universities that have more white students get most of their money from the state, whereas universities that have more minority students get most of their money from tuition. In “When College Was a Public Good”, Carlson brought up a study by Nicholas Hillman that directly studied the state and tuition of more than 450 public colleges. Written is, “He points to a striking comparison between the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and Tennessee State University, a historically black institution. State funding per undergraduate at Knoxville, where 7 percent of students are black, is $19,500; at Tennessee State, where 71 percent of students are black, that figure is $5,600” (Carlson). $19,500 and $5,600 is a huge difference when it comes to state funding vs student funding. Because the state doesn’t fund many minority students’ tuitions, they are forced to take out loans to pay for the rest of their schooling. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, unless these minority students come from wealthy backgrounds, they will end up paying more money. If minority students see these statistics, it might deter them from attending college because they know it will cost more money than they or their family has. As a result, diversity is negatively impacted because of college’s tuitions and state funding.
-Savannah
I personally find Carlson's argument that funding cuts were motivated by racial politics due to the egregious history of the United States over that past few decades, if not centuries. The 1900s and even in the year 2017, racism flows strongly in America. Trump led his campaign with ideals that mirror the prejudice and hate of the 1960s. In Carlson's article, funding cuts in Arizona and elsewhere were motivated by racial politics. In Arizona, where the legislators are prominently white and they are unwilling to raise taxes in order to assist minorities-- these legislators are systematically depriving a group of people. One can understand and empathize in the fact that towns have a certain budget in which they must maintain; however, if one views education as an investment, then raising taxes is surely a good upfront investment to shell out. By not acknowledging this verifiable truth, those with power are disenfranchising a group of prominent minorities. Changes in funding of college have greatly impacted the diversity of attendees. Over the past few decades, the price of attending a four year college has skyrocketed. According to Cooper's article, "the total outstanding balance on student debt almost tripled between 2004 and 2012" (216). The rise in overall price of attending a university creates a disadvantage to low-income students. However; in contrast to this notion, low-income families are able to take out federal PLUS loans in order to further fund the student's education, this in turn leads to income diversity of the university's attendance. I agree with Schultz who was convinced that "the federal government had a vital role to play in the field of higher education" (220) due to the fact that low-income families need as much funding assistance as possible. Acts such as the Higher Education Act of 1965 brought money into the federal budget for higher education which "pumped federal aid into impoverished black colleges... [and] increased the number of grants available to low-income students" (222) which diversifies colleges. Other grants for example the Pell grant allows a great deal of low-income students, minorities, and women to attend college. Federal, public, and private funding for college is an integral part for diversifying universities.
ReplyDeleteHey Jeremy,
DeleteI agree with you that funding cuts is part of our country's long history of racism, that constantly puts minorities behind. Trump obviously did not start racism considering it's been prevalent for centuries, but he made extremely prejudice and racist, comments that no one, let alone the president, should be making. The politics of higher education are another way to prove that systemic racism in our country is very real. We need to make college accessible to everyone, not just for white people. Your last sentence, "Federal, public, and private funding for college is an integral part for diversifying universities" is a powerful statement. All of these types of funding help a lot of underrepresented students actually attend college and receive degrees, so yes they really are a critical part for diversifying higher education.
Question Option #1:
ReplyDeleteDiversity in America is one of, if not the absolute most, complex issues to try to dissect. There are so many political, social and economic facets to every issue involving diversity and minorities, that funding of higher education is unsurprisingly no different. Over most recent history, changes in funding of college have ended the brief window of opportunity that minorities had to access higher education affordably, brought on by acts such as the Pell Grant. There is a very distinct relationship within this country involving financial wealth/class and race. Due to this relationship, minorities were hit harder by the reduction of government roll in financial aid as the reductions were admittedly harder on families of lower wealth. 'In Loco Parentis: Human Capital, Student Debt, and the Logic of Family Investment' provides interesting eye-opening statistics, including “that 84 percent of graduates who were poor enough to receive Pell grants graduated with debt, compared to 46 percent of those without grants” (Cooper, 250). Followed thereafter by “16 percent of whites held student loan debt, as compared to 34 percent of African Americans and 28 percent of Hispanics” (Cooper, 250), the statistics being blatantly laid out back to back only reinforces the relationship between wealth and diversity, one that has been hit hard in recent years for politics. When 'College Was a Public Good' provides the statistic, “a time when 40 percent of black children were living below the poverty line, the move [reduction of Pell Grants] hit working- and lower-middle-class families hardest” (Carlson, 6). The shift towards private, family funding of education has inevitably become a shift away for opportunity for minorities in higher education.
I truly believe that the impact on minorities from the change in college funding is some type of combination between the two author’s arguments. There are many factors that played into what became the new policy; new politicians, many debates on what has or has not worked in the past, to even what has become the biggest priority of government funding. The issue is just simply complex, and making it difficult to point fingers or place blame.
Question 2:
ReplyDeleteThe political right and left wings view higher education through fundamentally different lenses. Jay Schalin, of the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, provides valuable insight into the conservative point of view in Starving the Beast when he characterizes university professors as “change agents for young people”, who feel compelled to inspire students to reassess their traditional ideas and expose them to new leftist values. Many conservatives view academia as a liberal community that indoctrinates 18-to-22-year-olds in America and attacks the provincial values that conservative thinkers often idealize. It is with this perspective that right-wing politicians advocate for reduced private funding of colleges. Many conservatives also believe that higher education (and in some cases, all education) is not something that the government should be paying for. Right-wing thinkers view public education as a courtesy that teaches young American adults to be dependent on the government, while liberal politicians view public education as a fundamental equalizer that promotes social mobility and economic growth. Many conservatives also believe that colleges coddle their students and do not adequately prepare young adults for the real world. In In Loco Parentis, Melinda Cooper contends that conservatives view so-called safe spaces as indicative of the “endemic infantilism of the left and a failure of personal responsibility of amongst the young” (Cooper 255). Even Democratic politicians like Barack Obama have encouraged American universities to move away from creating safe spaces with the intention of fostering open ideological dialogue on college campuses, so the issue of safe spaces transcends the political divide. The issue of higher education is a politically divisive issue regardless, and accessibility to college ebbs and flows with the political conversation.
1) Changes in the funding of college have dramatically impacted diversity by removing resources many minorities need and depend on. Changes in funding have led minorities to seek other means of paying for higher education or have not allowed them to proceed with higher education. I found Carlson's argument more compelling because I wholly believe that funding cuts were motivated by racial politics as opposed to Cooper's argument of POC being indirectly impacted by shifting deficit spending. I can see Cooper's argument come into play; however, in the America we live in today, Carlson's argument is more plausible. In "When College Was a Public Good", ongoing points are highlighted where education cuts were brought on by racial politics. Right in the beginning of the article, the idea that "those kids don't need college" (1) -those kids being minorities- sets the tone of the article and makes Carlson's argument apparent. The idea that legislators are stating minorities "don't need college" shows the racism behind the politics and the idea that minorities won't benefit from getting a higher education. Whether the reason to that is because they are not worthy of one, won't academically and professionally grow in that setting, or another biased reason, the fact that "minorities don't need college" is an outright cry of underlying racism coming from people of authority. In 2001, a report "concluded that Americans do not support European-style social-safety nets, including education benefits, because of racial fragmentation — and a belief that minorities benefit more from wealth redistribution" (Carlson, 2). This basically says that an increase in government spending, including programs for the underprivileged, would be more beneficial to people of color than an increase in education funding. Rather than depleting resources on minorities for higher education, the government rather opt out for other types of funding - funding that won't give a minority the opportunity to grow and beat the odds. On page 14 of Carlson's article, a chart shows per-student funding dropping as undergraduates diverse in Arizona over the period of 1987-2014. This supports Carlson's argument further that funding cuts were motivated by racial politics. It is no coincidence that cuts have decreased as diversity has increased. The more diversified students, the less funding schools find themselves with. Furthermore, Cooper does make a well-thought out argument in “In Loco Parentis: Human Capital, Student Debt, and the Logic of Family Investment”, so the funding cuts could very well be a combination of both authors's viewpoints. Cooper argues that the goal of education was not to impair people of color or minority groups that were impacted, but to shift deficit spending. A new model of education funding was priority. That model included replacing "public with private deficit spending and in so doing reinstate the economic obligations of family" (Cooper, 218). Shifting this spending was viewed as a way to reinstate responsibility for the student, rather than put responsibility on the public. When Pell grants were first introduced, they alleviated that burden of tuition and living costs for students in the 1970s, and essentially "replaced private, family investment as a means of access to education" (Cooper, 223). With a system like that, one can see how that can add up and be an excessive amount of money for the government, given the amount of minority and underprivileged students seeking higher education. Reagan argued that free tuition was a burden on the taxpayer while "David Stockman denounced student aid as “one of those entitlements that we created in the 1970s that was excessive” and suggested “we could probably cut it a lot more”" (Cooper, 240). By cutting these funds, the role that students played in personally financing college would be restored. With these education cuts, minorities took the impact dramatically.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that Carlson's argument is stronger and that the funding cuts very well surrounded the idea of racism. A like that you used the term racial politics because that very much so describes the situation at hand. I also agree with the idea that policy makers only favor the majority and claim that minorities "don't need college". How do they expect minorities to shift upward if they're denied access to resources that will allow them to flourish. Policy makers however should allow them to receive a higher education so that it shapes better image for America rather than just shaping a better image for themselves (whites).
DeleteQuestion 1:
ReplyDeleteReading some of these posts, I am reading words like unfair, unjust and discrimination in reference the funding higher level education is receiving. In my opinion higher education should be privatized in its entirety but with a lack of subsidization from the government, the prices will likely fall due to a decrease in demand for education. Currently, being that the majority of the government is for big business, it is not entirely for extending assistance to any people, regardless of the race they are. The majority of the for big business people are long rooted and established Americans who tend to be white. These same people may be feeling a tightening grip on their throne and have began to cutback on the opportunities providing the means to obtain said grip. Carlson mentions in his article, “all the great advances in education…have come when there was a strong white majority”(Carlson 3). This line would hold much greater power if it held true when whites were not still a majority, and currently just shows a change in budget. Cooper mentions subsidies such as the HEA which,” created a program of guaranteed student loans to be subsidized by the federal government”(Cooper 222). These programs although cutback are still widely available to students and in my opinion extremely abused. Abused to the point where people use the money to go on vacations such as spring break rather than for an education. I find it extremely frustrating, to see tax dollars going to be able to give people vacations. Minorities and majority both abuse this equally. To continue, the business minded majority in government may want to limit minorities from taking the throne, im not saying it doesn’t happen, but its not as a big of a factor in the reasoning behind education opportunities. Some examples would be in California, where funding for education was cutback and money for prisons rose, probably due to the profitability and the hidden benefit of being able to remove as many minority threats as possible. All in all the cuts in education spending are geared with a capitalist mindset rather than a discriminatory one. This can be seen in the country as a whole, for example today, where typically following incidents such as bombings the major markets usually experience a slight pullback, but instead all 3 indexes closed at all time highs, which is completely unheard of and never happened before. This really shows how the US as a whole does not really care about anyone or anything but money.
The large gap between minorities and higher education can be viewed as a restrictive element in terms of development. Changes in the funding of college impacted diversity because the more propositions supporting whites came up on behalf of the white policy makers; the thinner the margin for opportunity at a higher education level became. In Carlson’s piece “When college Was a Public Good”, he states that “policy makers passed a series of measures that would starve the higher-education system and effectively cut out minorities” (pg 4). The white majority strongly rejects the theory of minorities receiving a higher end education so policies were set out to limit the access to it by targeting these minority groups through the means of tax revenue and focusing more on crime. In other words they were looking for every reason not to provide funds for these minority groups so they couldn't afford to receive a higher level of education. In the state of California Propositions were raised to effectively limit these funds; “Voters approved Proposition 187 in 1994, denying education services to undocumented immigrants, although the law was later blocked” (pg 4), and “Drug enforcement laws have been found to disproportionately target African Americans, while whites use drugs at a similar rate” (pg 4). We can certainly acknowledge the level of racism through these harsh propositions that more so favor the white privilege. In one instance a policy maker bluntly states that minorities “don’t need college”, which resonated with me mostly since I too am considered a minority in this country. In the state of california Proposition 187 literally prohibited illegal aliens from accessing non-emergency health care, public education, and other services the state of California had to offer. I found Carlson’s argument more compelling that Cooper’s because racial politics is definitely the cause of the absurd level of difficulty for minorities to receive a better education. Cooper states that the POC are being indirectly impacted by shifting deficit spending when in fact it is clear that minorities “don’t need college”. Cooper also takes a view from the financial issue regarding minorities and tuition fees skyrocketing claiming that : “As tuition fees have skyrocketed and safer loan options fail to keep up, many more students have been compelled to sharing their debt burden with their family members” (216). Even when the burden is too much on the student it is shifted onto their parents because there is no way around not being able to pay the absurd amount on college, making it harder for minorities to maintain a good image by making on time payments. However, Carlson puts forth a stronger argument when arguing the issue of racism in policy making which is a clearer understanding as to why Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans etc cannot receive a better education. Minorities shouldn’t be denied access to certain resources because they’re trying to move up in society. Carlson also mentions that other countries like Japan, Finland, and South Korea surpass the United states in “educational attainment” because they are “racially homogenous” which leads to a broad sense of public support in areas such as public education; as opposed to the United states which favors the majority (whites).
ReplyDelete